The research question seeks to answer what is an effective performance measure for transportation resilience in a community, state, or other jurisdiction? Progress toward solving these questions has been underway for several years, though failing to reach the desired outcome. The need for this research was further reinforced during the December 2022 AASHTO conference in Providence and the January 2023 TRB annual meeting, which included a handful of workshops and sessions that broached this subject. From the perspective of high-quality performance management practice, effective measures of resilience have been elusive.

While the community has established measures of resilience for specific infrastructure, organizations, or supply chains, the metrics and definitions are lacking for community mobility. This research will focus on how best to measure it, from a state-of-the-art performance management perspective, not just the easy but low-value event or activity tallies. Consider an agency or community investing in preparedness work, infrastructure hardening, or implementing a policy shift – what is the most effective, objective, outcome-based evidence for whether the jurisdiction is now more resilient than it was a year ago? While there are seeds of ideas, questions linger and have been raised by multiple agencies, PIARC, AASHTO committees, TRB committees, and surely others.

Transportation Asset Management (TAM) approaches have been instrumental in maintaining and improving the performance of transportation systems. Over the years, state DOTs and decision-makers have benefited from a large body of knowledge generated and disseminated by peer agencies and generated refined approaches to managing their transportation systems. However, the effects of recent changes observed in external conditions may require re-orienting the strategic goals of these TAM implementations.

Climate change is threatening the resilience of our transportation network, especially in coastal and urban areas. Rising sea levels, changes to land use, deterioration of stormwater infrastructure, and changing storm and weather patterns increase the risks associated with inundation of transportation infrastructure, bridge scours, and premature pavement failures. Rural areas can also be impacted by the lack of connectivity and relatively poor conditions of bridges in these areas.

Mobility changes in traffic patterns, the vehicle fleet, and methods to pay for the system may also have an impact on decision-making within TAM. The increasing emphasis on the use of Electric Vehicles (EV) s may result in changing loading conditions due to heavier vehicle weights and reducing the availability of funds to manage transportation infrastructure. Changing vehicle loads may accelerate deterioration of assets, not yet studied broadly within the transportation sector.

As another external condition, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in long-lasting impacts in terms of shifting travel patterns and higher demand placed on e-commerce. In some cases, services may have been reduced or eliminated requiring further assessment of how these changes in service may impact investment strategies for TAM. These changes may affect the validity of deterioration models and user cost calculation methods that are currently in use. Decision support systems for maintenance, repair, and replacement of transportation infrastructure may need major revisions in light of these changes.

In addition, consideration for the use of new methods to fund the needs of the surface transportation system through methods such as Road User Charging (RUC) or congestion pricing may influence anticipated demand for the system or distribution of travel over the same 24-hour period.

Conventional approaches to managing infrastructure may fall short in accomplishing broader goals while addressing challenges imposed by such external conditions. Therefore, there is a need for a new research effort, which will aim to conduct a nationwide scan of existing and exemplary efforts in addressing mobility and climate resilience objectives, and to develop new approaches to improving existing TAM efforts to achieve better alignment with these broader objectives.

The objectives of this project are:

• To identify state DOTs approach to assessing and improving mobility and climate resilience,
• To identify challenges experienced by state DOTs in improving their performance in terms of achieving mobility and climate resilience
• To develop new approaches to incorporating mobility and climate resilience considerations into transportation asset management plans (TAMPs),
• To generate guidance for aligning existing asset management efforts with these new approaches.

State departments of transportation (DOTs) have access to a growing number of tools that may allow them to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, research is needed to understand how such tools can best be incorporated into transportation decision-making processes and what additional tools may be necessary. Existing tools for transportation GHG strategy analysis have not been developed with transportation programming and project prioritization in mind. The available tools are either designed for strategic level evaluation of policies or project-level evaluation using data more detailed than is typically available during planning and programming. Other common tools for transportation evaluation, including statewide and regional travel demand models and emission factor models such as Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator MOVES, are limited in their ability to evaluate GHG reduction strategies, and typically require substantial modification and/or combination with other tools and methods.

The objective of this research is to advance the practice of incorporating GHG emissions evaluation into transportation decision-making and performance management. This will be accomplished by identifying and building upon the state of practice at state DOTs for considering transportation-related GHG emissions during planning, project prioritization, and performance management. State DOTs have access to certain tools that allow for estimation and evaluation of transportation emissions, but additional tools and methods are needed to inform decision-making and align with state and federal GHG emission-reduction goals.

Aging transportation infrastructure, increasing travel demands, budget limitations, and new regulations continue to challenge transportation asset management (TAM) professionals. TAM professionals are expected to possess technical knowledge and communication skills to lead their agency implementation efforts. These knowledge areas and skills include, but are not limited to, data collection, filtering, and analysis; visualization; multi-criteria decision-making; optimization; communication; and leadership. Unfortunately, academic programs offered by universities are falling short of providing TAM professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills in their formative years. Asset management is a multidisciplinary field that involves aspects of multiple disciplines. Because of its multidisciplinary nature, asset management does not necessarily fit into traditional university programs that are often structured in domain-specific disciplines. Due to the limited offerings at educational institutions, a substantial number of transportation professionals are ill-prepared to take on the responsibilities of a TAM professional and struggle with acquiring these skills on the job while balancing the demands from their daily duties. Nonacademic organizations have developed educational and professional development opportunities in asset management to address this demand, but these offerings are often not targeted to applications in transportation and can be viewed as expensive, time-consuming alternatives that only offer partial solutions to specific gaps in knowledge.

The objective of this research is to explore the need to develop new curriculum and/or accreditation programs for workforce development in TAM. The project is structured along four tasks. First, the project will identify the competencies and skills transportation asset managers need to successfully develop and implement TAM. Second, a comprehensive review of existing programs offered by universities and nonacademic organizations will be conducted. Third, a gap analysis will be performed to identify gaps between currently available offerings and the desired competencies. Finally, the study will summarize these gaps and recommend needs for the development of new curriculum and/or accreditation programs for workforce development in TAM.

Unlike a business providing shareholder value through a monetary exchange of products and services to individual clients or customers for individual consumption, the public sector operates from a monetary public entrustment to provide goods and services for collective consumption. This public investment obligates the public sector to understand the values and aspirations of the served community and be efficient and effective in managing their resources and create public value.

In 1995, Mark Moore developed a public value strategic triangle: (1) legitimacy and support, (2) operational capacity, and (3) public value. “Public value” describes the value of contribution to served communities and broader society. For transportation, infrastructure and services provide benefit to system users and adds value to the public sphere. It represents agency-public consensus of principles and benefits and pertains to the content of service and how it is delivered. When instituted as an organizing principle, public value creation guides administrative policy and management decisions with an aim to increase the value of societal and community benefit. Transportation administrators define and solve problems from a value perspective when deploying public assets. Evaluating management decisions through a public value lens promotes better understanding and achieving both traditional outcomes and value-based performance expectations.

World Road Association (PIARC) research published in Measuring Customer Experience and Public Value Creation for Transport Administrators (2023) focused on understanding how transportation administrations measure efficiency and effectiveness of customer experience and public valuation creation with emphasis on the customer experience component. There remains a need to further develop a framework for the creation and measurement of the public value that considers and emphasizes societal contribution in decision-making. The PIARC research was limited to the evaluation of existing work by transportation administrations and agencies. There are non-transportation public sectors with mature frameworks for creating and measuring public value that transportation administrations can learn from, adapt, and adopt as practice.

To further understand, create, and measure the public value of transportation services and contributions to community and societal goals, this research has two objectives:

1. Identify non-transportation public agencies that proficiently capture and measure public value data and are using it for policy decision-making.
2. Using transportation agencies identified in previous research and non-transportation public agencies identified in Objective 1, review and synthesize public value creation programs, frameworks, and practices in areas that are scalable and applicable by other transportation agencies. The areas represent the dimensions of public value described in Faulkner and Kaufman’s Avoiding Theoretical Stagnation: A Systematic Review and Framework for Measuring Public Value.

Transportation and its infrastructure are not ends in themselves but means for providing mobility and accessibility to important destinations. State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other infrastructure owner-operators (IOOs) work to grow, manage, or maintain networks to facilitate mobility, travel choice, and access and to build public value. This work considers broader societal goals and improves the quality of life for individuals and communities alike. There is a growing demand that DOTs consider transportation outcome performance in a wider range of dimensions. Many DOTs continue evolving toward community-centered transportation by adopting more comprehensive and outcome-oriented goals for accessibility, equity, public health, and resilience. This requires identifying measures that more effectively capture the outcomes of the systems and services delivered by state DOTs and other IOOs.

There is a foundation of strong infrastructure- and auto-oriented performance measures, such as travel time reliability, pavement quality, or bridge health. These measures have been promulgated into federal regulation, and reporting cycles have been established for DOTs. However, measuring less conventional outcomes closely tied to diverse societal goals is an emerging practice. Research is needed to develop emerging measures into mature practices for consideration by DOTs and other IOOs around the nation and to improve measurement, integration, and incorporation of important policy goals into investment decision-making.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide to help state DOTs identify and implement nontraditional measures related to transportation performance with tactical strategies or methods for data collection and analysis. Nontraditional measures may include accessibility, equity, health, or resilience.

The sequencing of tasks and deliverables (such as technical memorandums or summary reports) shall be structured for delivery in quarterly progress report submissions. There will be three project phases, with an interim report and updated research plan due after Phases I and II. A virtual interim meeting should follow the submission of the first interim report, with an in-person meeting following the second. The research agency shall not proceed to future phases without NCHRP approval of the interim reports and updated research plans. An estimation of time for each element of Phases I and II is presented below. However, the proposer may resequence the timeline according to their best thinking.

A clear and concise engagement strategy to achieve the research objective shall be developed and presented in the proposal under the header “Engagement Strategy.” Engagement should occur for four purposes: (1) identifying nontraditional measures, (2) developing case examples, (3) conducting pilots, and (4) conducting a virtual workshop to review the draft measures and methods with a broad spectrum of participants and DOT practitioners before developing final deliverables. The Phase II virtual workshop must be held no more than 3 days before the in-person second interim meeting.

Provided the intersectional nature of the nontraditional measures’ relationship to factors and influences outside DOT control, the proposer should be creative and inclusive in devising how to bring together participants from diverse geographies, demographics (including ages, communities of color, abilities, or socioeconomic achievement), and areas of expertise outside transportation, e.g., partner agencies, academia, or community-based organizations. Proposers may consider using focus groups, peer exchanges, or other methods as appropriate in the first two phases. The NCHRP discourages using survey questionnaires for this project. This engagement strategy will be considered under the second evaluation criterion described in Special Note F.

PHASE I

The first project phase comprises developing or approving cornerstone elements of the research plan. This phase is estimated to be accomplished in two project quarters. The first project quarter shall include the delivery of (1) the Amplified Research Plan, (2) a kickoff meeting with summary notes, (3) a review of literature and practice identifying academic and gray literature, and (4) a detailed memorandum identifying how to operationalize the engagement strategy as proposed. The review of literature and practice should serve as a point of departure. Where knowledge or practice gaps exist, the research team shall consider them in the next project quarter.

