Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs (2021)

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.

58 A P P E N D I X D Questionnaire Results 1. Which of the following best describes how TAM is integrated into your current long range statewide transportation plan (LRP)? Select all that apply. Responses: 43

Questionnaire Results 59   • We talk about TAM alignment with LRTP and the Strategic Plan and the Capital Plan. We have visually tied these documents together by using similar covers to show intentional connection and alignment. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • New Jersey DOT will update of its LRP beginning 2020 to incorporate the items listed above since current plan predates TAMP. LRP due to be completed in 2022. [New Jersey DOT] • LRTP was revised before the FHWA TAMP was final. [Missouri DOT] • We are currently updating our LRP and plan to include performance measures and long- range goals desired from public/stakeholder input. [North Dakota DOT] • The LRP draft includes the goals, objectives, description of the measures, targets, and investment amounts for NHS and for the rest of the state system. [Wyoming DOT] • Currently updating our LRP. [Colorado DOT] • Our current statewide LRP was adopted in 2017, prior to the initial certified TAMP. Our next update, scheduled for 2022, will be developed parallel to our 2022 TAMP update and will more fully integrate TAMP elements. [Iowa DOT] • Goal 3: Preserve and Maintain our Transportation Assets for the Long Term. There is no definition of state of good repair or the metrics. [New Mexico DOT] • Other: Our LRP was submitted prior to the Agency’s TAM. However, all FHWA targets established at the time of the LRP being drafted were included. [Connecticut DOT] • LRP was completed prior to the TAM, so it's not included. It will be in the next LRP update. [Hawaii DOT] Comments: • Our LRTP is currently under revision and will include concepts from the Nebraska DOT 2019 Transportation Asset Management Plan. [Nebraska DOT]

60 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Comments: • MPOs not involved related to TAM. [Nevada DOT] • MPOs are a stakeholder in the LRP development and updates. [Montana DOT] • GAMPO is on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the SWTP. FHWA/GDOT PBPP info is transmitted via GAMPO email distribution list. The Georgia Association of MPOs (GAMPO) provides a forum for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the state of Georgia to exchange information and experiences, enhance the practice of metropolitan planning, provide educational opportunities, and discuss issues relative to local, state and federal policies. [Georgia DOT] 2. How are MPOs involved in your LRP development related to TAM? Select all that apply. Responses: 42

Questionnaire Results 61   DOT] • MPOs do not own any assets in the state. [Minnesota DOT] • An MPO representative, selected by the 3 MPOs, sits on the executive-level advisory committee for the LRP update. Also, we plan to specifically invite all 3 MPOs to comment during all public input phases of the update. [North Dakota DOT] • MPOs were part of the stakeholder process for the last LRP development, but since there are not any defined/quantifiable metrics included in the LRP, ours is very generic. [New Mexico DOT] 3. What MPO planning activities does the state DOT provide support for? Select all that apply. Responses: 41 • MPOs are involved in the TAM target process, independent of the LRP development process. The LRP development process involves periodic MTPA updates for the inclusion of MPOs. [Michigan DOT] • MPOs are not included in our Long Range Plan but are included in the unified plan. [Utah

