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.

27   This chapter presents four case examples of state DOT and MPO collaboration and coordina- tion. These case examples were selected based on a series of follow-up interviews with agencies that had responded to the questionnaire. They illustrate different approaches to collaboration and reflect varying legislative, organizational, and transportation system contexts. In Michigan, the state legislature in 2002 created enabling legislation for the adoption of TAM across all governing bodies in the state. Over time, TAM has evolved from a mandated process to a highly functional, collaborative relationship of trust that has become part of the fabric of the involved agencies’ culture. This structure has provided a mechanism for bringing together agencies with disparate agency goals and objectives into a unified statewide strategy for asset management. The Florida DOT has addressed the challenge of coordinating with a large number of MPOs by establishing an MPO Advisory Council charged with advocating for the state’s MPOs. The Council developed a consensus document to satisfy the federal requirement for MPO agreements with the state DOT. The Florida DOT developed methodological, data, and process documen- tation to assist in decision support, drafted performance-based MTP templates for MPOs, and provided fact sheets related to specific federal requirements and timelines. The Pennsylvania DOT has developed a comprehensive TAM support network for their MPOs related to asset management. The DOT is developing tools and building capacity to help their MPOs and Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) to incorporate life-cycle cost strategies going forward. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) validated this approach and shared the need for multi-state MPOs and RPCs to work together with the state DOTs on regional strategies. They also emphasized the importance of having access to informa- tion and data to help them understand TAM choices and make decisions. The California DOT organized a series of workshops the agency conducted with their MPOs on TAMP development, which culminated in a target-setting session. The DOT offers a number of lessons learned and opportunities for improving the TAMP development process in the future. These case examples may be of interest to other state DOTs and their MPO partners seeking to improve PBPP and TAM collaboration going forward. The NHS tables at the beginning of each case use Highway Statistics figures from 2018. C H A P T E R 4 Case Examples of State DOT and MPO Collaboration and Coordination

28 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Michigan DOT and Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Michigan MPO Stats Local NHS as a Percentage of Total NHS Number of MPOs in State 13 Total NHS Miles 6,458 Michigan DOT NHS Miles 5,244 (81%) Local NHS Miles 1,209 (19%) 19% Michigan DOT oversees almost 9,700 route miles of roadways and approximately 4,700 bridges. Michigan’s performance management and asset management framework preceded the federal requirements by several decades. Figure 7 describes the agency’s approach to asset management. Michigan’s Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) is an independent body comprised of representatives from county road commissions, cities, townships, regional and metropolitan organizations, and the state DOT. The TAMC provides advice to the Michigan State Transportation Commission on asset management, tools and capacity- building, TAM strategy, and system performance. The council was formalized through Michigan Public Act (PA) 499 of 2002 and has been continuing since that time. TAMC annually publishes a Roads and Bridges Report as directed under Michigan Compiled Law (MCL) 247.659a(9). The Michigan Transportation Planning Association (MTPA) is an association of transporta- tion planners. Although the MTPA does not have a formal role in administering transportation programs, the association provides a coordinating body that includes the members that admin- ister the programs. The TAMC and the MTPA play important roles in the coordination of federal PBPP and TAM requirements. The Michigan DOT had a good relationship with their MPOs before the MAP-21/FAST Act provisions, which set the stage for TAM success in the coordination of the requirements into the existing DOT and MPO processes. The federal requirements aligned with existing commu- nication channels and processes, so the Michigan DOT was able to bring their MPOs into the process of meeting federal requirements early. During the interview for this project, SEMCOG validated this strong alliance and highlighted the open and honest data-sharing and excellent communication they have experienced with the DOT. Multiple meetings were held in 2018 to coordinate TAMP development with MPOs for the initial statewide TAMP. MPOs had direct influence on the development of the state’s targets and chose to align their TAM strategies to the statewide targets. To facilitate the target-setting process, the DOT has created report cards of the MPO network condition, as shown in Figure 8. The department sees this as a way to encourage regional TAM principles. It uses its analysis for the state TAMP documentation for the annual FHWA consis- tency review to monitor investment in locally owned NHS assets. The DOT has also included MPO representatives on statewide target development teams. Based on the information that MPOs were provided and the influence they had on the development of statewide targets, the MPOs opted to align with the statewide targets.

Case Examples of State DOT and MPO Collaboration and Coordination 29   In the future, the DOT plans to monitor MPO programming and improve data sharing using the TAMC Investment Reporting Tool. This tool will provide insight into MPO efforts to align TAM strategies with statewide targets (and possible future MPO targets), particularly those MPOs with the technical capacity to interpret and use the data. The DOT is open to assisting its MPO partners in the development of their own targets. They also plan to continue providing capacity-building support and guidance to improve PBPP. The DOT talked about “building the space for growth to happen . . . It is about empowerment, not thinking about them as a recipient/ customer.” Among the lessons learned, Michigan DOT describes the TAMC as bringing people along, providing a place for different parties to come together to form consensus-building teams. They stress the importance of bringing MPOs into the TAMP development and implementation early and then keeping them involved, so they feel invested in the process and the outcome. Source: Michigan DOT Bureau of Transportation Planning. Figure 7. Asset Management at the Michigan DOT.