The second project quarter shall focus on identifying nontraditional measures for investigation in Phase II. The research team shall identify the intersections between traditional and emerging desired outcomes for DOTs. At a minimum, the research team shall focus on accessibility, equity, health, and resilience. However, it is envisioned that the research team will also consider the aspirational goals in the vision framework identified for NCHRP Research Results Digest 404: Collective and Individual Actions to Envision and Realize the Next Era of America’s Transportation Infrastructure: Phase I (found here: https://doi.org/10.17226/27263).

To complete the second project quarter, the research team shall deliver the first interim report and updated Phase II research plan with a virtual interim meeting. The updated research plan shall include DOTs proposed for pilots described in Phase II. One month shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval.

PHASE II

In the first part of this phase, the research team shall fully develop the nontraditional measures approved in the Phase II research plan by identifying the methods required to implement them. To develop measures and methods for piloting, the research team needs to explore all the dimensions that would make a measure useful to DOTs to achieve their desired outcomes. At a high level, it is initially envisioned that (1) data, (2) a range of influences, and (3) analytical considerations be explored.

1. For data, existing quantitative and qualitative sources and their availability are frequent issues for DOTs. Collection methods for existing or new data need to be detailed; however, proxy data may provide resource-sensitive alternatives if appropriate. Finally, biases need to be flagged for DOTs to understand, either in the data source itself or in practitioners’ use of the data.
2. A range of influences impact the development of measures, methods, and their implementation. One source of factors may be external and outside DOT control, such as latent demand, land use, or non-work-trip purposes. Another source of factors could be how the findings are presented to inform decision-makers (user stories, data stories, or visualizations). Additionally, change agents or leaders (internal to DOTs or external with the help of partners) may be required to make good use of the information gained from the measures and methods. It is essential to identify who they might be and what role they could play in this process. Finally, feedback loops can help assess if the selected measures are having the desired impact or if adjustments are needed.
3. Analytical considerations for using the measures and methods could impact resources such as staff assignments or software or tool acquisition. Additionally, the specific steps to undertake must be identified.

The measures and methods shall be detailed in a quarterly progress report for an initial round of refinement. Following the panel review, the research team shall execute the pilots with volunteer DOTs. From the pilots, the research team shall observe and report on the stakeholders, opportunities, challenges, barriers, and other findings to further refine the measures and methods. Additionally, the pilot findings will inform the development of educational and training materials in Phase III.

In the final project quarter of Phase II, the research team shall refine the measures and deliver the second interim report and updated Phase III research plan. The second interim report shall include a predraft guide. It is initially envisioned that the guide will include resources, case examples, a data catalog, and analytical methods for state DOTs to use when implementing the methods to measure and analyze nontraditional performance outcomes. The updated Phase III research plan should include additional details on the format and contents of other final deliverables. An in-person interim meeting will be held shortly after the virtual workshop described in the desired engagement strategy. One month shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval.

Risk within transportation agencies encompasses uncertainties that present opportunities and threats to an agency's mission. Effective risk management relies on quantifying the impacts of these uncertainties. However, current performance measures, like asset condition and safety, might not fully capture the potential for value creation and risk reduction achievable through effective management of these uncertainties.

Several research projects on risk management have been conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the NCHRP. However, this body of knowledge primarily concentrates on enterprise risk management itself rather than on quantifying the benefits of risk management.

Research is needed to bridge the gap and develop a framework for program-level risk management performance metrics (e.g., federally funded programs, grant programs, or state or locally funded transportation programs), thereby better quantifying the efficacy of risk management practices. Additionally, the needed research must enhance the data-driven decision-making process and integrate risk management into the daily operations of multimodal transportation agencies.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide to create program-level risk management performance metrics tailored for state departments of transportation (DOTs), accompanied by example performance measures, case studies, and toolkits to drive data-driven decision-making throughout multimodal transportation systems.

PHASE I - Preliminary Research

Task 1a. Conduct a comprehensive literature review on risk management practices in transportation agencies and the performance metrics for risk management being used in the transportation industry. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted through the NCHRP; the FHWA; other national, state, and local agencies; and international organizations; as well as federal regulations and standards such as Title 23 CFR 515 (Asset Management Plans), ISO 31000 (Risk Management), and AASHTO Guide for Enterprise Risk Management Guide (2016) to identify foundational elements for establishing robust risk management metrics.

Task 1b. Collect pertinent information by engaging with a broad spectrum of stakeholders through surveys, interviews, and focus groups to gather insights on existing risk management practices, perceived gaps, and areas for improvement in current metrics. All surveys must be reviewed and approved by the NCHRP before distribution. A roster of potential candidates shall also be provided along with the survey.

Task 2. Synthesize the results of Tasks 1a and 1b to identify the knowledge gaps related to the project objective. These gaps shall be addressed in the final product or the recommended future research as budget permits.

Task 3. Create a preliminary framework to guide the development of program-level performance metrics in risk management. At a minimum, this task shall analyze the following aspects:

- Risk management criteria for different performance metrics;
- Risk management practices for varying maturity levels of agencies;
- Opportunities (e.g., process improvement, innovations, resilience) and threats (e.g., network threats, project delivery uncertainties, and organizational risks) encountered by different agencies and their multimodal assets;
- Metrics utilizing the current and forecasted data; and
- Toolkits for applying these performance metrics.

The proposed framework will inform the development of performance metrics, enabling agencies to measure the efficacy of risk management strategies against a broad spectrum of potential impacts, including asset integrity, safety, operational efficiency, and environmental and economic factors.

Task 4. Develop an annotated outline for the guide, which will include at least five case studies to encompass the diverse areas of risk identified in Task 3. The annotated outline is intended to provide the foundation, context, and framework for the draft guide development.

Task 5. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 4 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research.

PHASE II – Performance Metrics and Guide Development

Task 6. Develop program-level performance metrics tailored for risk management based on the Phase I approved Interim Report No.1.

Task 7. Execute case studies as identified in Task 4 to evaluate and validate the metrics developed in Task 6.

Task 8. Revise the proposed annotated outline for the guide based on the findings from Tasks 6 and 7 and provide a sample chapter, which will be selected by the NCHRP and shall be publication-ready.

Task 9. Develop a draft guide that includes the framework, case studies, a brochure or executive-level document, and toolkits on the application of the performance metrics. The draft guide shall also include implementation guidance to promote the adoption of program-level performance metrics for risk management and drive improved decision-making throughout the multimodal transportation system. The draft guide shall be submitted to the NCHRP 6 months before the contract end date.

Task 10. Present the research findings to appropriate AASHTO technical committees for comments and propose any revisions to NCHRP. The research team shall anticipate making two presentations during the research to the AASHTO Committee on Performance-Based Management and the Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience.

Task 11. Refine the guide based on feedback, ensuring the final deliverables are practical, actionable, and aligned with the varying complexities of risk management within multimodal transportation agencies.

In recent years, transportation agencies have developed knowledge and skills in the application of three disciplines: performance management, risk management, and process improvement. The high-level definitions of these three disciplines are as follows:

- Performance management is the practice of using measurements to track progress toward established goals. The dissemination of reporting and insights supports evidence-based decision-making and provides transparency to stakeholders.
- Risk management is a methodology that looks at uncertainties on all levels, including activity, project, program, and strategic risks. Risk management aims to identify, assess, and respond to potential pitfalls that affect transportation systems, operations, and objectives.
- Process improvement involves the business practice of defining, analyzing, and improving processes, products, and services to optimize performance and improve the experience for the end users.

While these disciplines are heavily researched and applied individually, little research has taken place regarding the relationship between the three efforts and the benefits and challenges of integrating them. Generally, the steps of each discipline are established and treated separately within the specific system, which may limit efficiency, create redundancies, and disrupt plans due to mixed messages. Integrating the functions and relationships among the disciplines could provide efficiencies across agencies and align agency decisions and practices more readily to overarching goals and objectives. Research is needed to reveal the potential benefits and opportunities for integrating risk management, performance management, and process improvements by transportation agencies, including identifying the practices, methods, and data requirements of doing so. This research will be particularly useful to transportation agency executives, managers, and practitioners seeking to proactively integrate risk management, performance management, and process improvements to meet agency goals and objectives.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide to assist transportation agencies with integrating risk management, performance management, and process improvements. The practical guide must:

1. Feature a decision framework applicable to integration of the three disciplines in enterprise-level, program-level, and project-level decision-making;
2. Identify the relationship of the three disciplines, including common purposes or areas of focus that could be integrated to inform decision-making and practice;
3. Present the business case for linking these disciplines, including but not limited to meeting federal and state mandates;
4. Define the obstacles and opportunities to integrating the disciplines; and
5. Determine the best communication tools to support application of the framework by transportation agencies.

RESEARCH PLAN

The research plan should (1) include a kick-off teleconference with the research team and NCHRP to review the amplified research plan; (2) address the manner in which the proposer intends to satisfy the project objective; (3) be divided logically into detailed tasks that are necessary to fulfill the research objective, including appropriate milestones and interim deliverables; (4) include one in-person meeting (convened by NCHRP) to review the interim report and other deliverables; (5) include a final teleconference to review draft final deliverables; and (6) incorporate opportunities for the project panel to review, comment, and approve milestone deliverables.

TASKS

Phase I

Task 1. Conduct a comprehensive literature review from transportation and related industries in the public and private sectors within the United States and internationally. The literature review should at a minimum accomplish the following:

- Characterize the risk management, performance management, and process improvement disciplines and their purposes in transportation;
- Identify the use of language and terminology within each discipline, including language differences that could cause confusion;
- Identify the relationships between and common ground among the three disciplines;
- Identify experience with the integration of risk, performance, and process improvements both within and outside the transportation industry, including examples of the data and methods that are being used; and
- Identify the benefits and costs of discipline integration.

Task 2. Plan, execute, and document practitioner outreach to specifically identify whether and where the integration of risk management, performance management, and process improvement is being performed; which agency functions are involved; how success is defined and measured; how the integration performs; and what gaps exist in knowledge and practical methods for integrating the disciplines.

Task 3. Prepare a state-of-practice technical memorandum for panel review using the data and information collected in Tasks 1 and 2, specifically identifying the following:

- The extent to which transportation agencies are seeking to integrate risk management, performance management, and process improvements;
- The strategies, data, and methods that have been successfully used to integrate the disciplines;
- The types of decisions affected by integrating the disciplines;
- The lessons learned from the integration;
- The gaps in knowledge and practice with respect to integrating the three disciplines; and
- The obstacles and opportunities for implementation by transportation agencies.

Task 4. Prepare an annotated outline of the guide to be shared with the panel during the interim meeting as specified in Task 5.

Task 5. Prepare an interim report and a proposed Phase II work plan that details the research process, data collected, and data analysis conducted in Tasks 1-4, specifying gaps in knowledge or practical methods that should be researched during Phase II. The Phase II work plan shall include tasks to address these gaps and fulfill the requirement for validation of the proposed framework in practice as provided in Task 7. This report and the Task 4 deliverables will be presented at an in-person interim meeting to be convened by NCHRP in Washington, D.C. The research team shall revise any of the deliverables from Tasks 4 and 5 as agreed to with the panel during the interim meeting.

Phase II

Task 6. Implement the approved Phase II work plan to gather and assess additional data, and/or revise the outlines of the practical guide and framework.

