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.

11   Overview This chapter summarizes the results of a literature review conducted to provide insights into DOT and MPO collaboration related to TAM and TPM. It begins with a summary of relevant federal legislation and then highlights findings related to the following topics: • DOT and MPO PBPP and TAM collaboration, • Collaboration strategies, • Organizational structures for collaborating, • Communication and reporting mechanisms related to collaboration, • Efficiencies gained through collaboration, • Barriers to collaboration, and • Collaboration gaps. To identify relevant sources for the literature review, a search was performed using TRB’s Transportation Research Information Database (TRID) database. This database provides access to 1.25 million records of active and completed transportation research from a range of sources, including FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB. The TRID search was supplemented with searches of AASHTO, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and state transportation agency and MPO TAM websites. Additional sources of note included • State TAMPs compiled on the AASHTO TAM Portal, • The 2019 FHWA NIR Survey, • The FHWA PM2 reporting comments, • States’ 2018 Baseline Performance Reports submitted to FHWA, and • The AASHTO and TRB TAM Pooled Fund Survey. The review was limited to practices within the United States. See the References and Bibliog- raphy section at the end of this report for a full list of sources consulted. Federal Legislation and Regulations MAP-21 includes several key provisions related to TAM and PBPP, which were continued in the FAST Act. For state highway programs, MAP-21 defines asset management, requires risk- based TAMPs for NHS assets, and incorporates a number of provisions related to PBPP. The FHWA developed the following definitions relative to PBPP and TAM, as described in Linking Performance and Asset Management: A White Paper Produced by the Federal Highway Admin- istration Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (FHWA 2019a, page 1): • “Performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) refers to the application of perfor- mance management within the planning and programming processes of transportation agencies to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system.” C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review

12 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs • “Asset management means a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at minimum practicable cost.” Three sets of interrelated regulations set forth requirements for performance-based planning and TAMPs: • § 23 CFR Part 490 – National Performance Measures. • § 23 CFR Part 450 – Planning Assistance and Standards – Subpart B (State and Non-Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming) and Subpart C (Metropolitan Transportation Plan- ning and Programming). • § 23 CFR Part 515 – Asset Management Plans. Key provisions related to state/MPO collaboration on TAM performance measurement and monitoring are highlighted. National Performance Measure regulations establish pavement and bridge performance measures and require state DOTs and MPOs to set statewide and metropolitan area-specific targets, respectively, for these measures. State DOTs are required to coordinate with relevant MPOs on selection (and subsequent adjustment) of targets to ensure consistency “to the maximum extent practical.” MPOs must establish their targets within 180 days from the date that state DOT targets are set either by • Supporting the state target, which means agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant state DOT target for that performance measure or • Setting their own target, which means committing to a quantifiable target for that perfor- mance measure for their metropolitan planning area. Note that by supporting a state target, an MPO is not committing to achieving that same target for their metropolitan planning area. Supporting a state target means that the MPO agrees to plan and program projects to help the state meet the statewide target. State DOTs must submit biennial reports on statewide targets to FHWA and are required to provide the MPO targets to FHWA on request as those targets are established or adjusted. Planning assistance and standards regulations for statewide and metropolitan planning reinforce the National Performance Measure regulations with respect to state/MPO coordination on targets. Statewide Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs) are required to include a description of the national performance measures and associated targets and a system performance report evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the performance targets. MPOs are required to integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets in the state TAMP into the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process—either directly or by reference. Other provisions require consultation on planning studies to the maximum extent practicable and cooperative state- MPO development of funding estimates for MTP Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) implementation. MPOs are to develop TIPs in cooperation with the state. States select projects on the NHS for implementation from the approved TIP in cooperation with the MPO. Transportation Asset Management Plan regulations require long-term (10+ year) TAMPs to include • A listing of the pavement and bridge assets on the NHS, including the condition of those assets, • Asset management objectives,