62 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs • Our network has less than 5 percent of local NHS. [Nevada DOT] • Similar goals, but not formally TAM. [Oklahoma DOT] • MPOs to date have adopted the state targets, but presentations were conducted providing details regarding how the performance targets were developed during GAMPO meetings. [Georgia DOT] • MPOs in South Dakota adopted the goals developed by the South Dakota DOT. [South Dakota DOT] • MPOs chose between supporting State TAMP PM Targets or developing their own from data provided by DOTD. [Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development] • Connecticut's MPOs do not set their own targets. The Connecticut DOT establishes all TAM goals and PM targets in collaboration with MPOs, and each MPO adopts the TAM objectives and PM targets. [Connecticut DOT] • Goals and targets were discussed with MPOs, and MPOs adopted the Hawaii DOT's. [Hawaii DOT] • Provide MPO-specific TAM performance data for NHS within MPO boundary where requested. [Kentucky Transportation Cabinet] • We have one MPO in Vermont, and they used the PMs that we developed. We involved them in the target setting process for the development of our measures, which helped them in their decision. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • We share condition/performance data as per the New Jersey DOT Data-sharing MOU and the written procedures per 23 CFR Part 450. [New Jersey DOT] • With the small amount of NHS system off of the state-maintained system, the MPOs have not really provided much support in development besides going along with state recommendations. [Utah DOT] • Minnesota DOT supports MPO development of PM2. [Minnesota DOT] • We indirectly support all of the above for the MPOs by providing information, training opportunities, and data. [North Dakota DOT] • Coordination on development of STIP. [Arizona DOT] Comments:

Questionnaire Results 63   Responses: 43 Comments: • With the exception of the State’s largest MPO, all other Oregon MPOs adopted Oregon DOT performance measures and targets for NHS pavements and bridges. [Oregon DOT] • Mostly MPOs use same TAMP PMs as State. [Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development] • http://www.ecosproject.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/ECOSPlan_MTPSupplement5_Final_20180615.pdf. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • MPOs use a variety of performance measures, including the Federal Pavement Condition Measure, the Michigan DOT's Remaining Service Life (RSL), and the more locally applicable Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER). The state pavement measure RSL is collected only on trunkline pavements; therefore, its MPO use is limited by that restriction. MPOs otherwise use PASER. [Michigan DOT] • Yes, for PM2. [Minnesota DOT] • 2- and 4-year performance measures - yes. Arizona DOT determines the state-of-good- repair measure and targets for the TAMP. [Arizona DOT] 4. Do the MPOs use the same TAM performance measures that the state uses?

64 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Comments: N/A 6. Do the MPOs have the pavement performance area in their MTP? Responses: 39 Comments: Not applicable 5. Do the MPOs have the bridge performance area in their MTP? Responses: 39

Questionnaire Results 65   Comments: • Nebraska DOT provides a suggested 10-year pavement and bridge project candidate list for the local NHS routes as a tool to aid in the decision-making process. [Nebraska DOT] • Through the MPO planning processes, including LRTP/TIP processes. It should be noted that Montana DOT controls and manages nearly all of the NHS pavements and bridges in Montana, including those in MPO area. [Montana DOT] • Kansas DOT programs TAM for assets owned by the state, even in metro areas. We provide input for locally owned NHS assets in some metro areas. [Kansas DOT] • I hesitate to select yes. I would say it is very minimal. We recommend that MPOs select projects that improve the condition of the NHS so we can achieve our goals. All state projects in urban areas are in the LRTP and TIP, as required, and those are planned through our TAM programming process. [Illinois DOT] • The state DOT publishes all State Highway System Projects and works closely with MPOs on projects with joint involvement. [California DOT] • Pavement and bridge team meetings 3-4 times a year. [Indiana DOT] • Connecticut DOT produces existing TAM programming based on bridge and pavement management systems, presents the findings to the MPOs, and then cooperatively establishes targets. [Connecticut DOT] 7. Do you coordinate TAM programming for bridges and pavements with your MPOs? Responses: 42