30 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Source: Michigan DOT Bureau of Transportation Planning. Figure 8. 2017 Report Card: Non-Interstate IRI by MPO.

Case Examples of State DOT and MPO Collaboration and Coordination 31   SEMCOG offered a number of success factors related to improving DOT/MPO collaboration in support of PBPP and TAM activities, including attention to applicable regulations, openness and honesty in communications, recognizing inherent limitations of siloes for making progress, and establishment of good base data. Florida DOT Florida MPO Stats Local NHS as a Percentage of Total NHS Number of MPOs in State 27 Total NHS Miles 8,779 Florida DOT NHS Miles 8,208 (93%) Local NHS Miles 571 (7%) 7% As a decentralized DOT with 27 MPOs, the planning process within the Florida DOT has traditionally started within each of the district offices submitting their District Plans to the central office to roll up to a statewide program. According to the Florida DOT’s Administrator for Metro- politan Planning, “Coordination is part of our DNA because our planning is bottom-up.” The DOT has staff assigned to work on MPO policy issues, and they also have MPO liaisons assigned to work directly with the MPOs. Faced with meeting the federal requirements for PBPP and TAM, the DOT worked with its MPO partners to develop an MPO Advisory Council, which now serves as the single point of coordination and advocate for the state’s MPOs. This body, with staff housed in the Florida DOT headquarters and funded through the DOT, meets quarterly. The Council consists of an operationally focused group comprised of staff directors from each of the MPOs and a governing body made up of chairs of the boards of each of the MPOs. Early on, the Council and the DOT developed a Consensus Document on coordination with the MPOs. This document satisfies the federal requirement for agreements between the state DOT and MPOs. For the development of statewide targets, the planning staff put together guidance documents for their MPOs describing the following: • Calculation methodologies, • Data elements and flow, and • An explanation of the process that the DOT followed to set statewide targets. An example of the pavement and bridge condition data flow is shown in Figure 9. Per the National Performance Measure legislation, MPOs had the option of setting their own targets or supporting the DOT’s targets. So far, all MPOs have decided to support the statewide pavement and bridge targets. In addition to the methodology and data source documentation, the DOT developed templates that MPOs could use to incorporate performance measures and targets in their MTPs. The templates provide suggested language for MPOs that decide to estab- lish their own targets. Figure 10 shows an example of a section of the pavement template. Almost all MPOs have opted to use the templates. To make sure that MPOs fully understood the requirements and process, the Florida DOT developed two-page fact sheets for the MPOs. These include DOT and MPO requirements, including target setting, performance reporting, and deadlines. Figure 11 is a copy of the Plan- ning Rule two-pager.

Source: Florida Department of Transportation Office of Policy Planning. Figure 9. Pavement and bridge condition data flow chart. HPMS is a national high performance monitoring system. Source: Florida Department of Transportation Office of Policy Planning. Figure 10. Excerpt from Template to Address Performance Management Requirements in Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Programs.

Source: Florida Department of Transportation Office of Policy Planning. Figure 11. MPO Requirements: MAP-21 Performance Management Planning Rule.

34 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Pennsylvania DOT and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Pennsylvania MPO Statistics Local NHS as a Percentage of Total NHS Number of MPOs in State 19 Total NHS Miles 7,158 Pennsylvania DOT NHS Miles 6,369 (89%) Local NHS Miles 221 (3%) 3% The Pennsylvania DOT is responsible for almost 40,000 miles of roads and more than 25,000 bridges. The average bridge is more than 50 years old. Owning among the oldest infrastruc- ture in the nation, the Pennsylvania DOT has been challenged to keep up with asset deterioration. In the preamble to the agency’s 2019 TAMP, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania DOT indicated that the department will need to focus on Interstate investments in the absence of additional federal funding. This approach will result in a shortfall for the rest of the system over the short term and will eventually impact the NHS system when the non-NHS can no longer be compromised. The Pennsylvania DOT has long-established working relationships with its 19 MPOs, four RPCs, and one independent county. Figure 12 displays Pennsylvania’s Regional Planning Organizations. The DOT owns 89 percent of the NHS and more than 80 percent of the bridge deck area in the state. The Pennsylvania Turnpike owns and operates approximately 7 percent of the NHS mileage. To date, the DOT has largely taken care of regional asset management for its partners. The MPOs have adopted the targets recommended by the state for pavements and bridges. Each MPO/RPC develops an MTP, and MPOs are involved in the development of the state’s LRP goals and objectives, including those for TAM. The MPOs/RPCs work with the DOT to assess candidate projects based on statewide and regional goals. Source: Pennsylvania DOT. Figure 12. Pennsylvania’s Regional Planning Organizations.