Task 7. Plan, execute, and document a method of testing or validating the draft guide and integration framework in a practical setting.

To fulfill the requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), state departments of transportation (DOTs) started to establish enterprise risk management (ERM) programs and develop risk-based asset management plans. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Directive 5520 encourages state DOTs to develop risk-based, cost-effective strategies to minimize the impacts of climate change. Environmental stressors, such as changes in the frequency and magnitude of extreme events, are changing the lifecycle of transportation assets, e.g., reducing service life, shortening replacement cycles, and increasing maintenance costs. Federal mandates and policies also require state DOTs to inventory their assets and establish a program to maintain these roadway components (including pavements, drainage structures, and bridges) at minimum performance levels.

Many state DOTs struggle to consistently meet these requirements, which exposes them to additional risks. Maintenance personnel offer valuable insight on the processes associated with achieving performance goals, but they require instructions on how to incorporate risk models into inspection, maintenance, and repair and replacement cycles so that scheduled and routine maintenance continue to mitigate the risk from asset deterioration.

Research is needed to help agencies better assess and manage risks, including the impact of climate change, in roadway infrastructure maintenance practices.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide and a prototype tool to help state DOTs assess and manage risks, including the impact of climate change, in roadway infrastructure maintenance practices.

PHASE I: Planning

Task 1. Review, document, and synthesize existing studies on methods and tools used for risk assessment and management in roadway infrastructure maintenance practices, including aspects of climate change.

Task 2. Conduct a state DOT survey to determine the state of the practice for the methods and tools used for risk assessment and management and how they are integrated into asset management and maintenance practices (at enterprise level, program level, and project level). The survey questions and list of potential respondents need to be reviewed and approved by the NCHRP.

Task 3. Conduct in-depth interviews with selected state DOTs to determine the methods for quantifying risks caused by climate change and extreme weather events and to identify the impact of climate change on maintenance/preservation actions, associated risk mitigation requirements, and effectiveness and cost of the actions. Interview questions and candidate state DOTs need to be reviewed and approved by the NCHRP.

Task 4. Analyze and synthesize the results of the survey and interview conducted in Tasks 2 and 3. Identify the knowledge/data gaps between acceptable national practices and state DOT maintenance practices related to the research objective.

Task 5. Prepare a draft annotated outline for the guide. The annotated outline will serve as the basis for developing the guide in Phase II. The annotated outline is intended to provide the foundation, context, and framework for the guide and include key technical topics and associated issues, major concepts, current trends, current practices, examples highlighting lessons learned, and checklists of issues to consider.

Task 6. Propose basic requirements and functionalities of the prototype tool (no web-based tools requiring maintenance will be allowed). Identify at least two volunteer states to conduct pilot projects to test the developed guide and prototype tool in Phase II.

Task 7. Prepare an interim report documenting the results of Tasks 1 through 6 and provide an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated work plan must describe the method and rationale for the work proposed for Phase II to achieve the objective of the project.

PHASE II: Execution

Task 8. Develop a mock-up of the prototype tool. This prototype tool is intended to help practitioners develop their local practices and policies based on the framework suggested in the annotated outline. The prototype tool must be able to perform trade-off analyses for optimizing resources and prioritizing work to manage risks involved in infrastructure maintenance practices. The mock-up prototype tool needs to be reviewed and approved by the NCHRP.

Task 9. Execute the work plan in the approved interim report in Task 7. The draft guide and prototype tool need to be reviewed and accepted by the NCHRP.

Task 10. Work with the volunteer states to conduct pilot projects to test the developed guide and prototype tool. Feedback from the pilot states will be discussed and addressed to finalize the deliverables.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Fast Act) jump-started many agencies’ efforts to attain an inventory and assess the condition of their infrastructure assets and transportation data to meet federal regulations. The benefits of asset management are well documented in publications such as the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management (TAM) Guide. In addition to meeting federal regulations, state and local transportation agencies have a responsibility to manage their assets in the most efficient way to maximize asset service life.

Emerging and current technologies, including field data collection tools and artificial intelligence, hold the promise of transforming data collection for transportation asset management (TAM). While these technologies have drastically improved the accessibility of, affordability of, and ability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, it is still a challenge to turn data into actionable information that improves asset management life-cycle and decision-making processes.

Research is needed to understand how to leverage emerging technologies to capture, process, and manage asset inventory and condition data.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide to assist state departments of transportation in decision-making and implementation as they relate to emerging and established technologies used to capture and update changes to transportation assets.

PHASE I—Planning and Initial Outreach

Task 1. Conduct a comprehensive review of the most relevant literature and related resources. The review shall include published and unpublished documentation and research conducted through the NCHRP; the Federal Highway Administration; and other national, state, and local agencies.

Task 2. Identify current state of practice, including the level of maturity or implementation in the use of emerging technologies related to (1) integrating and connecting TAM information systems; (2) asset data collection and processing; (3) asset data sharing, reporting, and visualization; and (4) data governance (e.g., data currency, retention, accuracy) and management. This could be performed through online surveys or interviews. Survey or interview questions shall be reviewed and approved by NCHRP before distribution.

Task 3. Synthesize the results of Tasks 1 and 2 to identify knowledge and information gaps related to the research objective. These gaps should be addressed in the final products or the recommended future research, as the budget permits.

Task 4. Propose the research plan, to be executed in Phase II, to achieve the research objective. At a minimum, the research plan shall include

Developing a guide that incorporates the following:

- Pertinent asset classes and data elements (attributes) and related emerging data collection strategies and technologies (e.g., mobile data collection, mobile lidar, artificial intelligence, the internet of things, nanotechnology, microelectronics, sonar data, remote sensing and imaging, crowdsource data, embedded sensors, ground penetrating radar, and other data collection and processing and integrating technologies);
- Recommendations for data collection, accuracy, reliability, and frequency;
- A list of use cases based on ways to optimize asset management practices;
- Strategies for data accessibility, governance, and retention;
- A matrix method that aligns emerging and established technologies and asset classes to support asset data and interoperability;
- Identification of additional opportunities to use collected data beyond asset management applications;
- A decision-making framework to describe the level of complexity and support implementing advanced data collection strategies using emerging and established technologies; and
- Discussion of changing workforce roles, responsibilities, and competencies for the above strategies.
- Developing an actionable plan for obtaining practitioners’ feedback on the draft guide, particularly related to the matrix methods and the decision-making framework. This could include a workshop (in-person, virtual, or hybrid); and
- Developing a communication plan for outreach (e.g., presentations, graphics, and press releases).

Task 5. Develop a draft outline of the guide.

Task 6. Prepare Interim Report No. 1, which documents Tasks 1 through 5 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research no later than 6 months after the contract award. The updated plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phases II through III.

PHASE II—Execution

Task 7. Execute the research plan according to the approved Interim Report No 1.

Task 8. Develop the draft guide.

Task 9. Prepare Interim Report No. 2, which documents Tasks 7 and 8 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated work plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phase III.

PHASE III—Final Products

Task 10. Revise the guide after consideration of the panel’s review comments.

Task 11. Obtain practitioners’ feedback on the draft guide, particularly related to the matrix methods and the framework, and update the draft guide accordingly.

A visualization can be “effective” in several ways: providing information, informing policy and decision making, and influencing behavior. There is little guidance on how to systematically evaluate a visualization’s effectiveness by either of these measures. This problem affects both transportation professionals and the traveling public – including movers of freight.
Even with clear visualizations providing insight – sophisticated “nuggets of truth” from vast amounts of information and solutions to vexing problems, there may be viewers who do not comprehend or respond. Developing a means to evaluate the effectiveness of visualizations deployed internally and externally would significantly enhance their value.
This research addresses this problem by: evaluating the effectiveness of noteworthy practices currently being pioneered by state DOTs that were documented, but not assessed, in previous NCHRP projects; addressing the new tools that have proliferated, such as Tableau, R, Infogram; and ultimately developing an easy-to-use guide to creating effective visualizations.

The object of this research is to develop an easy-to-use guide for evaluating the effectiveness of transportation visualizations that state DOTs can use to improve communication and decision-making. With this guide, state DOTs will have the tools to hone their message, manage the data overload that occurs in visualizations and impact travel behavior with effective visual data increasing safety, security and mobility.
The suggested tasks for this research are:
1) Research the essential components of what makes a visualization effective. Build off NCHRP 226 and 20-24(93)B(02). Evaluate the visualization techniques and practices documented in NCHRP Synthesis 52-16.
2) Create a guidebook that clearly communicates how to approach a new visualization and guide its creation.
3) Evaluate how to gain feedback on the effectiveness of a visualization in communicating information and influencing behavior, and also facilitates decision making. This could build off practices currently used for public service announcements (PSA).
4) Identify or develop noteworthy practices for evaluating the effectiveness of a visualization.
5) Create a Guidebook that provides state DOTs with options for evaluating the effectiveness of a visualization.
6) Integrate the two elements – creation and evaluation – into a guide that demonstrates the feedback loop of continuous improvement enabled by joining these two functions.
7) Establish an online case study website that showcases exceptional and innovative visualizations. This could include a category for the use of emerging data and emerging analytic capacity so state DOTs could maintain currency in innovative practices. The website would be updated by the TRB AED80 Visualization in Transportation Committee yearly by acknowledging award winning entries.

Effective data visualization has the power to dramatically improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Previous research demonstrates that state DOTs have invested considerable time and expertise in developing visualizations for performance measures and need to communicate results effectively.
This guide would build on and evolve prior work by developing clear guidance on how to create effective visualizations and how to evaluate their effectiveness. It will enable states to focus and capitalize upon the investment, time and expertise they are currently deploying. It will provide a roadmap to the states who are in the early development of their visualization efforts and will provide an opportunity for well-established programs to expand their efforts by evaluating the effectiveness of their visualizations.
Addressing the creation and evaluation of effective visualizations together creates a feedback loop that enables and promotes continuous improvement.

Transportation planners and practitioners responsible for analyzing and communicating data through visualization have a great need for this research. This guide has a built-in audience of the users of both previous research efforts and the Transportation Asset Management (TAM) portal. Additionally, the guide would lend itself to promotion through the committees of the TRB data section, particularly AED80; and the AASHTO Committee structure, particularly CDMA (Data), COP (Planning), CPBM (Performance), and TAM (Asset management).

MAP-21 and the FAST Act laid the groundwork for a comprehensive national-level performance management framework. The first four-year reporting period began on January 1, 2018 and ends on December 31, 2021 and will result in the first complete set of consistent national-level performance management data. This will result in a unique opportunity to conduct the first analysis and assessment of this unique data set as well as combined with other data sets to tell a more complete and consistent state DOT performance management story.

The objective of this research is to prepare an authoritative analysis and assessment of the national performance management data and, based upon the analysis and assessment, to provide recommendations on future capacity building activities and possible new performance measures. There are three sub-objectives focused on:

1. Analysis of the national performance management data for the three performance measurement areas (safety, assets, and system performance) will be conducted to better understand trends, target setting approaches, and target achievement by state DOTs; and
2. Assessment of the performance management data that provides a comprehensive and compelling story on the results of the performance management provisions.
3. Identification of future capacity building needs and performance measures.