66 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs have the opportunity to review and approve all capital programming, including bridge and pavement programs. [Delaware DOT] • We have had project prioritization processes since 2007 that has helped move projects through the project development pipeline. Recently, we have been revising this process, and it is becoming more of a project selection and prioritization process. MPOs have a role in selecting the “right” transportation projects. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • Question for our Capital Investment & Program Development staff. [New Jersey DOT] • Coordination occurs through an internet-based project database system – Jobnet. [Michigan DOT] • See our statewide asset management process: http://epg.modot.org/index.php/121.5_Asset_Management. [Missouri DOT] • Coordination has done on the unified plan, and that has been the only time. [Utah DOT] • MPOs have representatives on our Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs). Also, MPOs work closely with Minnesota DOT staff on the development of their TIPs. [Minnesota DOT] • On the NHS, Wyoming DOT performs the bridge and pavement inspections and coordinates for the projects. [Wyoming DOT] • Colorado DOT focuses investment on state-owned and -operated structures and pavements. [Colorado DOT] • The 5-Year Program is developed in coordination with stakeholders, including MPOs. There is additional coordination specifically with TMAs. [Iowa DOT] • The New Mexico DOT district staff are aware of pavement and bridge conditions and work required on state-maintained facilities and provide that information and recommendation for DOT-led projects. Locally maintained infrastructure conditions and decisions are worked out between local and MPO. [New Mexico DOT] • New York State DOT provides its strategic direction for TAM programming to the MPOs, and they implement it to the extent practicable. [New York State DOT] • MPOs and Florida DOT District Offices coordinate on the selection of projects that will help influence progress toward meeting the TAM targets. [Florida DOT] • During the TIP and STIP development processes, MPO committees and governing councils

Questionnaire Results 67   Comments: • Illinois DOT collects all NHS except the tollway. [Illinois DOT] • Not sure. Not my area of responsibility. [Florida DOT] • New Jersey DOT collects state, local, and authority owned NHS pavement condition data except for New Jersey Turnpike, which they collect. New Jersey DOT collects all bridge condition data. [New Jersey DOT] • DOT collects all asset types through lidar but does not capture other assets besides pavement and bridges. [Utah DOT] • The DOT collects pavement data for all paved roadways in the state, including the NHS, and inspects all state-owned bridges. Local agencies are responsible for inspecting their own bridges. [Iowa DOT] 8. Who is responsible for collecting data for locally-owned NHS assets? Responses: 42

68 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Comments: • New Jersey DOT developed state targets, presented them to MPOs, and requested input/feedback from MPOs. [New Jersey DOT] • DOT provided draft targets and other considered scenarios to the MPOs for comment. DOT executives made the final decision. [North Dakota DOT] • MPOs were involved in developing MPO targets and had limited involvement in developing state targets. They were provided updates during the target-setting process and had an opportunity to provide comments on draft targets. [Iowa DOT] 9. What was the extent of coordination with MPOs in development of NHS pavement and bridge targets? Responses: 41

Questionnaire Results 69   Comments: • MPOs were not involved in developing the targets. [Nevada DOT] • The MPOs agreed to follow DOT recommendations because of the resources required to collect and analyze asset condition data and little of the NHS is on local networks. DOT staff met with the MPOs and presented the current pavement and bridge conditions and explained how the targets were developed. [Arkansas DOT] • Emails. [Delaware DOT] • See FHWA Noteworthy Practice: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/noteworthy/mo.pdf. [Missouri DOT] • Over communication was key. [Colorado DOT] 10. What forms of coordination between the DOT and MPOs were most successful for setting NHS pavement and bridge targets? (check all that apply) Responses: 41

70 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs to go over the data and provide recommendations on pavement targets. [New Mexico DOT] 11. Did the agency recommend targets for each MPO in support of state targets? Responses: 41 Comments: • Montana DOT did not recommend MPO targets but provided the state targets and discussed them with the MPO. This includes consideration that the Montana DOT controls/manages nearly all NHS pavements and bridges in the state. [Montana DOT] • Oregon DOT noted the ability of MPOs to establish their own targets and involved MPOs in discussions leading up to the adoption of state targets. [Oregon DOT] • The MPOs adopted the state target. [South Dakota DOT] • Washington State DOT recommended statewide bridge and pavement targets for review and consideration by MPOs (Washington State DOT did not recommend individual MPO district targets). [Washington State DOT] • The state DOT presented pavement and bridge performance broken down by MPO and recommended they support state targets; no specific, separate MPO target was set (this was one of the two options for MPOs). [Connecticut DOT] • MPOs chose to adopt the DOT targets. [Arkansas DOT] • Updates at standing MPO quarterly meetings. [Iowa DOT] • Pavement management staff met with the MPOs and the New Mexico DOT District office