Literature Review 13   • Asset management measures and targets (including, but not limited to, those required under § 23 CFR Part 490), • Performance gap identification, • Life-cycle planning, • Risk management analysis, • Financial planning, and • Investment strategies for making progress toward performance targets and SGR objectives. The TAMP regulations do not reference MPO coordination explicitly. However, the regulations do include a provision that states must integrate the TAMP into transportation planning processes that lead to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the STIP incorporates metropolitan TIPs. DOT and MPO PBPP and TAM Collaboration Integrating Asset Management and Planning: A White Paper Produced by the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (FHWA 2019a) describes how FHWA requirements are necessitating additional collaboration between state DOTs and MPOs related to planning and programming. According to the paper, MPOs are well aware of the condition of their local assets, and many have travel demand models, but they are less involved in planning for assets on the NHS, and few have pavement and bridge management systems. Furthermore, local asset condition is not typically consolidated to provide a regional perspective. The paper describes collaboration examples between state DOTs and MPOs on the development of STIPs, TIPs, LRPs, and MTPs. The paper also predicts wide variation in collabo- ration approaches across the 52 DOTs and 408 MPOs based on the size of their constituency, the number of lane miles they own, and urban/rural differences. State/MPO collaboration needs are likely to be greater for states and MPOs with relatively greater amounts of locally owned and maintained NHS assets. According to 2015 FHWA data, around 24,000 centerline miles are on the local NHS out of approximately 223,000 on the NHS. Around 75 percent of the local NHS system is in 25 percent of all states. The paper anticipates that the success of TAM in these states hinges on the engagement between state DOTs and MPOs. A 2017 survey conducted for NCHRP Synthesis 528: Analyzing Data for Measuring Transpor- tation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs (Vandervalk 2018) included questions about the extent of collaboration between state DOTs and MPOs. This survey had responses from 40+ state DOTs and 16 MPOs. It found that collaboration between DOTs and MPOs is most prevalent for safety performance measures, followed by mobility, bridge, and pavement conditions. The MPOs responding to the survey indicated that they rely heavily on state DOTs for bridge condition and pavement condition data. As part of the FHWA TPM Technical Assistance Program (TAP), the NIR Survey was conducted from late 2018 to early 2019 to review progress made by state DOTs and MPOs in implementing TPM and PBPP to identify TPM gaps and capacity-building themes for advancing the TPM state of the practice. This survey was distributed to state DOTs and a sample of small (less than 200,000 population), medium-sized (200,000 to 1 million population), and large (over 1 million population) MPOs. Respondents included 47 DOTs, 18 large MPOs, 39 medium-sized MPOs, and 101 small MPOs. The survey found that collaboration and coordination are rated as valuable tools by agencies. More than three-quarters of state DOTs surveyed reported high or moderately high levels of interaction or collaboration with MPOs in the areas of data sharing and setting goals/objectives/performance measures. The survey asked agencies to rate their level of coordina- tion with other entities on target setting for each performance area. For pavement target setting, 20 percent of DOTs reported high or moderately high levels of coordination. For bridge target setting, 25 percent of DOTs reported high or moderately high levels of coordina- tion. MPO responses to these questions varied by size, but generally a greater percentage of