The results of this research are important and significant. This will be the first time that researchers will be able to use a complete set of the national-level performance management data to conduct a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the performance management program. This will research will serve as an authoritative and independent assessment of the data that can be used to tell the story of the state DOT and be used to inform transportation policy decisions in the future.

Funding Breakdown:
Phase 1: $255,000
- Safety (5 performance measures): $75,000
- Asset Management (4 performance measures): $60,000
- System Performance (8 performance measures): $120,000
Phase 2: $100,000
Phase 3: $150,000
Final Report: $45,000

Investments in roadways have historically been focused on safety, mobility, and system preservation considerations. As our understanding of the impacts of roadway decisions mature, other factors such as socio-economic impact, sustainability, accountability, transparency, integrity, and innovation are increasing in importance by State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Recently, strategic initiatives related to DEI are growing in importance and need to be considered in transportation investment planning. Advancing the understanding of DEI and other related indicators can help DOTs improve the impact of TAM investment decisions, especially to underserved communities.

The objective of this research is to produce guidance on how DOTs can improve the use of DEI and other related indicators in TAM investment decision making processes.

Tasks will include:
• Compile DEI and other related indicators for use in TAM decision-making
• Develop a framework for applying DEI and other related indicators in TAM decision-making processes, including:
• Analysis activities to forecast impact
• Scenario planning including identifying alternate investment options with an equity lens
• Investment tradeoff decision-making
• Community engagement activities including increasing the involvement of underserved communities.
• Develop additional quantitative and qualitative performance measures for asset management and planning that consider DEI and other factors in transportation investment decisions
• Produce a summary of challenges, inherent inequities, and obstacles in asset management and planning activities in order to help transportation add value to underserved communities
• Develop guidance for transportation agencies to use the DEI and other related indicators to balance competing strategic objectives related to asset performance, safety, mobility, and DEI.

• Transportation agency chief engineers, planning directors, asset managers, and transportation performance management leads will use the research products to improve their decision impact.
• The research will provide guidance on specific application and/or calculable modifications to existing tools and methods that transportation agencies can follow to make the changes needed for research implementation.
• The AASHTO Committee on Performance-Based Planning, the AASHTO TAM Portal, TRB Standing Committee on Transportation Asset Management (AJE30), TRB Standing Committee on Performance Management (AJE20) will support the research implementation.
• TRB presentations and webinars are will be required for research implementation.
• Workshops, peer exchanges, pilot testing, verification and validation of research results are possible implementation actions.

Note: Title formerly "Socio-Economic Indicators in TAM Processes"
See: FHWA TAM Expert Task Group summary of this topic and potential R&I-sponsored research effort addressing equity

Note: Some TAM processes do include related socio-economic indicators, including NPV, ROI, IRR, FYRR and also social indicators such as population influenced, percentage of tax revenue utilized, revenue sources and the implied equity considerations (including racial and social equity). It is suggested to examine the indicators utilized in different states, and whether the socio-economic indicators are part of the decision making process.

The US experienced 308 weather and climate related disasters since 1980 exceeding $2.085 trillion in physical losses and the loss of 14,492 lives. Between 1980-2020 the average number of billion- dollar events per year was 7.1, that number ballooned to 16.2 billion-dollar events per year on average between 2016-2020 (adjusted for Consumer Price Index). The most billion- dollar weather and climate related disasters occurred in 2020, with 22 billion-dollar events totaling $246.7 billion in losses and 553 deaths. As of September 2021, the current year is looking to break the record set in 2020 having experienced 18 billion-dollar events to date (Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov) ). In addition, the recently published TRB Consensus Study on Resilience Metrics notes that 6 of the world’s 10 most costly natural disasters in 2020 occurred in the United States (TRB Resilience Metrics Consensus Study, 2021). With this level of impact on the nation’s infrastructure, transportation agencies need consistent methods to support decision making to address stressors such as extreme weather and climate change in planning, design, maintenance, and operations.
The TRB Resilience Metrics Consensus Study 2021 calls for the establishment of standard methods of analysis to support benefit-cost assessment to allow agencies to understand the “buy-down” of risk from capital and maintenance investments. In addition, the study calls on Congress to consider requiring that all federal funding candidate projects that involve long-lived assets requirement undergo well defined resilience assessments that account for changing risks of natural hazards and environmental conditions stemming from climate change. The proposed project will allow AASHTO and TRB to develop industry adopted standard methods of quantitative analysis in lieu of federally developed methods.

Proposed Program of Projects

A concerted level of commitment from AASHTO and TRB is needed to develop a single manual to serve as the “go-to” for quantitative analysis of financial risk to agency assets and the traveling public from extreme weather and climate change. Like the Highway Capacity Manual and the Highway Safety Manual, a single resource is needed to ensure consistent methods of analysis between projects and agencies, and to ensure adoption of robust quantitative methods to support benefit-cost analysis and decision making. A single manual will allow state, MPO, federal agencies to compare project investments on a level playing field – same models, same assumptions, same thresholds of performance. A single manual will also support the instruction of how to address extreme weather and climate change in planning and engineering curriculum at Universities ensuring future Transportation Professionals are equipped with the skills needed to support the adoption of such methods into practice. Finally, a single manual will allow the incorporation of extreme weather and climate change considerations in Professional Engineering examinations to further institutionalize these concepts in future design and decision making.
This program will establish a series of individual research projects to support the development of a Highway Resilience Manual born out of NCHRP 23-09, Scoping Study to Develop the Basis for a Highway Standard to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis and NCHRP 20-123(04) Development of a Risk Management Strategic Plan and Research Roadmap. Similar to other NCHRP research programs such as NCHRP 20-102, Impacts of Connected Vehicles and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies, this is a long-term research program that will result in an industry “standard” for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis for use in design, maintenance, and planning decision-making. In addition, the program of projects will address required data sources and work to field test the Highway Risk and Resilience Manual with a range of agencies as described in the following three phased approach and in the draft Research Roadmap:

1. Phase I: Development of Highway Risk and Resilience Manual. An anticipated 3-year phase consisting of multiple projects and costing approximately $3,500,000. Year 1 estimated to cost $1,500,000 with years 2 and 3 estimated at $1,000,000 each. There would be multiple projects under this phase including five projects identified through NCHRP 23-09:
   • Establish quantitative assessment methodology for top priority threats and assets (e.g., culverts and flooding)
   • Develop historical data capture process quantitative analysis methods
   • Develop quantitative resilience assessment methodology
   • Establish performance metrics and thresholds for resilience and risk tolerance; provide guidance on reducing risk and improving resilience
2. Phase II: Implementation of Highway Risk and Resilience Manual. A 2-year, $2,000,000 program that would implement/apply the Highway Risk and Resilience Manual to 8-10 transportation agencies. A few potential projects in Phase II are outlined here:
   • Create internal and external agency communication and collaboration practices to incorporate Highway Risk and Resilience Manual in decision making
   • Develop capacity building plan to identify institutional and educational needs to incorporate Highway Risk and Resilience Manual into practice
   • Pilot test Highway Risk and Resilience Manual
   • Identify institutional organizational and procedural (IOP) changes and implementation strategies for the successful adoption of Highway Risk and Resilience Manual
3. Phase III: Development of Tools and Resources to Support the Highway Risk and Resilience Manual. A 2-year $1,500,000 effort to create automated, geospatial models that transportation agencies could use to implement the Highway Risk and Resilience Manual across networks or the transportation system.
   • Develop stand alone, open source computer script that can work within a GIS environment to automate Highway Risk and Resilience Manual calculations across multiple assets and threats in a geo-spatial setting
   • Develop spreadsheet-based tools to automate Highway Risk and Resilience Manual calculations across multiple assets and threats in a spreadsheet application
   • Selecting Performance Metrics for Evaluating Effectiveness of Risk Mitigation o Incorporating Risk Management into Maintenance Practice
   • Developing New Performance Metrics for Risk Management
   • Assessing the Impact of Common Risks on Federal Reporting Metrics

Transportation owners and operators are responsible for the transportation system and the delivery of a range of services and functions through the management of that system. There are inherent risks involved with the management of these systems, notwithstanding aging infrastructure, and fiscally constrained resources. Many agencies are moving toward performance-based resource allocation while simultaneously recognizing risks that may undermine their strategic goals. As these risks affect every component of a highway system to a greater or lesser extent, accurately accounting for and addressing these risks within a highway agency’s enterprise-wide management program is the goal which currently lacks analysis tools.
Investing in risk and resilience strategies and enhanced recovery to reduce or eliminate the impact of external events is also paramount to ensure a thriving, viable transportation system. Risk management requires the identification and assessment of potential threats and hazards, asset vulnerabilities from applicable threats, an evaluation of potential mitigation actions to reduce risk, a clear and easy to implement process to prioritize mitigation activities, and investment that aligns with agency strategic and performance goals. Asset management and more recently performance management, has been an ongoing focus of many research efforts. However, guidance for analytical risk assessment methods to support risk-based asset management processes is lagging. Risk assessment processes, methods, and tools are needed to integrate risk management into asset and performance management systems. In addition, an understanding of the relationship between risks and system resilience is lacking.
Basics needed:
• Adopted definitions
• Standard framework for quantitative risk based on expected financial losses to agency and traveling public
• Establishment of performance metrics for risk and resilience
• Suggested risk tolerance and resilience performance targets that agencies can customize
• Methods to incorporate climate projections into decision making
• Methods to analyze both deterministic and probabilistic input data (500-yr flood versus climate scenarios)
Future research can expand threats analyzed; assets analyzed; climate projections; life cycle cost; remaining life consideration of assets; environmental impacts, etc.

Since the early adoptions of transportation asset management (TAM) practices, and performance rule-making association with the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, state agencies have been encouraged to add assets beyond pavements and bridges in their risk-based transportation asset management plans (TAMPs). With rapidly growing advancements and uses of technology in transportation system and management operations (TSMO), new assets are becoming widespread critical components of the network such as communications and security technology, sensors, cameras, and other intelligent transportation system (ITS) infrastructure technologies.

TAMPs cross multiple functions (e.g., planning, engineering, maintenance, operation, finance and procurement) entailing the management and inclusion of all the components required to achieve the TAMP goal, which is maintaining and improving physical assets with a focus on engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information. Typically, transportation agencies focus on the benefits of deploying new technologies when installed and implemented in the exploration stage. However, moving forward to an exploitation phase, agencies need to start considering the long-term management of these technologies to maintain their good operational state.

In addition to managing the condition of TSMO assets, TAM decisions to other assets will have an impact on the operations of the network, such as traffic flows, that depend on traffic management and operations. The timing of the traffic management installation could span from the 20 minutes necessary to “make safe” a pothole in a live travel lane, to the multi-year management of lanes through a construction zone. Delivery of the TAMP is therefore dependent on safe, planned, and dependable access to the transportation infrastructure. Several agencies have realized the need to link TAM and TSMO from the early stages of developing their TAMP; however, establishing the connection was challenging and hard to achieve in most cases. Currently, Ohio DOT is in the process of connecting TSMO and TAM as reported in their TAMP. Additionally, Caltrans has been including their transportation management system (TMS) technology assets into the TAMP.

Based on these changing conditions, the objective of this research is to investigate the needs and benefits from incorporating TSMO assets in TAMPs. The study will develop a guide for state DOTs to facilitate the inclusion of TSMO in TAMP without disrupting the established and on-going planning process.