Questionnaire Results 71   • DOT recommended that all MPOs support state targets in lieu of setting their own targets. [North Dakota DOT] 12. Did the agency offer to assist MPOs in analyzing their targets? Responses: 42 Comments: • Invited MPOs to participate in training classes and workshops. [Nevada DOT] • Yes. Some MPOs had questions about the targets and target setting. Montana DOT provided those that requested information data on these facilities so that they could consider if they wanted to set their own targets. [Montana DOT] • The agency recommended targets for MPOs. [District DOT] • The MPOs did not want to set their own targets. [South Dakota DOT] • The state provided data and statewide methodology to assist the MPOs. [California DOT] • Washington State DOT and MPOs collaboratively worked through the target-setting process through the target-setting framework groups created for that specific intent. Each MPO was represented through the process, but as the effort was a statewide effort, individual assistance was not provided. [Washington State DOT] • It is not the role of the state DOT to recommend targets. We provided the MPO by MPO data as well as the statewide targets to facilitate their decision to support the state targets or establish their own. [Missouri DOT]

72 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs had separate meetings with each MPO to go into detail on whether they should adopt the state target or whether they should set their own target. [New Mexico DOT] • No separate MPO bridge or pavement targets. [Arizona DOT] 13. Did any MPO accept State assistance in analyzing its targets? Responses: 41 Comments: • Unsure. [Ohio DOT] • A few participated in FHWA-offered training and workshops. [Nevada DOT] • Yes, but at a very cursory level. Upon the Montana DOT providing the data and discussing that Montana DOT controls nearly all NHS routes, the MPOs deferred to the state targets. [Montana DOT] • N/A; no assistance was requested. [Georgia DOT] • The MPOs accepted the state targets. [South Dakota DOT] • Please see response to Question 12. [Washington State DOT] • All MPOs adopted the statewide targets as their own. [Florida DOT] • Assistance was not offered. However, the DOT does provide condition data for NHS pavements and bridges to the MPOs. [Arkansas DOT] • Minnesota DOT provided current pavement and bridge data to MPOs for their MPO areas. [Minnesota DOT] • Yes. As we collected and analyzed the data, we met with all MPOs together, and then we

Questionnaire Results 73   • Minnesota DOT provided current pavement and bridge data to MPOs for their MPO areas. [Minnesota DOT] • MPOs adopted state targets and didn't set their own targets. [West Virginia DOT] • No separate MPO bridge or pavement targets. [Arizona DOT] 14. Did the MPOs adopt the targets recommended by the DOT, set their own targets, or support the state’s targets by agreeing to plan and program projects that help the state meet its targets? Select one option per row. Responses: 41 Comments: • In my mind, inherently, if they accepted our targets they are agreeing to plan and program projects that help the state meet its targets. [Illinois DOT] • The MPOs accepted state DOT-provided data and assistance with target-setting questions. [Michigan DOT]

74 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs for NHS pavements and bridges, Oregon MPOs adopted the state-adopted targets. [Oregon DOT] • MPOs have expressed interest in developing their own complementary targets but have yet to do so. [Delaware DOT] • Michigan DOT did not recommend targets to the MPOs; the MPOs elected to adopt the state’s established targets. [Michigan DOT] • Some of the bi-state MPOs took data from both states to set targets for their region. [Missouri DOT] • One set their own targets for all PM2 measures, and one set their own targets for Interstate pavement measures. [Minnesota DOT] • MPOs felt that there was no change needed to support and achieve state targets. [Colorado DOT] • For both the pavement and bridge targets, eight of nine MPOs supported the state’s targets. One MPO set their own targets in each case. [Iowa DOT] • One MPO had existing bridge conditions that were significantly lower, and they did not have any bridges in %good, and there was no way that they could do anything to improve that bridge to get it into the “good” category, so we recommended a different %good for that MPO. They adopted the state target for %poor. [New Mexico DOT] 15. Were the overall state targets modified based on specific MPO targets? Responses: 42 • With the exception of the state's largest MPO, which elected to establish its own targets

