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.

5   This chapter begins with background information on transportation asset management (TAM) and related performance management topics to provide context for the synthesis results. It outlines the scope and objectives of this synthesis and describes the methodology used to iden- tify and summarize current practices. Finally, it outlines the contents and organization of the remainder of this report. Background Transportation asset management is defined by AASHTO as a “strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading, and expanding physical assets effectively throughout their life cycle. It focuses on business and engineering practices for resource allocation and utilization, with the objective of better decision-making based upon quality information and well-defined objectives.” AASHTO’s Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation (2016) describes some of the benefits of TAM as • Improved asset condition, performance, resilience, and longevity, • Improved accountability, • Increased efficiency and effectiveness, • More benefit for each dollar invested, • Reduced risk exposure, and • Improved coordination and communication. Over the past two decades, many state DOTs have adopted TAM principles and practices – establishing performance measures, monitoring and reporting on asset condition and perfor- mance, and making data-informed decisions to optimize investments. The MAP-21 and FAST Act brought additional attention to performance-based transportation planning, including pres- ervation of transportation assets. The resulting FHWA and FTA regulations established a set of national performance measures related to safety, infrastructure condition, highway and truck travel time reliability, emissions reduction, and congestion. The national performance measures related to TAM (referred to as “PM2” measures) are for the condition of NHS pavements (based on roughness, rutting, cracking, and faulting) and the condition of NHS bridges (based on visual condition ratings). The national performance measures for pavement and bridges were gener- ally different from the measures already in use by states, but they enabled a consistent national picture of NHS performance. MAP-21 and FAST Acts also included requirements for state DOTs and MPOs to establish 2- and 4-year performance targets for the pavement and bridge measures and periodically report on progress toward achievement of these targets. MAP-21 required each state DOT to develop a risk-based TAMP for the entire NHS (including locally owned and maintained assets). The TAMP must include long-term SGR objectives for NHS pavement and bridge assets that are C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

6 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs aligned with the 2- and 4-year performance targets. It must document current asset perfor- mance, forecast future performance, and present investment strategies for moving towards achievement of established long-term objectives and 2- and 4-year targets. Among state, regional, and local partner agencies, coordination and collaboration are critical for good asset management, enabling shared or tiered goals and a system-wide approach to optimizing performance. However, agencies must overcome barriers to collaboration, including limited staffing and skillsets and differing strategic priorities. Synthesis Objectives and Scope The objective of this synthesis was to document DOT collaboration with MPOs relative to target setting, investment decisions, and performance monitoring of pavement and bridge assets for PBPP. The scope of the synthesis included collaboration practices with respect to long-range plan- ning, TAMP development and implementation, and performance target setting. The following specific topics were covered: • TAM-related activities that have prompted DOT and MPO collaboration. • How development and implementation of the TAMP informs the long-range planning activities at MPOs and DOTs. • Activities that state DOTs are undertaking to promote asset preservation and target setting at MPOs. • Efficiencies and innovations generated from the integration of long-range MPO planning and state DOT-led TAM activities. • Obstacles that have limited state DOT/MPO collaboration in support of TAM (e.g., state and non-state ownership/maintenance or funding constraints). • Strategies for addressing discrepancies between state and federal performance measures (e.g., challenges with communication or analysis). • How DOTs and MPOs collaborate and coordinate on asset management (e.g., agreements, special meetings, organizational structure, or governance). • How outcomes are monitored and reported between MPOs and the DOTs. • How differing priorities between DOTs and MPOs are influencing trade-off decisions among performance areas (e.g., transit, congestion, or safety). This synthesis focused on obtaining state DOT perspectives on MPO collaboration. However, MPO inputs were also obtained through interviews to add context and validate the results. Research Approach A multifaceted approach was used to document the state of the practice. This approach included (1) a literature review, (2) a questionnaire distributed to the TAM leads at state DOTs, (3) interviews with selected state DOTs and MPOs and documentation of selected case examples, and (4) synthesis of key findings and reported current collaboration practices that may be trans- ferable to other agencies. Literature Review The objectives of the literature review were to • Assess the general state of the practice state DOTs use to initiate and facilitate collaboration with MPOs.