The objectives of this research are to develop guidance promoting the use of performance-based management strategies in maintenance and to present the resulting information in a format that is easily accessible to the maintenance community.

Over the past two decades, asset management practice in transportation asset management (TAM) has been progressing with guidance produced from NCHRP Project 20-24(11), Asset Management Guidance for Transportation Agencies, initiated in 1999 and completed in 2002; NCHRP Project 08-69, Supplement to the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: Volume 2—A Focus on Implementation (TAM Guide II), initiated in 2008 and completed in 2010; and the current project NCHRP Project 08-109(01), Updating the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide—A Focus on Implementation (TAM Guide III). TAM is an area of great importance to state departments of transportation (DOT) and other transportation agencies. As defined in the transportation legislation Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), TAM is a “strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets… that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at minimum practicable cost.” In recent years interest in TAM has intensified in part due to the asset and performance management requirements introduced in MAP-21.

NCHRP Project 08-109, resulting in TAM Guide III, has developed an updated and new version of the existing AASHTO TAM Guide II using a new framework for asset management that has been adapted from the one developed by the UK-based Institute of Asset Management. This project was initiated to improve the existing guide’s effectiveness and thereby advance the practices of public-agency TAM. The research has been conducted in two phases, with the first phase focused on assessing the effectiveness of the current guide and developing a strategy for improving the guide’s effectiveness and presenting the guide in a form well suited to future updating. The second phase focused on developing the new print version of the TAM Guide III, as well as producing a TAM Guide III Digital Guide that will be added to AASHTO’s TAM Portal (http://tam.transportation.org).

With the original project being completed in early 2020, the project panel has focused on both implementation of TAM Guide III and determining additional needs to make the TAM Guide III better based on the original literature research and review. An extensive literature search was conducted as a part of the original NCHRP project phase one work and the results generally incorporated and addressed in the new TAM Guide III; however, because of funding limitations, not all of the desired changes, updates, and enhancements could be addressed. Based on those limitations, the objective of this research is to provide further enhancements and content to the TAM Guide III.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established a performance-based Federal-Aid Highway Program that includes a requirement for state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other transportation planning agencies to develop and regularly update a risk-based Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). The TAMP is designed to identify investment and management strategies to improve or preserve asset conditions as well as the performance of the National Highway System (NHS). Although only pavements and bridges on the NHS are required to be included in the TAMP, states are encouraged to include additional assets. At a minimum, the TAMP should include the following:

A summary of NHS pavement and bridge assets, including a description of conditions;
Asset management objectives and performance measures;
Identification of any performance gaps;
A life-cycle cost and risk management analysis; and
A 10-year financial plan and corresponding investment strategies.
While most states are able to capture past and planned expenditures on capital projects, states are finding it challenging to incorporate maintenance costs into their TAMP.

The absence of maintenance cost data in a TAMP must be addressed to capture the full amount of investments being made by states in the transportation system. This issue is especially important as state transportation agencies increase their attention to system preservation, placing greater emphasis on preventive maintenance.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for state DOTs and other transportation agencies on incorporating maintenance costs in a risk-based TAMP, including but not limited to the following:

1. A detailed presentation of procedures for identifying, collecting, and managing required data;

2. Using life-cycle planning tools and techniques to demonstrate financial requirements and cost-effectiveness of maintenance activities and preservation programs and the potential change in costs and liabilities associated with deferring these actions;

3. Formulating strategies that identify how to invest available funds over the next 10 years (as required by the TAMP) using life-cycle and benefit-cost analyses (and other applicable tools and techniques) to measure tradeoffs between capital and maintenance activities in alternative investment scenarios; and

4. Designing components of a financial plan showing anticipated revenues and planned investments in capital and maintenance costs for the next 10 years.

The research plan should (1) include a kick-off web conference to review the amplified work plan with the NCHRP project panel, convened within 1 month of the contract’s execution; (2) address how the proposer intends to satisfy the project objective; (3) be divided logically into (at least) two phases encompassing specific detailed tasks for each phase that are necessary to fulfill the research objectives, including appropriate milestones and interim deliverables; and (4) incorporate opportunities for the project panel to review, comment on, and approve milestone deliverables. It should also include a review of other related studies in general and NCHRP research studies in particular.

In response to the objective, the research plan should

• Identify and review previous and ongoing NCHRP studies and other research indicative of the state-of-the-art with respect to defining, calculating, and incorporating maintenance costs in asset management plans;

• Review a diverse sample of existing TAMPs and summarize the extent to which maintenance costs are incorporated into the life cycle-cost analysis, risk and uncertainty analysis, and benefit-cost, financial planning and investment strategies; and identify key gaps in how maintenance costs are considered in a TAMP;

• Determine adequacy of available maintenance cost data to support the needs in each TAMP content area and identify what information is needed as a function of asset categories; and
• Develop guidelines to better account for past and planned maintenance costs as states develop their TAMP;
o Consider agencies at various levels of maturity in terms of their maintenance management practices in the guidelines and address special requirements necessary to incorporate assets in addition to pavements and bridges in the TAMP; and
o Consider how to address the impact on future maintenance cost increases from assets brought to the transportation system as a function of new capital improvements.

Phase I

At a minimum, work in Phase I will include the following steps:

1. Review of existing experience and conditions affecting inclusion of maintenance costs in TAMP;
2. Identify the types of assets that will be considered in the analysis in addition to pavement and bridges;
3. With assistance from the NCHRP panel, identify potential DOTs and other transportation agencies as subjects of a set of case studies for developing procedures for, and benefits from, the inclusion of maintenance costs in the TAMP;
4. Carry out the case studies and gather information from selected agencies to identify and evaluate data requirements, availability, opportunities, and constraints; and
5. Create a preliminary framework for the guide to be refined in Phase II, for incorporating maintenance costs in TAMPs, comprising a basic structure identifying tools, techniques, and procedures.

The work accomplished in Phase I will be documented in an interim report that describes the preliminary steps necessary to analyze and understand the process and requirements for incorporating maintenance costs in TAMPs. The NCHRP project panel will meet with the research team at the end of Phase I to review the interim report. NCHRP approval of the interim report is required before proceeding with Phase II.

Phase II

Building on the framework presented in Phase I and input from the NCHRP panel following the interim review, the research team will follow up with the agencies that previously participated in the case studies to refine and expand that preliminary framework, creating a guide for state DOTs and other transportation agencies on how to develop the resources and procedures for incorporating maintenance costs in TAMPs. At a minimum, this guide will include the following:

1. Procedures for identifying, collecting, and managing required data;

2. How to use life-cycle planning tools and techniques to demonstrate financial requirements and cost-effectiveness of maintenance activities and preservation programs and the potential change in costs and liabilities associated with deferring these actions;

3. Strategies that identify how to invest available funds over the next 10 years (as required by the TAMP) using life-cycle and benefit-cost analyses (and other applicable tools and techniques) to measure tradeoffs between capital and maintenance activities in alternative investment scenarios; and

4. Components of a financial plan showing anticipated revenues and planned investments in capital and maintenance costs for the next 10 years.

Final deliverables of Phase II will include at a minimum:
• A detailed guide for state DOTs and other transportation agencies on requirements for incorporating maintenance costs in TAMPs, defining critical steps necessary to acquire resources and necessary data, and to implement new procedures;
• A contractor’s final report that documents the entire research effort. This report should also include recommendations for additional validation in diverse settings, research on applicable procedures, data collection, analytical methods, and tools;
• A stand-alone executive summary that outlines the findings and recommendations;
• Communication material aimed at state DOTs and other transportation agencies that explains the benefits of using the guide and the potential return on investment in expanding the TAMP to include maintenance costs; and
• A stand-alone technical memorandum entitled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (See Special Note B).

The research plan should build in appropriate checkpoints with the NCHRP project panel including, at a minimum, (1) a kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the contract’s execution date; (2) the face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting to be held at the end of Phase I; and (3) at least two additional web-enabled teleconferences tied to NCHRP review and approval of any other interim deliverables as deemed appropriate.

Many airport operators have challenges when transitioning asset data from the planning, design, and construction stages to the operations and maintenance stage. These challenges include issues with timeliness, conformity, completeness, and accuracy. Such issues may lead to poorly informed operations and maintenance planning decisions, resulting in significant financial and functional impacts to operations and maintenance departments. There are a number of technology-based platforms to assist in the efficient and accurate transfer of asset data (e.g., geographic information systems, computerized maintenance management systems, building information modeling), yet many airports need guidelines for mapping not only the transition process, but for involving key departments and stakeholders through the entire process, from procurement to commissioning.

The objective of this research is to develop a “playbook” with standards, specifications, and process flows to help airport operators with the accurate and timely delivery of new and replacement asset information/meta data to key airport stakeholders responsible for tracking and maintaining airport assets.

Risk-informed asset management and an understanding of system resilience are two relatively new concepts within the transportation industry. Transportation agencies often use all-hazards risk and resilience analyses to make decisions about enhancing system resilience. The Federal Emergency Management Administration defines "all-hazards" as “Natural, technological, or human-caused incidents that warrant action to protect life, property, environment, and public health or safety…” (https://training.fema.gov/programs/emischool/el361toolkit/glossary.htm). To conduct all-hazards risk and resiliency analyses for transportation assets, a transportation agency must:
• Know assets’ locations and their criticality for service delivery;
• Understand potential natural and man-made threats and associated likelihoods affecting assets;
• Be able to quantify the potential consequences from applicable threats to assets while adequately addressing the considerable uncertainty in those consequences; and
• Understand the link between risk and resilience.

In 2006, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers published Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Infrastructure Protection (RAMCAP), an all-hazards approach to critical infrastructure risk assessment. The initial document focused on terrorist activities but has since expanded into analysis of natural hazards such as extreme weather, seismic events, and changing environmental conditions, given the increased activity from such threats in recent years. RAMCAP identifies transportation as a critical sector, along with industries such as banking, oil/gas, electricity, water/wastewater, and nuclear energy. To date, several industries, including the water/wastewater sector, have developed an industry-specific standard for risk assessment. By demonstrating an active approach to risk assessment and management developed and approved by professionals within the water/wastewater sector, those agencies have seen improvements in bond ratings and reductions in insurance premiums. While RAMCAP provides a generic approach to critical infrastructure risk assessment, it does not provide specific information on asset performance under applicable threats for any one critical sector.

Through pilot studies, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have applied RAMCAP and similar guidance to risk and resilience analysis in their states. FHWA’s Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework (FHWA-HEP-18-020), for example, is guidance based on significant pilot studies in a large number of states. Four key lessons from the state DOT pilot studies include:

1. Though some research studies have been published on transportation asset performance under physical threats, this information is scattered across many published articles dating back to the 1960s and has not been compiled in a user-friendly format.
2. State agencies see the need for a common language for risk and resilience practitioners to facilitate adoption and implementation of consistent and effective risk management and resilience practices.
3. A simple industry framework is needed to support compilation of information for risk-based analysis of transportation assets, to reduce the burden on state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations by clarifying the bases for quantifying annual risk and ensuring system resilience:
• Threat probabilities by type of hazard and by geographic location;
• Asset vulnerability to each applicable threat, appropriately considering asset resilience; and
• Quantitative anticipated consequences from each applicable threat to each asset, appropriately considering the significant uncertainties in those consequences.
4. Agencies prefer not to be constrained by proprietary solutions for all-hazards risk and resilience analyses but have the flexibility to implement open-source, repeatable methodologies. Inputs for these analyses should be derived from data readily available to agencies or other users.