Questionnaire Results 75   • The state’s targets were weighted based on the targets established by each MPO and the state DOT relative to their inventory. [California DOT] • Draft safety targets were adjusted based on MPO input. No other targets received recommended adjustments from the MPOs. [North Dakota DOT] 16. What was the extent of coordination with MPOs in development of the TAMP? (check all that apply) Responses: 39 Comments: • Comments: Nebraska DOT collects all asset inventory and submits it to the MPOs. [Nebraska DOT] • DOT developed TAMP largely independent of MPO. [Rhode Island DOT]

76 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs manages nearly all NHS pavements and bridges in Montana, and we inventory and manage investments on all of these facilities. [Montana DOT] • None. [Idaho Transportation Department] • MPOs were briefed on the progress and status of the development of the state TAM. [Connecticut DOT] • Florida DOT is the keeper of all the bridge and pavement data for Florida. The data are shared with the MPOs. [Florida DOT] • See our statewide asset management process: http://epg.modot.org/index.php/121.5_Asset_Management; and our Award Winning Planning Framework: http://sp/sites/tp/planpol/Shared%20Documents/Drupal/MO_Transportation_Planning_ Framework.pdf. [Missouri DOT] • No involvement in reviewing plan. MPOs are following state targets, and collection is done by the state on NHS routes. [Utah DOT] • MPOs assisted in obtaining data on current expenditures for the two largest cities. [Colorado DOT] • MPOs were provided an opportunity to comment on draft pavement and bridge targets. MPOs had limited involvement in the development of the TAMP, as the vast majority of the NHS (over 97 percent of lane miles and bridge deck area) is state-owned. [Iowa DOT] • Not much coordination in this area. More coordination is planned for the future. [Arizona DOT] • Montana DOT coordinated the development of the TAMP with the performance target discussion, which included discussions with the MPOs. Montana DOT controls and

Questionnaire Results 77   Comments: • See FHWA Noteworthy Practice: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/noteworthy/mo.pdf. [Missouri DOT] • None. [Utah DOT] • [Done] over communication. [Colorado DOT] • Workshops are planned for future TAMP updates. [Arizona DOT] 17. What forms of coordination were most successful for TAMP development? (check all that apply) Responses: 40

78 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Comments: • Being part of the planning process, including the 10-Year Plan, TIPs, and STIP. [New Hampshire DOT] • Not involved. [Nevada DOT] • Montana DOT manages the TAMP implementation. Investment projects identified through the TAMP are coordinated thru the MPO via the planning processes. [Montana DOT] • None. DOT owns/operates almost all NHS bridges and pavement. Only 20 miles. [Alaska DOT&PF] • Not heavily involved in implementation. [Oklahoma DOT] • Monitoring implementation. [Georgia DOT] 18. How are MPOs involved in the implementation of your TAMP? Responses: 37