Introduction 7   • Identify specific state DOT collaboration practices related to target setting, investment deci- sions, and performance monitoring of pavement and bridge assets for performance-based planning and programming with their MPO partner agencies. The documents reviewed included the following: • Federal TAM regulations, • Recently completed state TAMPs, • States’ 2018 Baseline Performance Reports submitted to FHWA, • FHWA TAM guidance, • FHWA PBPP guidance, • FHWA TPM National Implementation Review (NIR) Survey Report, 2019, • AASHTO and TRB TAM Pooled Fund Survey, • FHWA PM2 target reporting comments, • AASHTO’s Transportation Asset Management Guide II (2016), • Recently published project/synthesis reports and briefing papers, and • Other transportation organization and agency websites related to TAM. The research team used a standard format to document the literature review, organized by document name, including • Publication, • Summary of the document, • General collaboration approaches identified, • Specific performance-based planning practices, • Specific target-setting practices for pavements and bridges, and • Specific coordination and collaboration practices on state DOT TAMPs. The literature review provided a broad overview of collaborative and cooperative relation- ships among state DOTs and MPOs as well as a deeper understanding of specific practices and issues, including • DOT/MPO collaboration related to target setting, investment decisions, and performance monitoring of pavement and bridge assets for performance-based planning and programming, • Collaboration strategies, • Organizational structures and mechanisms for collaborating, • Monitoring and evaluation of interagency relationships, • Efficiencies gained through cross-agency approaches, • Communication and reporting mechanisms related to collaboration, and • Barriers to interagency collaboration. References and Bibliography are included at the end of the report. Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed to obtain information on the state of the practice. The litera- ture review results informed development of this questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to all state DOT representatives from FHWA’s state DOT TAM contact list. An email was sent to the state contacts informing them of the upcoming questionnaire. Recipients had the opportunity to seek additional individuals from agencies to provide information for the ques- tionnaire. A copy of the email sent to state DOT contacts is included as Appendix A. The ques- tionnaire instrument is included as Appendix B. The list of responding agencies is included in Appendix C, and the questionnaire results are included as Appendix D. Appendix E provides the sample interview guide.

8 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Respondents A total of 43 DOTs responded to the questionnaire (42 states and the District of Columbia) out of 52 (DOTs of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), yielding a response rate of 83 percent. The locations of the state DOTs that responded to the questionnaire are shown in Figure 1. Topics The questionnaire contained questions related to the information needed to document state DOT and MPO collaboration for • Asset inventory and condition assessment, • Target setting, • Investment decision-making, and • TAMP development and implementation. The questionnaire also included questions about coordination and collaboration practices and barriers to collaboration. Interviews and Case Examples Seven state DOTs were selected from the survey respondents for additional interviews. These states were selected based on geography, population and urban/rural diversity, and indication of exemplary practices based on the literature review and their survey responses. Interview guides were developed for each of the agencies to close survey information gaps and identify collaboration practices that may be of interest to other agencies. Four MPOs were Respondents Figure 1. State DOTs that responded to the questionnaire.

Introduction 9   also interviewed to add their perspectives to the study. Figure 2 represents the state DOTs and MPOs interviewed. The list of participating agencies is included in Appendix C, and Appendix E provides the sample interview guide. Based on the interviews, a set of four case examples were developed, documenting collabora- tion practices in Florida, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A Note on Timing This synthesis is based on information gathered between January and April of 2020. By this time, state DOTs had completed their initial and full TAMPs (due October 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, respectively) with 10-year SGR objectives for NHS pavements and bridges. They had also established 2- and 4-year performance targets for NHS pavement and bridge condition (by May 20, 2018) and submitted their baseline performance reports with these targets (due October 1, 2018) to FHWA. MPOs had established their initial 4-year targets for NHS pavement and bridge condition by November 16, 2018. As of May 20, 2019, states and MPOs were required to incorporate the new performance-based planning provisions and pavement and bridge performance requirements into any updates or amendments to long-range plans and programs. Although important initial milestones have been completed, it is important to note that these synthesis results represent a snapshot in time. State DOT, MPO, and local agency TAM and TPM practices will continue to mature as they complete the first full cycle of target setting, monitoring, and reporting. State DOTs are required to report their 2-year progress and adjusted 4-year targets to FHWA in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report by October 1, 2020. Their full-performance period reports are due October 1, 2022. State DOT Interviews MPO Interviews Figure 2. Location of state DOTs and MPOs that were selected for interviews.

10 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Synthesis Organization: Outline of the Report This report is organized into five chapters. This introductory chapter provides the study back- ground, summary approach, scope, and methodology used in this synthesis. Chapter 2 high- lights the findings from the literature review, and Chapter 3 presents the questionnaire results. Chapter 4 provides case examples of collaboration practices. Chapter 5 presents conclusions, including key insights, knowledge gaps, possible future research needs, and other actions to advance the practice. There is also a references and bibliography listing, followed by abbrevia- tions and acronyms. Five appendices provide more detailed information on the questionnaire and interview guide: • Appendix A: Questionnaire Email. Correspondence sent to state DOTs, providing the back- ground on the synthesis and asking them to participate in the questionnaire. • Appendix B: Questionnaire. Questions that were included in the online questionnaire. • Appendix C: List of Participating Agencies. Agencies and roles/business areas that partici- pated in the questionnaire and interviews as part of the study. • Appendix D: Questionnaire Results. The consolidated results of the questionnaire. • Appendix E: Sample Interview Guide. A generic version of the interview guide.