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.

16 This chapter summarizes the current state of the practice as derived from the questionnaire. The questionnaire was used to obtain the information needed to document the state of DOT and MPO collaboration related to asset inventory and condition assessment, target setting, investment decision-making, and performance monitoring of pavement and bridge assets for performance-based planning and programming. The questions were primarily designed for closed-ended responses with radio buttons or selec- tion boxes, with the option to provide open-ended comments on 88 percent of the questions. Some questions permitted multiple answers, whereas others were limited to a single response. The team sent an email message to state DOT representatives from FHWA’s state DOT TAM contacts. Recipients identified a single agency contact for the questionnaire. The team issued the online questionnaire on January 30, 2020. One response was submitted per agency, with more than one individual completing sections of the questionnaire in several cases. The last survey was completed on April 19, 2020. A total of 43 DOTs responded to the questionnaire (42 states and the District of Columbia), yielding a response rate of 83 percent. Note that not all 43 DOTs responded to every question. The results are organized below by topic areas. A copy of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix B, and a summary of the results can be found in Appendix D. It should be noted that the survey responses reported below may reflect different interpretations of the questions and that the responses represent a snapshot in time for an evolving set of practices. TAM and Long-Range Planning Several questions asked about the integration of TAM into long-range planning and MPO involvement in LRP development related to TAM. As of the time of the questionnaire, around three-quarters of the 43 state DOT respondents had incorporated TAM into their LRP goals and objectives. Several others commented that their LRPs are currently in the process of being revised to incorporate TAM. Twenty respondents said they have integrated TAM performance measures, and 16 have established TAM targets in their LRPs. However, more than one-third of respondents currently have bridge and pavement measures that differ from the required FHWA asset performance measures. Eleven respondents had established TAM investment amounts related to their performance targets. Eighteen percent of respondents had established measures on assets other than pavements and bridges. Most DOTs responding to the questionnaire indicated some level of MPO involvement in LRP development related to TAM. Specific types of reported MPO involvement are shown in Table 1. Several states, including Georgia and North Dakota, indicated that MPOs participate on LRP advisory committees. C H A P T E R 3 Questionnaire on the State of the Practice

Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 17   Agency Development of TAM goals in the MPO’s MTP Development of MPO- specific TAM performance measures Development of MPO TAM performance targets Determination of MPO TAM investment amounts related to performance targets LRP update will occur in future, and TAM was not included Alaska DOT&PF • • • Arizona DOT • Arkansas DOT • • California DOT • • Colorado DOT • Connecticut DOT • Delaware DOT • • District of Columbia, District DOT • Florida DOT • Georgia DOT Hawaii DOT • • • Idaho Transportation Department • Illinois DOT • Indiana DOT • • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Louisiana DOTD • Maryland DOT State Highway Administration • Michigan DOT Minnesota DOT • Mississippi DOT • • • Missouri DOT • Montana DOT • Nebraska DOT • Nevada DOT New Hampshire DOT • • • New Jersey DOT • New Mexico DOT • New York State DOT • North Dakota DOT • Ohio DOT • • • • Oklahoma DOT • Oregon DOT • • • • • Pennsylvania DOT • Rhode Island DOT • • South Dakota DOT • Texas DOT • Table 1. Response to: “How are MPOs involved in your LRP development related to TAM?” (42 responses). (continued on next page)

18 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Forty-nine percent of state DOTs report that all of their MPOs have incorporated the bridge performance area into their MTPs. Fifty-one percent of state DOTs report that all of their MPOs have incorporated the pavement performance area into their MTPs. Only 15 percent of respon- dents indicated that none of their MPOs had the bridge area incorporated, and 13 percent indi- cated that none of their MPOs had the pavement area incorporated. Twenty-one out of the 41 state DOTs responding to this question provided support for the development of TAM goals in their MPOs’ MTPs. Related TAM Activities and TAMP Requirements Sixty-nine percent of state DOTs reported that they coordinate TAM programming for bridges and pavements with all of their MPO partners, and another 7 percent do so with a subset of their MPOs (see Figure 3). Open-ended responses indicated that this coordination occurs in different ways, including publishing candidate project lists, making specific project recommenda- tions for local consideration, conducting meetings to discuss projects, and involving MPOs in project prioritization and program development. Based on open-ended comments from respondents, there are a number of additional TAM- related activities on which individual state DOTs and MPOs are collaborating. For example, Oregon DOT is working with its MPOs to refine its data collection practices and policies and Agency Development of TAM goals in the MPO’s MTP Development of MPO- specific TAM performance measures Development of MPO TAM performance targets Determination of MPO TAM investment amounts related to performance targets LRP update will occur in future, and TAM was not included Utah DOT Vermont Agency of Transportation • • Washington State DOT • West Virginia DOT • Wyoming DOT • Note: Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 1. (Continued). Figure 3. Response to: “Do you coordinate TAM programming for bridges and pavements with your MPOs?” (42 responses).

Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 19   establish criteria for selecting projects to include in the STIP. They are examining the rela- tionship between federal and state targets for pavements and bridges and considering how to incorporate cost-benefit analysis for large infrastructure projects. The New Jersey DOT is collab- orating with its MPOs on how to integrate its TAMP, the statewide LRP, and MPOs’ MTPs. The Washington State DOT and its MPOs are collaborating on risk-based approaches to deal with funding constraints. State DOTs are generally responsible for NHS asset data collection. Specifically, 81 percent of states reported that they collect data for locally owned National Highway System (NHS) assets, and the remaining respondents reported either split responsibilities between the DOT, local agencies, and/or toll authorities or variations in responsibility by asset type. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported that MPOs use the same TAM performance measures that the state uses, which presumably is a factor driving state involvement in data collection for the NHS. MPO involvement in the state TAMP development process varies. Only three states report that their MPO partners provided or coordinated asset inventory and condition data, and only five states reported that MPOs provided or helped coordinate data on current or future asset expen- ditures as part of TAMP development. Fifteen respondents said that their MPOs were consulted on TAM goals and objectives, asset life-cycle strategies, risk management, or the state’s definition of the desired state of good repair. Forty-six percent of state DOTs asked their MPOs to review predicted pavement or bridge conditions in the state TAMP, and 44 percent offered their MPOs the opportunity to review a draft version of the TAMP before submission to FHWA. Only six respondents indicated that they rely on MPOs to provide updates on asset inventory and condition, and 13 require MPO updates on TAMP implementation actions. However, several states commented on the value of ongoing engagement with their MPO partners on monitoring to meet performance targets. The Oregon DOT noted, “Oregon MPOs are involved in coordinating the undertaking of pavement and bridge preservation, rehabilitation, construction and mainte- nance projects that reflect investment strategies supportive of achieving established performance and condition targets for NHS infrastructure within their organizational boundaries.” In general, respondents used a multifaceted approach for coordinating with their MPOs on TAMP development, relying on a combination of face-to-face meetings, conference calls, work- shops, formal written communications, and informal person-to-person communications, with several states employing all of these options and only a handful relying on a single communica- tion medium, typically face-to-face meetings. Overall, state DOTs indicated that they are satis- fied with their MPO coordination on TAMP development, with 80 percent expecting to follow the same approach for future TAMP updates (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Response to: “Regarding MPO coordination on TAMP development, does the agency expect to follow the same approach for future TAMP updates?” (40 responses).