Questionnaire Results 79   [Illinois DOT] • Oregon MPOs are involved in coordinating the undertaking of pavement and bridge preservation, rehabilitation, construction, and maintenance projects that reflect investment strategies supportive of achieving established performance and condition targets for NHS infrastructure within their organizational boundaries. [Oregon DOT] • They are not. [Idaho Transportation Department] • The TAMP encompasses a small portion of the MPO's pavement and bridge assets (~6%) statewide. The minimal coverage limits the usefulness of the TAMP for MPOs. We have yet to see significant changes from our MPOs as a result of the TAMP development. [California DOT] • MPOs are aware of the TAMP and the performance targets associated with it. MPOs support implementation of the TAMP through their work in supporting the statewide bridge and pavement targets. [Washington State DOT] • TAM updates are included as an item in regularly scheduled quarterly meetings. [Connecticut DOT] • They are not directly involved. [Florida DOT] • MPOs include asset performance in their MTPs. [Arkansas DOT] • Assisting the agency in selecting/prioritizing the right projects. MPO has limited mileage, and so the TAMP implementation is largely on the DOT. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • By helping to educate local asset owners on TAM requirements, practices, and strategies. [New Jersey DOT] • None. [Utah DOT] • MPOs do not own any assets in the state. [Minnesota DOT] • In Wyoming, the percentage of non-Wyoming DOT-owned NHS is very low, so implementation was fairly simple. [Wyoming DOT] • TAM and TPM still have an agenda item for a monthly meeting with MPOs. Currently working with us to refine mid-evaluation period target changes. [Colorado DOT] • We ask that they program projects on the local NHS to support attainment of our targets.

80 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs demonstration of implementation took time for New Mexico DOT to complete due to some communication challenges with our FHWA Division. [New Mexico DOT] • Supports a program of projects that meets TAMP goals. Involved in 2- and 4-year target development. [Arizona DOT] 19. How is the State DOT providing support to MPOs on their TAMP implementation activities? (check all that apply) Responses: 39 Comments: • Montana DOT manages the inventory and investments in all of the NHS pavements and bridges. [Montana DOT] • None. We take care of all resources. [Alaska DOT&PF] • Funding is no greater than what was already received. [Illinois DOT] • We have not engaged them and need to. The initial consistency determination and

Questionnaire Results 81   • Oregon DOT has a number of agreements and policies that make additional federal funding available (which could be used by MPOs for TAMP implementation activities). MPO planning funds are held harmless for limitation impacts, and the state provides required non-federal match. Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds are made available to MPOs under 200,000 based on a distribution formula developed in cooperation with local jurisdictions and FHWA; Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds are made available to eligible MPOs and other eligible local jurisdictions based on a cooperatively developed distribution methodology. [Oregon DOT] • It does not provide support. [Idaho Transportation Department] • NHS is information being passed back to MPOs. [Utah DOT] • MPOs do not own any assets in the state. [Minnesota DOT] • Plan to provide inventory and condition, life-cycle analysis, and optimum life-cycle treatment recommendations for future TAMP updates. [Arizona DOT] 20. Please describe any other TAM-related activities that the State DOT and MPOs are collaborating on. Responses: 18 Comments: • LRTP is currently under revision. [Nebraska DOT] • None. [Alaska DOT&PF] • Data collection practices and policies. Criteria used to select projects for inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Relationship of federal and state targets for the condition and performance of pavements and bridges. Performance of cost/benefit analysis of infrastructure projects costing more than $15 million. [Oregon DOT] • Washington State DOT and MPOs are actively working together to discuss the risks to the bridge and pavement networks relative to the current funding environment and that Washington State DOT will not be able to perform lowest life-cycle cost strategies and may have to prioritize routes that negatively impact local agencies and the overall performance of the network. [Washington State DOT]

82 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs coordinated with our MPO partners. [Delaware DOT] • Revising project selection and prioritization activities. Asset condition is one of eight criteria. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • • Integration of TAMP, LRTP, and MPOs’ MTPs. [New Jersey DOT] • The state DOT provides guidance and material regarding development of TAMP Plans. The state DOT directly supports the Transportation Asset Management Council in their effort to aid MPOs through this process. [Michigan DOT] • Our statewide asset management plan is used by our planning partners to review, prioritize, and program projects in the TIP/ STIP. [Missouri DOT] • Just finished our unified plan with all of Utah’s MPOs. Coordination on goals and objectives were accomplished with this plan. [Utah DOT] • One MPO has asked the Minnesota DOT to talk to their local agencies on how to support TAM. [Minnesota DOT] • N/A. [North Dakota DOT] • While not TAM, we are coordinating closely on crash locations. [Wyoming DOT] • Providing all data and tools to assist MPOs in analyzing their own data and possibly set their own targets. [West Virginia DOT] • Continue to partner up on training and peer exchange opportunities. [Colorado DOT] • There’s a strong relationship between the DOT and MPOs for asset condition data. The DOT provides pavement condition data for all paved roads in the state on a regular basis and helps fund technical support for these data for local public agencies. The DOT also provides access to bridge inspection records and software. [Iowa DOT] • The challenge was to determine how the MPOs could modify their existing MTPs that weren’t due for updates by creating some draft language all five MPOs could use and to include that in our Planning Procedures Manual so that we did not have to open up the planning agreements again. [New Mexico DOT] • Technical assistance on use of NPMRDS data. [New York State DOT] All performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) and TAM reporting are