The AASHTO Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience and the Subcommittees on Risk Management and Asset Management have, collectively, identified the need for a transportation-specific framework that responsible agencies can use in conducting their own all-hazards risk and resilience analyses to facilitate enterprise-wide transportation decision-making. Research is needed to develop this framework and provide guidance on its use.

The objective of this research is to provide a scoping study for a transportation framework for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis of transportation assets. The scoping study must accomplish the following objectives:

1. Develop a comprehensive and consistent set of risk- and resilience-related terminology for transportation agency use; and
2. Provide a research roadmap for developing a framework for a quantitative all-hazards risk and resilience analysis of transportation assets, with its associated tools, and guidance on its application.

Accomplishment of the project objective(s) will require at least the following four tasks.

Task 1. Conduct preliminary work for roadmap development. Some preliminary work must be conducted before guidance on roadmap development can be sought (see Task 2) and the roadmap can be designed (see Task 3). This groundwork has two parts, which shall be done concurrently.

Task 1a. Develop a risk- and resilience-related glossary of terms. Transportation agencies may use this glossary as a common reference for future research on this topic. To develop the glossary, the terminology presented in NCHRP_Synthesis_527: Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration, should be reviewed, with the prospect of making the terminology more broadly actionable. At minimum, the following items should be considered for the glossary development:
Nature and extent of risk faced by state DOTs, including ways of characterizing risk both qualitatively and quantitatively;
Terminology adopted by risk standards organizations;
Risk and resilience terminology already in use in the transportation industry; and
Terminology already adopted and standardized within technical disciplines that support the transportation industry.
Where it is not feasible to propose a single characterization or definition, the glossary will enable translation across disciplines, and it shall include a quick reference matrix or table to help users understand how terms are used in different contexts or guidance.

Task 1b. Conduct a state-of-practice review. This review will summarize current, leading practices, including but not limited to the following:
Identifying critical transportation assets;
Estimating vulnerability to various threats or hazards;
Assessing consequences from damage and loss of functionality;
Developing recovery strategies to enable assessment of risk and system resilience, including RAMCAP and other relevant work; and
Incorporating cybersecurity and other emerging threats associated with evolution of transportation technology.
NCHRP must approve the glossary of terms (Task 1a) and state-of-practice review (Task 1b) products before work on Task 2 may begin.

Task 2. Engage the transportation industry for roadmap development guidance. To obtain broad industry input on roadmap development, the research team should explore, at a minimum, the following engagement options:

Relevant AASHTO and other industry meetings, including those of the Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience (CTSSR) and the Subcommittees on Risk Management and Asset Management; and
Conducting a webinar for AASHTO committee and subcommittee members and other interested parties presenting an executive-level summary and forum to discuss pertinent frameworks and how they relate to the proposed effort for transportation.

Task 2 shall include the following milestones:
Submittal of a technical memorandum summarizing results from Tasks 1 and 2.
Presentation of the memorandum at an interim meeting with the project panel in Washington, D.C. The memorandum shall include multiple proposed approaches for designing the roadmap.
Approval of the memorandum by NCHRP before proceeding with Task 3.
Task 3. Design research roadmap and develop research problem statements.

Task 3a. Design research roadmap to develop the quantitative all-hazards framework. The roadmap design should recognize that the framework would ultimately include associated tools and application guidance.
Outline work groups composed of AASHTO committee members and possibly non-AASHTO experts who will guide and validate the roadmap; and
Conduct invitational, multi-day workshop for up to 20 key personnel to validate the roadmap, preferably in conjunction with another AASHTO meeting.
Task 3b. Develop associated problem statement(s) for research supporting the roadmap. The research problem statement(s) will focus on developing the framework and its associated tools and application guidance. NCHRP will provide a template for the problem statement(s).

The Task 3 products will include (1) a validated roadmap document that includes the findings of Tasks 1-2; and (2) research problem statements. NCHRP approval of both of these products is required before their use in Task 4.

Task 4. Final report preparation. The roadmap document developed and validated in Tasks 1-3 shall be combined with the research problem statement(s) developed in Task 3 to constitute the final project report.

Significant research has been conducted on many different aspects of system resilience and security, but research is lacking on the topics of (1) how state transportation officials can make a business case for investing in resilience strategies and (2) resilience-oriented communications strategies. Communications strategies are central to successful balloting of state and local funding initiatives. This project is focused on both the "hard" technical business cases and the arguably "harder" communications strategies applicable to the general public as well as governors, legislators, staff and leadership at state departments of transportation (DOTs), and regional transportation planning organizations.

The 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-94) included several requirements for transportation agencies that reflected an increasing concern for system and operational resilience and security. For example, statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes were to consider projects/strategies to improve the resilience and reliability of the transportation system. It continued all prior National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) eligibilities and added (among four new eligible categories) one for projects to reduce the risk of failure of critical NHS infrastructure (defined to mean a facility, the incapacity or failure of which would have a debilitating impact in certain specified areas). The FAST Act keeps in place a resilience provision introduced in the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which required state DOTs to develop risk-based asset management plans.

State DOTs are addressing resilience issues in concert with local and regional organizations, including governments, planning organizations, non-profits, and the business community. In order to identify effective business case and communications strategies for state DOT resilience efforts, it is key to acknowledge the different demographics, infrastructure, and resource capabilities of each state DOT and agency, as well as the differing resilience opportunities and challenges they face. In addition, some state DOTs and local and regional transportation agencies have begun and achieved robust resilience activities. It is apparent that system resilience is becoming an ever more important concern for transportation officials at all levels of government.

The objective of this research is to develop resources for state DOTs and other transportation organizations to help them explain the value of investing in resilience throughout the life cycle of planning, engineering, design, operations, construction, and maintenance activities.

The resources should provide tools for state DOTs to (1) build the business case for investing in resilience strategies and (2) develop communication strategies to make the public and stakeholders aware of the importance of resilience as part of the state DOT's overall mission. This project should consider the diversity of resiliency issues among state DOTs and agencies.

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

Phase I

Task 1. Literature review. Review relevant practice, performance data, research findings, and other information related to (a) building a business case for resilience and (b) resilience communications strategies. Include a broad spectrum of industries and resources; legal and regulatory justifications; social and economic losses associated with disruptions; international and other levels of cross-border planning. See Special Note F.

Task 2. Employing quantitative and/or qualitative research methods, review current resilience business case examples and communications strategies. Measuring performance of communications efforts—especially as it relates to public and internal agency support for resilience initiatives—is of particular interest. Include common obstacles and how they are overcome. Ensure that a full range of diverse disruptions is represented, and at least includes those caused by various shocks and stressors, such as natural, societal, technological, and human-caused. Include unpublished information such as after action reports from state DOTs.

Note: If proposed, survey/interview instruments and sampling plans shall be submitted for NCHRP review and approval prior to use.

Task 3. Based on what was learned in Task 1 and Task 2, develop a revised work plan to support the development of project deliverables in Phase II (i.e., case studies and tools).

Task 4. Prepare an interim report on the findings and conclusions of Tasks 1 through 3. The interim report should include draft tables of contents for products that will be developed in Phase II and detailed plans for Task 5 and Task 6. The research plan shall provide a 2-month period for review and approval of the interim report. An interim meeting of the project panel to discuss the interim report with the research agency will be required.

Note: For budget purposes, to allow for the possibility of an in-person meeting, assume NCHRP will be responsible for the cost of panel member travel and will provide the meeting facility. The interim meeting may be held virtually or in a blended in-person/remote format. For the interim meeting, provide a PowerPoint presentation suitable, upon revision, for posting on the NCHRP project web page. The research agency shall not begin work on the remaining tasks without NCHRP approval.

Phase II

Task 5. Based on the approved Phase II work plan, prepare no fewer than 6 diverse case studies of how agencies have (a) developed business cases for resilience and (b) planned and executed communication strategies for resilience programs. Case studies should cover communications tailored for various internal and external stakeholders such as
• Governors
• Legislators
• Policymakers
• Local communities
• General public
• State DOT leadership
• State DOT staff
• Regional transportation planning organizations such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs)

Task 6. Prepare tools for state DOTs and other transportation organizations to explain the value of investing in resilience throughout the life cycle of a DOT’s planning, engineering, design, operations, construction, and maintenance activities. The tools should support agencies as they (1) build the business case for investing in resilience strategies and (2) develop communication strategies to make the public and stakeholders aware of the importance of resilience as part of a state DOT’s mission. Also prepare a final report documenting the research and a 2-page executive summary.

Tools for use by the primary audiences should include (a) “resilience communications plan in-a-box”; (b) “business case in-a-box”; and (c) Task 5 case studies.

State departments of transportation (DOTs) have been transitioning to using element inspection data for documenting bridge conditions since 2014. This condition assessment methodology offers a significant opportunity to improve the timing, cost efficiency, and accuracy of bridge maintenance, rehabilitations, and replacement decisions. However, there is no standard guidance on achieving those benefits. Bridge management platforms such as AASHTOWare BrM can combine these data with other inputs to forecast future conditions and recommend optimal plans for a portfolio of bridges.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that state DOTs that receive the inspection reports are taking numerous approaches to using the data. Many DOTs rely on general condition ratings reported to the National Bridge Inventory for bridge maintenance and investment decisions. Still others have begun to incorporate the element level data into those decisions.

The objective of this synthesis is to document current state DOT practice and experience regarding collecting and ensuring the accuracy of element level data. The synthesis will also examine how DOTs are using the data from inspection reports.

Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to):
• Practices for collecting element level data (e.g., collection software, nondestructive evaluation methods);
• Practices and methods for ensuring the accuracy of the data collected;
• DOT business processes that use element level data (e.g., project scoping, maintenance, bridge asset management modeling and analyses, performance measurement and reporting); and
• Aspects of DOT bridge management systems that use element level data (e.g., deterioration models, action types, action costs, decision rules, performance indices).

Information will be collected through literature review, a survey of DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected agencies for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.

Information Sources (Partial):
• NCHRP Scan Team Report for Scan 07-05, Best Practices in Bridge Management Decision-Making (2009). (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-68A_07-05.pdf
• Utah DOT, Bridge Management Manual (2017). https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qnl3isRKugZl9kyCFS11GCIPiVfKQNFF/view
• NCHRP Web-Only Document 259, Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection (2019). http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178842.aspx
• Joint Transportation Research Program FHWA/IN/JTRP-2016/13, Element Level Bridge Inspection: Benefits and Use of Data for Bridge Management. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/1606/
• AASHTO Technical Services Program, Bridge Preservation BMS Working Group survey
Bridge Preservation BMS Working Group:
https://tsp2bridge.pavementpreservation.org/national-working-groups/#Bridge%20Preservation%20BMS%20Working%20Group
AASHTO Technical Services Program: https://tsp2bridge.pavementpreservation.org/

State highway agency equipment fleet assets are vital to the delivery of agency programs, projects, and services. These fleets represent a significant capital investment and require recurring maintenance, operational expenditures, and timely replacement to achieve the desired level of performance, reliability, and economy. A variety of practices have been used by state departments of transportation (state DOTs) agencies for making investment decisions for highway operation equipment. However, there is no widely accepted process for determining the long-range needs and budgets.