14 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs MPOs reported high or moderately high levels of coordination on target setting: between 46 and 52 percent for pavement and between 30 and 54 percent for bridge. Coordination was highest for safety target setting; 56 percent of state DOTs and between 54 and 64 percent of MPOs indicated high or moderately high levels of coordination. The NIR survey report identifies several key themes and lessons of relevance to this project, particularly in the areas of collaboration, the use of TPM for decision-making, and obstacles to collaboration. The NIR survey results suggest investigating and communicating the benefits of outward thinking (i.e., considering external partner or stakeholder perspectives) and providing tools to facilitate data sharing. It also recommends additional research on the reasons for lack of greater collaboration on target setting. Collaboration Strategies Integrating Asset Management and Planning: A White Paper Produced by the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (FHWA 2019a) provides several examples of DOT and MPO collaboration. The North Central Texas Council of Govern- ments (NCTCOG) and Texas DOT are working together to take NHS and non-NHS bridge condi- tions relative to targets into account in regional project prioritization, federal funding applications, and MPO planning and programming. The Texas DOT created a web report providing bridge condition information for each MPO region. NCTCOG used these data to seek additional funds to improve the bridges on its NHS network. The Washington State DOT is providing financial incentives to local NHS owners willing to adopt asset management practices to preserve and improve the condition of locally owned NHS pavements and bridges. Both the Cleveland Urban Area MPO in Tennessee and MTC in California are adopting and operating pavement manage- ment systems to enable them to improve their planning processes in support of TAM principles. NCHRP Synthesis 528: Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs (Vandervalk 2018) looks at state DOT and MPO tools to support federal MAP-21 and FAST Act TPM requirements as well as agency practices. This 2018 report documents the state of the practice, capacity-building, and research needs at that time and describes the effort of several states to develop data business plans to support TAM, TPM, and operations with MPO partners. Organizational Structures for Collaborating NCHRP Research Report 920: Management and Use of Data for Transportation Performance Management: Guide for Practitioners (Harrison et al. 2019) describes several practices related to organizational structures for collaborating. A case study on the I-95 Corridor Coalition probe vehicle data procurement demonstrated collaboration on development of a model data use agreement based on lessons learned across participating agencies from prior contracts and agreements. A second case study then documented formation of the Metropolitan Area Transpor- tation Operations Coordination Program that enabled data sharing and more effective incident response by transportation agencies in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Communication and Reporting Mechanisms Related to Collaboration NCHRP Synthesis 528: Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs (Vandervalk 2018) highlights Missouri DOT’s Excel tracking sheet for coordi- nating with their MPO partners on all MAP-21/FAST Act reporting deadlines. The FHWA TPM TAP NIR Survey found that the majority of state DOTs and large-area MPOs have TPM reporting websites. However, the NIR survey results indicate that it is more common for state DOTs and

Literature Review 15   MPOs to use the data they have primarily for reporting and not for future planning and modeling of outcomes. The report cites this as an opportunity for research on ways to align TPM with PBPP and LRP/MTP with STIP/TIP to advance the practice and improve performance forecasting. Efficiencies Gained Through Collaboration According to NCHRP Synthesis 528, several states are developing data business plans to help state DOTs and local partners understand current data, make efficient use of people, process, and technology for data management, and align data to business objectives and programs. Integrating Asset Management and Planning: A White Paper Produced by the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (FHWA 2019a) suggests that collaboration on asset management provides a spark that can inform increasing numbers of MPO members to the benefits of collaboration on target setting, performance reporting, data collection, and programming of projects. Barriers to Collaboration The FHWA TPM TAP NIR Survey describes several barriers to interagency collaboration, including • Available staff, which may limit respondents’ capacity to conduct essential functions across all agency types and performance areas. Among agencies, this was deemed the most common limitation on TPM implementation capacity across all agency types and performance areas. Seventy-five percent of agencies reported this limitation, regardless of agency type or perfor- mance measure area. In the survey results, both DOTs and MPOs say that a lack of available staffing most significantly limits their ability to conduct TPM provisions. • Available data, which constrains 60 percent of agencies overall and is an even more limiting factor in the performance measure areas of freight, congestion, system performance, emissions, and transit safety. As reported in the survey, it was not as significant a factor within the asset measures. • MPOs generally have less mature predictive capabilities than state DOTs. The average MPO capacity is comparatively low in all categories for all performance measure areas relative to DOT average capacity. The report recommends developing supplemental guidance and training in low-capability areas. As described in NCHRP Research Report 920: Management and Use of Data for Transporta- tion Performance Management: Guide for Practitioners (Harrison et al. 2019), lack of data and analysis skills, distrust of data, and organizational siloes can create institutional obstacles that inhibit data sharing. This report provides a checklist for agencies looking to share data. Collaboration Gaps Integrating Asset Management and Planning: A White Paper Produced by the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group (FHWA 2019a) suggested several future directions for expanded state DOT/MPO collaboration. These included improved integration of financial planning across agencies by linking the TAMP financial plan to finan- cial elements in the LRP, STIPs, MTPs, and TIPs, scoping and prioritization of projects to meet both mobility and asset condition needs, and data sharing and collaboration on performance reporting. It was noted that collaboration on performance reporting to provide both statewide and regional views would provide a greater awareness among state and local officials of system conditions and needs as well as progress they are making toward achieving and sustaining a state of good repair.