Questionnaire Results 83   Responses: 40 Comments: • There will be more collaboration, as there will be more data history and experience. [Kansas DOT] • The agency plans to do more coordination with MPO. [District DOT] • More information and data will be available. [Illinois DOT] • Generally yes. Expectations are that consideration will be given to a review of what worked well during the target setting; where there were problems and what actions could be expected to reduce problems, what additional information has become available during the interim that could prove useful (lessons learned and examples of best practices). [Oregon DOT] • Subsequent re-setting of targets should be easier the second time around and may not require the same level of effort that the first run-through did. [California DOT] • Washington State DOT plans on continuing to use the MAP-21 target setting framework to make recommendations for future target-setting efforts. Currently, the Washington State DOT is working through the analysis of the PM2 4-year measures and has a plan to begin engaging the target-setting technical group in the spring of 2020. [Washington State DOT] • Connecticut DOT provided NHS bridge and pavement conditions to each MPO along with projected performance targets (and the process to which Connecticut DOT followed) and let them decide if they wanted to set their own. [Connecticut DOT] 21. For future TAM target setting, does the agency expect to repeat the same approach?

84 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs • Plan to use same basic approach but will modify process accordingly to provide more opportunity for engagement next time. [New Jersey DOT] • More rigorous data analysis of historical trends and system performance required. [Michigan DOT] • Yes, for PM2. [Minnesota DOT] • • However, LRP public input will play a key role in long-range goal setting, which will drive short- and mid-range target setting. [North Dakota DOT] • Colorado DOT also plans to start developing more Interstate/NHS-specific data products. [Colorado DOT] • We will do a better job and working with the MPOs upfront before setting targets. The initial targets required a great deal of education within the New Mexico DOT to gain consensus before we could talk with the MPOs. [New Mexico DOT] • In general, but more coordination is planned for the future with regard to locally owned NHS bridge and pavement projected conditions and potential local NHS targets. [Arizona DOT] 22. Regarding MPO coordination on TAMP development, does the agency expect to follow the same approach for future TAMP updates? Responses: 40 Comments: • Additional coordination with MPO could result in more robust, actionable TAMP. [Rhode Island DOT] Will be more inclusive in the future. [Florida DOT]

Questionnaire Results 85   • We will more actively involve our local partners. [Kansas DOT] • The agency plan to do more coordination with MPO. [District DOT] • More collaboration is needed with the MPOs, as well as consideration of capital funding tied to implementation of TAMP. [Illinois DOT] • Generally, yes. Oregon DOT has a proud history of cooperation and collaboration with Oregon MPOs. There is every expectation that this will continue in the future. Lessons learned by other states and best practices will be reviewed and adopted where appropriate. [Oregon DOT] • While there is always opportunity to improve coordination, the Washington State DOT intends to use the same approach in the future. There will be a need for additional coordinating activities to assist with receiving better estimates of planned expenditures on the locally owned sections of the NHS, but the framework and process of working to compile that information will likely remain the same. [Washington State DOT] • Presented the TAMP at regular Connecticut DOT/MPO quarterly meetings and collaborated on MPO feedback, comments and direction. [Connecticut DOT] • Will be more inclusive. [Florida DOT] • Yes, for the most part but also anticipate refining/enhancing process. [New Jersey DOT] • The state DOT will continue to engage with MTPA and intends to further include MPO input in the TAMP process. [Michigan DOT] • Coordination on NHS maintained by MPO. [Utah DOT] • It has been indicated by MPOs that once they become more familiar with the NPM data sets, they will be able to mature enough to establish their own targets. No specific timeline has been provided. [Colorado DOT] • We will seek more input from the MPOs before the next update to the TAMP so that they are more aware of the need to review projects to ensure that the projects contribute to the performance targets. [New Mexico DOT] • More coordination is planned in future TAMP updates. [Arizona DOT]