20 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs State DOTs also indicated that they are open to additional collaboration in the future. Seventy- two percent expressed their interest in collaborating on TAM activities more regularly with their MPO partners. For example, New Mexico commented, “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.” Activities to Support MPO TAM Planning and Implementation State DOTs support MPO planning activities in several ways. As mentioned previously, 21 out of 41 state DOTs responding to this question provide support for the development of TAM goals in their MPOs’ MTPs. In addition, 18 states help with developing MPO-specific TAM performance measures and 24 with assisting in setting MPO targets. Only seven states support their MPO partners in determining TAM investment amounts related to performance targets. States also support local and regional TAMP implementation activities, including providing data to MPOs on asset inventory and condition, supporting MPO implementation actions, and providing funding to MPOs. Table 2 shows which states employ each of these strategies. State DOT and MPO Coordination on Target Setting Coordination varies among state DOTs and MPOs in the development of NHS pavement and bridge targets. Fifty-one percent of DOTs surveyed reported that they developed targets and then informed MPOs about these targets (indicating little or no coordination). However, 32 percent of DOTs reported that MPOs were involved throughout the process of developing both MPO and DOT targets. This relatively low level of state/MPO collaboration on target setting may reflect the fact that only one cycle of target setting had occurred at the time of the questionnaire, and many DOTs may have needed time to understand the new requirements and formulate their own strategy prior to engaging with their partners. State DOTs reported on the various methods they use for coordinating with MPO partners on setting NHS pavement and bridge targets (see Table 3). Of the options provided, face-to-face meetings were considered the most successful, followed by informal person-to-person commu- nications. States also rely on conference calls, workshops, and formal written communication to coordinate with their MPO partners. Only seven of the respondents indicated that they rely solely on one communication method. Of those, six rely on face-to-face meetings as the sole mechanism for coordinating on targets. Thirty-two percent of state DOTs recommended targets for each of their partner MPOs in support of state targets (see Figure 5). Sixty-two percent offered to assist their MPO partners in analyzing their targets, and 42 percent indicated that at least one MPO accepted the state DOT’s assistance in analyzing their targets. However, less than 5 percent of state DOTs reported that overall state targets were modified based on MPO targets (see Figure 6). For example, the California Department of Transportation weighted its targets based on the targets established by each MPO and the state DOT relative to their inventory. The questionnaire asked states if their MPOs (1) adopted the DOT’s targets, (2) set their own targets, or (3) supported the state’s targets by agreeing to plan and program projects that help the state meet its targets. The first option was intended to mean that the MPO established the same target as the state DOT had but committed to achieving that target for their metropolitan area.

Agency Providing data on asset inventory and condition Supporting TAMP implementation actions Providing funding Alaska DOT&PF Arizona DOT Arkansas DOT • • California DOT • Colorado DOT • Connecticut DOT • • Delaware DOT • • • District of Columbia, District DOT Florida DOT • Georgia DOT • Hawaii DOT Idaho Transportation Department Illinois DOT • • • Indiana DOT • Iowa DOT • • Kansas DOT • • • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Louisiana DOTD • • Maryland DOT State Highway Administration • • Michigan DOT • Minnesota DOT Mississippi DOT Missouri DOT • • • Montana DOT Nebraska DOT • • • Nevada DOT • New Hampshire DOT • • • New Jersey DOT • New Mexico DOT • • New York State DOT • • • North Dakota DOT • Ohio DOT • Oklahoma DOT • • Oregon DOT • • Pennsylvania DOT • Rhode Island DOT • • • South Dakota DOT • • • Texas DOT • Utah DOT • Vermont Agency of Transportation • • Washington State DOT • West Virginia DOT • • Wyoming DOT • Note: Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 2. Response to: “How is the state DOT providing support to MPOs on their TAMP implementation activities?” (39 responses).

22 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Agency Face-to- face meetings Conference calls Workshops Formal written communication Informal person-to- person communications (e.g., phone calls, emails) Alaska DOT&PF • • • • Arizona DOT • Arkansas DOT • California DOT • • • • Colorado DOT • • • • Connecticut DOT • • • • • Delaware DOT • • • • District of Columbia, District DOT • • • Florida DOT • • • • Georgia DOT • • • Hawaii DOT Idaho Transportation Department • Illinois DOT • • Indiana DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • • • • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet • • Louisiana DOTD • • • Maryland DOT State Highway Administration • • • Michigan DOT • • • Minnesota DOT • • • • Mississippi DOT Missouri DOT • • • • • Montana DOT • • Nebraska DOT • Nevada DOT New Hampshire DOT • • • • New Jersey DOT • • • • • New Mexico DOT • • • New York State DOT • • • North Dakota DOT • Ohio DOT • Oklahoma DOT • • • Oregon DOT • • • • • Pennsylvania DOT • • • Rhode Island DOT • South Dakota DOT • • Texas DOT • • • • • Utah DOT • • • Table 3. Response to: “What forms of coordination between the DOT and MPOs were most successful for setting NHS pavement and bridge targets?” (41 responses).

Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 23   Agency Face-to- face meetings Conference calls Workshops Formal written communication Informal person-to- person communications (e.g., phone calls, emails) Vermont Agency of Transportation • • Washington State DOT • • West Virginia DOT • • Wyoming DOT • • • Note: Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 3. (Continued). Figure 5. Response to: “Did the agency recommend targets for each MPO in support of state targets?” (41 responses). Figure 6. Response to: “Were the overall state targets modified based on specific MPO targets?” (41 responses).

24 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Responses to this question indicated that some states did not understand the intended meaning of adopting the DOT’s target and interpreted this as equivalent to supporting the DOT’s target. Twelve states indicated that at least some of their MPOs set their own targets. Twenty-seven respondents said that some or all of their MPO partners adopted the targets recommended by the DOT. Another 27 respondents reported that some or all of their MPO partners supported the state’s targets by agreeing to plan and program projects that help the state meet its targets. Fifteen respondents indicated that all of their MPO partners both adopted and supported the DOT’s targets, highlighting the confusion surrounding this question. In general, state DOTs are satisfied with the process they used to collaborate and coordinate with their MPO partners on target setting. Eighty-five percent indicated that they expect to repeat the same approach for future TAM target setting. Several respondents indicated that their experience with the initial target setting period should make it easier to go through the process the next time around, and a few others said they are hoping to increase their engagement in subsequent target setting periods. Barriers to DOT/MPO Collaboration in Support of TAM Respondents reported significant barriers to coordination (see Table 4). The most significant from among the options provided in the questionnaire are constraints on DOT and/or MPO staff time and limited interest in coordinating (for example, because a large portion of the NHS assets are state-owned). From the state DOT perspective, issues with data availability or accessibility and issues with planning and programming siloes are less of a concern. One-quarter of respondents indicated that they did not see any barriers to increased coordination between their state DOT and their MPO partners. In terms of other barriers, multi-state MPOs were mentioned in the open-ended comments. For example, four of nine MPOs in Iowa are multi- state, which creates coordination challenges. Several other respondents mentioned software and system challenges as a barrier to engagement. One respondent noted that their MPOs use other metrics to manage their pavements and do not care for the federal measures. This chapter has summarized the results of a questionnaire completed by 42 states and the District of Columbia. These results provide a snapshot of the current state of the practice with respect to state DOT/MPO collaboration on various aspects of transportation asset manage- ment and related performance management processes. The next chapter presents selected case examples of state DOT/MPO practices.

Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 25   Agency Constraints on DOT staff time Constraints on MPO staff time Limited interest in coordinating (e.g., because a large portion of the NHS assets are state owned) Issues with planning/ programming siloes Issues with data availability/ accessibility No significant barriers to coordination Alaska DOT&PF • Arizona DOT • • Arkansas DOT • • California DOT • Colorado DOT • • • Connecticut DOT • Delaware DOT • District of Columbia, District DOT • Florida DOT • • Georgia DOT • Hawaii DOT Idaho Transportation Department • • • Illinois DOT • • • Indiana DOT • • • Iowa DOT • • Kansas DOT • • • • • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Louisiana DOTD • • Maryland DOT State Highway Administration • Michigan DOT • Minnesota DOT • • Mississippi DOT Missouri DOT • • • Montana DOT • Nebraska DOT • Nevada DOT • • • • New Hampshire DOT • • • • New Jersey DOT New Mexico DOT • • • New York State DOT • North Dakota DOT • • • Ohio DOT • • Oklahoma DOT • • • • • Oregon DOT • • • • Table 4. Response to: “What, if any, are the most significant barriers to increased coordination between the state DOT and MPOs?” (40 responses). (continued on next page)

26 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Agency Constraints on DOT staff time Constraints on MPO staff time Limited interest in coordinating (e.g., because a large portion of the NHS assets are state owned) Issues with planning/ programming siloes Issues with data availability/ accessibility No significant barriers to coordination Pennsylvania DOT • Rhode Island DOT • • • South Dakota DOT • Texas DOT • • Utah DOT • Vermont Agency of Transportation • • Washington State DOT • • • West Virginia DOT • Wyoming DOT • Note: Survey respondents were allowed to select up to three choices. Table 4. (Continued).