Case Examples of State DOT and MPO Collaboration and Coordination 35   The Pennsylvania DOT’s Asset Management Section Chief shared information about the department’s Bridge Care management system. He described the department’s desire to develop a decision-making tool that their partner agencies can use that incorporates performance management. It would help them project what happens to infrastructure based on investment scenarios and select the best projects based on available funding. He commented, “We’ve solved lowest cost decision-making, but we still haven’t integrated highway (pavement) dollars and bridge dollars yet. If we’re looking to make the best decisions, we need integrated systems to help us make appropriate forecasts.” He believes that once they have this system in use, it will be much easier for them to communicate seamlessly across organizational boundaries. Until they can build processes around an enterprise system, they are educating their partners on lowest life-cycle cost and how it helps them (as shown in Figure 13). Source: Pennsylvania DOT. Figure 13. Lowest Life Cycle Cost infographic.

36 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) representative reported that the agency is generally satisfied with how the Pennsylvania DOT works with them. A represen- tative of DVRPC’s Office of Capital Programs described the DOT as bottom-up in their investment decision-making process and engaged with their MPOs. As a multi-state (shared with New Jersey) MPO, DVRPC would like additional tools to help them understand current conditions and how to make their best decisions for their constituents on both sides of the border. They would also like the different program areas within the two state DOTs to coordinate and include them in that process so that they have additional insight into the decision-making process on a regional level. California DOT (Caltrans) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) California MPO Stats Local NHS as a Percentage of Total NHS Number of MPOs in State 19 Total NHS Miles 14,171 California DOT NHS Miles 8,712 (61%) Local NHS Miles 5,439 (38%) 38% The NHS in California comprises around 56,000 lane miles and almost 11,000 bridges. Cali- fornia has 19 MPOs, regional transportation agencies, and other coalitions (counties with their own sales tax as a source of transportation funding). Caltrans includes all of these stakeholders in the TAMP development process. The DOT collects all of the bridge and pavement data for the national performance measures, including data on the locally owned NHS system. In addi- tion to the federal requirements, the development of a risk-based TAMP has been mandated at a statewide level, defined as a “document assessing the health and condition of the state highway system with which the department can determine the most effective way to apply the state’s limited resources.” The state’s Asset Management Engineer described a set of seven workshops that they conducted with their partner agencies to help them understand the federal requirements and make decisions for the building of the TAMP. A major takeaway from the workshop discussion was that it would not be possible to develop a single statewide target that would be applicable to each MPO region individually. Each MPO is in a very different place in terms of managing its asset inventory and asset conditions (pavement and bridge). Ultimately, the workshops culminated in the develop- ment of inventory-weighted bridge condition targets. The MTC representative noted that the DOT inspects all of the state and local bridges, main- tains the bridge inventory, and runs models for predicting future conditions. They expressed confidence in these future projections and satisfaction with the process for bridge target setting under Caltrans’s leadership. Pavement condition, on the other hand, has presented a unique challenge for MTC. The MPO has a long history of strong pavement management and uses a pavement management system called StreetSaver to store and analyze pavement condition data and develop the agency’s capital program. MTC would like to continue to use this program, which is based on the PCI (pave- ment condition index); however, this methodology does not capture the federally required IRI (International Roughness Index). Caltrans has committed to collecting the required pavement

Case Examples of State DOT and MPO Collaboration and Coordination 37   data supporting the national measure for the local NHS in the short term and will use these data for reporting purposes. This will create a disconnect between the pavement targets (based on the national measures) and the performance measure that MTC uses for their asset investment decision-making. Going into the 2022 TAMP development process, California DOT does not anticipate the need for as many workshops as they facilitated in the first round of TAMP development. Instead, they intend to conduct focused meetings with their partners to discuss ways to make the process more meaningful to them and to create a connection between the projects funded in the state’s regional transportation plans and the statewide TAMP. Other opportunities Caltrans has identified include improving coordination, increasing transparency in sharing informa- tion, improving data and software tools, improving expenditure reporting, and developing more robust modeling capabilities. One challenge that Caltrans faces is in tracking planned local NHS asset investments given the lack of consistent data definitions and established reporting protocols. This information would enable Caltrans to better predict future NHS pavement and bridge conditions and would support the annual FHWA TAM consistency determination. Caltrans is investigating existing local expenditure coding methods to determine ways of overcoming this challenge. This chapter has presented four case examples of state DOT/MPO collaboration. These case examples illustrate specific practices as well as lessons learned and challenges. The final chapter of this synthesis report presents overall conclusions from the literature review, from question- naire results, and from case examples. Based on these conclusions, knowledge gaps and research that might be pursued in the future to close these gaps are summarized.