86 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Responses: 39 Comments: • We’re open to more coordination with MPOs. [Georgia DOT] • Oregon DOT and Oregon MPOs routinely collaborate on infrastructure condition and performance issues. The agency is very interested in collaborative activities and actions that will enhance infrastructure condition and performance and contribute to agency and MPO progress in the achievement of national and state goals. [Oregon DOT] • We are already collaborating on TAM activities. [South Dakota DOT] • As appropriate. The TAMP is seen mainly as a document impacting the state DOT. [California DOT] • Washington State DOT and MPOs actively collaborate on a regular basis. I don’t believe additional collaboration opportunities are necessary at this time. [Washington State DOT] • As Connecticut DOT's TAM update process becomes a more streamlined process, the collaboration process is expected to become more regular too. [Connecticut DOT] • I think we will naturally gravitate toward more interaction. The new VPSP2 (project selection/prioritization) processes will define these touch points. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • With the exception of the TAMP, the state recognizes the current level of coordination as adequate. [Michigan DOT] • Varies by MPO, depending on their level of interest. [Minnesota DOT] 23. Is your agency interested in collaborating on TAM activities more regularly with MPOs?

Questionnaire Results 87   continue to be used. [Wyoming DOT] • The District Staff have regular contact with the MPOs, and the Asset Management staff responsible for the TAMP need to have more interaction with the MPO staff. [New Mexico DOT] • There is already active and ongoing collaboration. [New York State DOT] • This is a work in progress that is expected to evolve in the next couple of years. [Arizona DOT] 24. What, if any, are the most significant barriers to increased coordination between the State DOT and MPOs? (select up to 3) Responses: 40 • Currently, pavement and bridge data is gathered annually, so annual coordination will

88 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Montana, including in MPO areas. [Montana DOT] • Differing priorities and technical resources. [Oregon DOT] • MPOs do not care for the MAP-21 pavement condition measures. They use other metrics to manage their pavement. [California DOT] • The data are not yet regularly available to MPOs, but the Connecticut DOT is developing a Transportation Enterprise Database (TED) to make inventory and condition data more readily available by MPO instead of reports run by the DOT with information. Projection information is not part of the plan for TED at this time. [Connecticut DOT] • We have 27 MPOs in Florida. Coordinating with so many is a challenge. [Florida DOT] • Since we only have one MPO and that MPO is one of 11 regional planning commissions, our approach is to view the lone MPO as one of 11 RPCs. We strive to take a balanced approach considering both the rural and more urban transportation needs. [Vermont Agency of Transportation] • Existing coordination appears to be sufficient but will explore enhancements. [New Jersey DOT] • Majority of the NHS system is maintained by the state. They review plans and give suggestions on what changes, but DOT gives draft plans for NHS routes. [Utah DOT] • Four of our nine MPOs are multi-state, so coordination of data and information across state lines creates additional challenges for them. [Iowa DOT] • It has been more difficult than expected to implement the Arizona DOT’s bridge and pavement management systems and our automated data collection process, so we have not had all of the information we need to fully engage the MPOs. [Arizona DOT] Comments: • Montana DOT manages inventory and investments in NHS pavements and bridges in

Questionnaire Results 89   25. Are you interested in, or able to participate in, an interview regarding case examples? Responses: 37