There is a need to identify current practices, review relevant information, and develop rational processes that will provide state DOTs a realistic means for making investment decisions. A guide for formulating the long-range plans for replacement needs and budgets of highway operations equipment can then be prepared to facilitate use of these processes. Such a guide will help highway equipment managers and administrators in making decisions regarding replacement needs and budgets. NCHRP Research Report 879: Optimal Replacement Cycles of Highway Operations Equipment (http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/177263.aspx) contains guidance on the processes and tools that should be considered in making decisions regarding the optimal replacement cycles of on- and off-road highway operations equipment used by state DOTs; these can be useful for this research.

Recent work completed under NCHRP Project 13-06, “Guide for the Formulation of Long-Range Plans for Replacement Needs and Budget of Highway Operations Equipment” (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP13-06_RevisedInterimReport.pdf), provided a review of some of the issues related to the formulation of long-range plans and budgets for replacement of highway operations equipment and proposed a preliminary research plan for developing related guidance (see Special Note B). However, additional research is needed to further define and address the issues associated with the formulation of long-range plans and budgets for replacement of highway operations equipment and develop the needed guidance.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for the formulation of long-range plans and budgets for replacement of highway operations equipment. The guide shall include processes and tools for consideration in making investment decisions. For the purpose of this research, long-range is defined as 20-25 years.

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following phases.

Phase I—Planning: Prepare and submit, no later than 4 months after the contract award, Interim Report 1 that documents (1) the factors contributing to the formulation of long-range plans for replacement needs and budgets of highway operations equipment, and the practices and processes that merit further consideration or improvement in this research, and discuss their deficiencies; (2) an assessment of the relevance of the identified factors to the formulation of long-range plans for replacement needs and budgets of highway operations equipment, and the factors that should be used in the processes for formulating such plans; (3) a proposed research plan, to be executed in Phase II, to (a) develop rational processes and tools, based on computational models for formulating long-range plans and budgets for replacement of highway operations equipment; (b) present case examples to illustrate use of the proposed processes and tools; and (c) develop a detailed outline of the guide.

Phase II—Development of Processes, Tools, and Illustrative Examples: Execute the plan approved in Phase I. Based on the results of this work, prepare and submit Interim Report 2 that (1) documents proposed processes and tools for formulating long-range plans and budgets for replacement needs of highway operations equipment; (2) presents case examples or hypothetical scenarios to (a) illustrate use of the proposed processes and tools for all equipment classes and (b) show how these processes and tools may be used for making specific replacement and investment decisions; and (3) presents a detailed outline of the guide.

Phase III—Development of Guide and Tools: Prepare the guide for formulating long-range plans and budgets for replacement of highway operations equipment, associated tool, and a user manual to facilitate use of the guide and tool.

Phase IV—Final Deliverables: Prepare and submit, no later than 18 months after the contract award, draft final deliverables. Deliverables will include (1) a research report documenting the work performed in the project and used to develop the guide and associated tool; (2) the guide for formulating long-range plans for replacement needs and budgets of highway operations equipment; (3) user manual for the guide and tool; (4) illustrative examples; and (5) the tool in an electronic format.

Advancement in sensing and transmitting technologies such as radio-frequency identification (RFID), barcodes, e-ticketing, global positioning systems, and other associated technologies has significantly improved wireless transmission. Projects where such devices were used reported beneficial outcomes through improved resource and quality management. The wireless transmission technology enables sensing, counting, measuring, documenting, identifying, locating, tracking, and transmitting information in real time. These features can significantly improve construction project and infrastructure asset management. However, the beneficial outcomes have not attracted the highway construction industry to adopt it to its fullest potential

There are significant gaps between the capability of existing wireless transmission technologies and their implementation. Therefore, there is a need to provide guidelines for state departments of transportation (DOTs) to select the appropriate technology for a specific application for highway construction and infrastructure asset management

The objectives of this research are to (1) develop guidelines for the applications of RFID and wireless technologies for highway construction and infrastructure asset management and (2) plan and conduct a workshop to introduce the proposed guidelines to an audience of DOT staff and other stakeholders. At the minimum, the research shall include readiness assessment of RFID and wireless technologies for different applications and implementation requirements.

PHASE I—Planning

Task 1. Conduct a literature review of relevant research and current state of practice related to RFID and wireless technologies for highway construction and infrastructure asset management. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted through the NCHRP; FHWA; and other national, international, state, and pooled-fund sponsored research.

Task 2. Conduct a survey of DOTs to identify RFID and wireless technologies currently used for highway construction and infrastructure asset management. Collect data needed to achieve the research objective with consideration of the maturity of applications of RFID and wireless technologies. The survey shall be reviewed and approved by NCHRP before distribution.

Task 3. Synthesize the results of Tasks 1 and 2 to identify the knowledge gaps for the applications of RFID and wireless technologies. These gaps should be addressed in this research or in the recommended future research as budget permits.

Task 4. Propose a methodology for readiness assessment of RFID and wireless technologies for highway construction and infrastructure asset management to be fully developed in Phase II.

At a minimum, the methodology shall address the following:
Identify potential applications of RFID and wireless technologies (e.g., material tracking, construction managements, asset inventory tags, quality monitoring, and work zone safety);
Identify the advantages and disadvantages of RFID and wireless technologies for each application;
Evaluate the readiness of the identified technologies to be implemented by DOTs; and
Identify the requirements for implementing the technologies including IT infrastructure and security, organization structure and workflow, and training.
Task 5. Propose a preliminary outline for the guidelines based on the proposed methodology.

Task 6. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 5 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. This report must be submitted to NCHRP no later than 4 months after contract execution. The updated work plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phases II though IV.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet in person with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phases II though IV of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. Phase I shall be limited to $40,000.

PHASE II—Methodology Development

Task 7. Develop the methodology according to the approved Interim Report No.1.

Task 8. Develop examples to demonstrate the developed methodology. The selection of the examples should include at a minimum the identified technologies and applications in Phase I.

Task 9. Provide a detailed description of every chapter and section of the proposed guidelines and complete a sample chapter of the proposed guidelines selected by NCHRP. This chapter should be publication-ready.

Task 10. Prepare Interim Report No. 2 that documents the results of Tasks 7 through 9 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the project. This report is due no later than 8 months after approval of Phase I. The updated plan must describe the work proposed for Phases III and IV.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 2 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet in person with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report, if necessary. Work on Phases III and IV of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. Phase II shall be limited to $100,000.

PHASE III—Guidelines Development

Task 11. Develop the guidelines according to the approved Interim Report No. 2.

Task 12. After NCHRP approval of the draft guidelines, plan and conduct workshop with 20 representatives of owners and other stakeholders to review the draft guidelines and implementation plan. Revise the draft guidebook according to the outcomes of the workshop. The invited representatives shall be approved by NCHRP.

Note: The costs for the workshop, including invitational travel for 20 attendees, should be included in the detailed budget for the research. For the purpose of estimating these costs, assume that the workshop will be held at the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. NCHRP will cover costs associated with hosting the workshop at the Beckman Center as well as NCHRP panel member travel.

Task 13. Prepare Interim Report No. 3 that documents the results of Tasks 11 and 12 no later than 9 months after approval of Phase II. The updated work plan must describe the work proposed for Phase IV.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 3 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet in person with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report, if necessary. Work on Phase IV of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. Phase III shall be limited to $180,000.

PHASE IV—Final Products

Task 14. Revise the draft guidelines considering the NCHRP’s review comments.

Task 15. Prepare final deliverables including: (1) the guidelines for the applications of RFID and wireless technologies for highway construction and infrastructure asset management, (2) a final report that documents the entire research effort, and (3) a stand-alone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products.” See Special Note D for additional information.

State and federal policies are increasingly requiring state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies to implement a transportation asset management (TAM) approach to manage their existing assets. Defined as a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading, replacing, and expanding physical assets effectively throughout their life cycle, TAM requires an agency to focus on strategic business and engineering practices to allocate resources cost effectively so that assets are maintained in the best condition possible, for the longest duration, at the least practicable cost.

State DOTs and other agencies need better economic analysis tools for assessing cost effectiveness of various maintenance treatments, thus enabling them to manage transportation assets more efficiently at the network level. One such industry-accepted practice and tool used by transportation agencies is project level life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). LCCA is an engineering-economic analysis technique that allows comparison of the relative merits of competing project implementation alternatives. By considering all of the costs—agency and user—incurred during the service life of an asset, this analytical practice guides decision-makers in selecting of projects and other action alternatives that are the most cost effective over their service life.

A limitation of the traditional LCCA practice is its focus on individual project-level analysis which is not always compatible with network-level analysis requiring a broader focus on long-term maintenance and operation of a set of existing assets. Life cycle planning (LCP), however, is a relatively new concept aimed at providing tools and techniques that state DOTs and other transportation agencies can use to conduct an economic cost analysis for a network of transportation assets to manage them cost-effectively over their project life, covering the time each asset goes into service after construction to the time it is disposed of or retired. LCP can take advantage of asset management system capabilities, which include network-level condition data, by applying an engineering-economic analysis approach to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies to preserve assets at a desired performance level.

While LCP is in its infancy compared with LCCA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state governments, and international agencies have all developed analytical methods that can be used to create more robust LCP methods and tools. For example, NCHRP Report 713: Estimating Life Expectancies of Highway Assets, documents various methods for assessing the deterioration and life expectancy of a variety of highway assets, including signs, traffic signals, street lighting, sidewalks, culverts, pavements, and bridges. These methods, which can be used to assign an economic value to agency actions taken to maintain existing assets as well as quantifying, in economic terms, user and non-user stakeholder concerns, are foundational to developing more robust LCP analysis tools and techniques.

LCP could become an integral part of a system for managing assets at the network level to evaluate the economic aspects of various actions more effectively and to build strategies a transportation agency can take to increase project longevity. This research is needed to develop guidance and analytical models to enable state DOTs and other transportation agencies to implement a life cycle planning process applicable to TAM.

The objective of this research is to develop guidance coupled with one or more prototypical, analytical model(s) to support life-cycle planning and decision-making that applies life-cycle cost analysis as a component of a system-wide transportation asset management program. This guidance and associated analytical model(s) will apply quantitative asset-level, project-level, and network-level inputs to demonstrate methods for calculating life-cycle costs associated with alternative scenarios while taking into account preservation, rehabilitation, replacement, maintenance, and potential risk mitigation actions on a range of highway assets. To the degree possible, costs should reflect condition, risk and uncertainty, mobility, safety, and any other quantifiable aspect of transportation system performance. Although this research is targeted to state DOT highway assets within the overall transportation network, the research should also identify additional research necessary to expand the process to include other modes.

