Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs (2021) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 16-26
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 16... ...
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.
|
From page 17... ...
Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 17 Agency Development of TAM goals in the MPO's MTP Development of MPOspecific 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?
|
From page 18... ...
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.
|
From page 19... ...
Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 19 establish criteria for selecting projects to include in the STIP. They are examining the relationship between federal and state targets for pavements and bridges and considering how to incorporate cost-benefit analysis for large infrastructure projects.
|
From page 20... ...
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. Seventytwo percent expressed their interest in collaborating on TAM activities more regularly with their MPO partners.
|
From page 21... ...
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.
|
From page 22... ...
22 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Agency Face-toface meetings Conference calls Workshops Formal written communication Informal person-toperson 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.
|
From page 23... ...
Questionnaire on the State of the Practice 23 Agency Face-toface meetings Conference calls Workshops Formal written communication Informal person-toperson 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.
|
From page 24... ...
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.
|
From page 25... ...
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.
|
From page 26... ...
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.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.