In support of the research objective, the guidance documents and analytical model(s) should be formulated to enable assessment of tradeoff decisions, helping decision-makers understand how investment at one point in the asset’s life cycle can affect the whole. In formulating this guidance, the research plan should consider, but not be limited to, the following:
1. How to build on data and performance measures in current use, including capabilities of existing asset management systems;
2. Incorporating a mutually compatible set of quantitative life-cycle planning performance measures and/or underlying assumptions for use in various decision-making scenarios;
3. Accounting for constrained budgets affecting agency and stakeholder performance goals, while minimizing life-cycle costs;
4. Incorporating risk and uncertainty analysis;
5. Assessing how multiple competing objectives affect different asset classes and how these effects relate to the model(s); and
6. Identifying commonly used analysis parameters and the rationale for establishing and using these parameters.

The guidance will serve as the basis for developing a prototypical analytical model. This model, to be developed with open source or other easily accessible software, is meant to be a transparent working application that agencies can use or adapt to serve their own needs. The workplan should also indicate how the research team expects to validate the proposed analytical approach.

The research plan should be divided into two phases, and each phase should be divided into tasks with a detailed description of the work proposed, including interim deliverables.

Phase I
• Develop input to the overall LCP analysis guidance, including the framework for prototypical analytical model(s).
• Prepare an Interim Report that describes work done in the early tasks, including input to the overall guidance supporting the proposed LCP analysis.
• Include an updated work plan for the remaining tasks to be accomplished in Phase II.

NCHRP will meet with the research team at the end of Phase I to review, approve, or modify the Interim Report and the updated scope of work prior to moving on to Phase II. Level of effort in Phase I should not exceed 40% of the overall effort.

Phase II
• Translate the model framework into the prototypical analytical model(s).
• Complete the necessary validation steps along with supporting guidance materials.

Phase II will result in completion of all final documentation.

In addition, the research plan should build in appropriate checkpoints with the NCHRP project panel including, at a minimum, (1) a kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the contract’s execution date; (2) the face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting with the NCHRP project panel to be held at the end of Phase I; and (3) at least two additional web-enabled teleconferences tied to NCHRP review and approval of any other interim deliverables as deemed appropriate.

Final deliverables will include at a minimum: (1) guidance and models (e.g., metrics, tools, and strategies); (2) a final report that documents the entire research effort; (3) a stand-alone summary that outlines the research findings and recommendations; and (4) a presentation aimed at state DOT senior staff and decision-makers that simply and concisely explains why the guide and supporting materials are helpful and how they will be used. Final deliverables will also include a stand-alone technical memorandum entitled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products.”

Transportation agencies increasingly are adopting Transportation Performance Management (TPM) principles to ensure that good resource allocation decisions are made concerning transportation system development and operations to produce the performance outcomes desired by the agency, its external partners, elected officials, and the public. For purposes of this research, transportation agencies may be state departments of transportation (DOTs), metropolitan transit or public transportation agencies (MTAs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other government entities responsible for managing transportation system performance.

Wherever it is applied, TPM encourages accountability and helps determine what results are to be pursued, how information from past performance levels and forecast conditions are used to guide investments, how progress toward strategic goals is measured and reported, and how needs for adjustments to improve performance are recognized and acted on. Effective TPM is grounded in sound data and information management, effective communication and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, and decision-making based on shared understanding among policy makers and operational managers of performance goals and objectives.

A core element of TPM is defined performance targets that connect investment decisions to system results in a manner that is transparent to all stakeholders. Targets are used to assess progress toward achieving strategic goals, guide planning efforts, inform programmatic decisions and adjustments, and communicate with stakeholders. Target setting and performance reporting practices continue to evolve and recently have become cornerstones of USDOT regulatory efforts required under federal legislation. Work sponsored by FHWA, NCHRP, and others has produced resources for practitioners working to address how an agency may judge whether performance trends indicate that targets are being met, to communicate about such matters with stakeholders, or to assist agency determination of whether current funding allocations are likely to improve achievement of performance targets.

Despite progress in developing such resources, practitioners nevertheless lack adequate tools and methods for establishing an effective feedback loop between observed performance and agency performance management decisions. Such feedback can be used by agencies to maintain or adjust their management strategies (and subsequent planning, programming, and target-setting decisions) to ensure that agency goals and objectives are met.

The objectives of this research are to (1) assess the state of transportation agency practices regarding use of targets in their transportation performance management (TPM) decision making, monitoring performance results, and as necessary adjusting management strategies and desired target levels; and (2) develop resources that agency practitioners can use to implement and maintain a process of monitoring performance and making management decisions based on comparisons of targets and observed system performance. Such resources could include, for example, guidebooks, web-based publications, prototypical planning scenarios, interactive computational tools, and visualization tools.

The research will entail (1) a critical review of relevant current practice in monitoring of performance relative to established targets and use of such monitoring in decision-making; (2) four regional peer-exchanges to engage state DOT, MPO, and transit agency stakeholders in discussions of agencies’ TPM skill levels, processes, and tools for linking transportation system performance targets and achievement; (3) development of guidance and web application to facilitate agency target attainment; and (4) development of documentation and other materials to support agency adoption and use of the guidance and decision-support applications developed.

Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) technology is progressing rapidly. Numerous research and deployment initiatives are underway as the transportation industry continues to examine how roadway assets such as traffic control signs, markings, signals, guardrail, computing systems, communications infrastructure and systems, and other permanent and temporary ancillary devices can be designed or enhanced to facilitate CAV operations. With the diffusion of CAV technologies, effects on state transportation agency maintenance programs—which have constrained budgets and workforces—need to be examined to ensure that transportation agencies are prepared for the challenges of CAV implementation while maintaining the existing roadway system and its ancillary roadway assets at an acceptable level of service. Research is needed to (1) explore the effect of CAV technologies on roadway and Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) asset maintenance programs, and (2) develop guidance on measureable standards and resource implications.

The objectives of this research are to (1) estimate the current and future effect of dynamic CAV technologies on roadway and TSMO asset maintenance programs; (2) develop guidance on existing and proposed measureable standards associated with roadway and TSMO asset maintenance for preventive, reactive, and emerging maintenance needs; and (3) identify the associated resource and workforce development needs.

In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established national performance management requirements for state departments of transportation (DOTs). Successive legislation, regulation, and guidance have reinforced these requirements in the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) framework, with its seven national performance goals and related performance measures within three measure areas: safety (PM1); pavement and bridge condition (PM2); and travel time reliability, congestion, and emissions (PM3). State DOTs are required to establish performance targets for each performance measure and to regularly report on progress towards meeting those targets. In addition, some states have developed additional, non-TPM measures and targets to manage their safety, asset management, system performance, and other program areas.

Performance targets can be established using quantitative or qualitative methods, or some combination of both methods. For example, a quantitative method could use historical data to project a trend line. A qualitative method may establish a target based on factors such as agency leadership priorities. An example of a combined approach is adjusting trend data for fatalities and serious injuries with stakeholder perspectives to establish a Vision Zero safety target. Combined approaches can also be risk-based; a state DOT may adjust projections to account for funding scenarios or uncertainty in the capacity of the state DOT and/or partner agencies to deliver the planned program. Additionally, some targets may be defined by state statute. Any of these methods can result in a target that reflects a desired outcome and allows for ongoing evaluation of progress towards attaining the target using performance-based decision making and performance reporting.

However, establishing targets presents a number of challenges. Reliance on historical trend data can result in a target that cannot account for unforeseen events, such as severe weather that significantly increases winter maintenance costs or macroeconomic factors that affect transportation funding. These events require a state DOT to adjust their program, reallocating resources in ways that can affect progress towards a target. Some challenges are more technical in nature. For example, state DOT understanding and interpretation of federal guidance on calculation procedures has periodically changed, such as how to round calculated values or how to handle overlapping Traffic Management Channel (TMC) segments or segments that are only partly on the National Highway System (NHS). These changes in calculation methods can shift trends or targets that were established using prior calculation methods.

In 2010, NCHRP Report 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies (available at http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164178.aspx) describes steps for state DOTs to establish performance targets and documented quantitative and qualitative approaches used by state DOTs to establish targets. Since that publication, state DOTs, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and local governments have gained experience in target setting in connection with the first round of TPM requirements. As part of the ongoing evolution of transportation performance management, state DOTs are required to re-evaluate performance targets and provide a Mid Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA in October 2020 that documents performance towards targets and any revisions to targets.

Research is needed to improve the practice of target setting by developing more effective yet practical methods for state DOTs to establish and/or re-evaluate performance targets, strengthening state DOT capacity to use performance management to make better decisions in transportation planning and programming.

The objective of this research is to develop and disseminate a practitioner-ready guidebook for state DOTs that is focused on methods for the target-setting component of transportation performance management. The guidebook will provide information on selecting effective methods that use both qualitative and quantitative sources to establish performance targets. The guidebook will also address how to re-evaluate targets, taking into account unforeseen changes impacting the transportation system, performance data, and performance reporting requirements.

The arrival of the 4th Industrial Revolution and the rapid development and fusion of multiple disruptive and innovative technologies are changing the behavior and the expectations of customers and stakeholders—not only in the United States, but all over the world. The deployment of these technologies—artificial intelligence, big data and digitization, the Internet of Things (IoT), wireless technologies (5G/6G), connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) technologies, on-demand ride sharing services, Mobility as a Service (MaaS), the sharing economy, and others—is bringing a revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, relate to one another, and do business. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation is moving at a pace at which governmental entities are not readily prepared.

Mobility is also transforming rapidly as new technologies disrupt traditional ways people and goods move throughout the transportation systems. The rapid deployment of mobile internet is upending the traditional approaches with new customer-centric business models based on the sharing economy such as car hailing, bike sharing, scooter sharing, time sharing, customized shuttle bus, parking sharing, etc. While the new business models bring more conveniences and efficiencies to the users and to the national and local economies, they are also creating new challenges and needs that state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies must grapple with as decision-makers. As technology previously foreign to transportation rapidly affects traditional ways of doing business, organizational structure and performance is affected across all modes and aspects of transportation. Institutional processes or procedures may be retooled or adjusted to accommodate updated or more effective methods to improve performance outcomes. These processes or procedures are necessary to help those agencies struggling to define meaningful performance measures, such as managing data collection, maintaining accountability, and streamlining reporting.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for state DOTs and other transportation planning agencies to understand, predict, plan for, and adapt to the potential impacts of emerging disruptive technologies. In preparing this guide, the research should identify issues, effects, and opportunities at the intersection of disruptive transportation technologies and organizational performance for senior managers at state DOTs and other transportation planning agencies; and it should include but not be limited to the following components:
· Categories of technology disruptors, such as big data, expanding digitization, vehicle and infrastructure technologies, mobility as a service, the sharing economy, mobility of people and goods, alternative travel modes, and communication technologies;
· New business opportunities or partnerships and collaboration models involving the private and public sectors, as well as impacts on how agencies execute planning and prioritize investments, implement, maintain, manage and operate the transportation system;
· Roles and responsibilities of federal, state, regional, and local agencies in evaluating, approving, regulating, enforcing, and managing new ways of moving people and goods; and
· Improving overall customer service, including effects on the transportation system’s ability to provide improved access and mobility for all users.
The target audience for this research is practitioners as well as decision-makers at state DOTs and their transportation partner organizations.

The research plan should (1) include a kick-off web conference to review the amplified work plan with the NCHRP project panel, convened within 1 month of the contract’s execution; (2) address how the proposer intends to satisfy the project objectives; (3) be divided logically into two phases encompassing specific detailed tasks for each phase that are necessary to fulfill the research objective, including appropriate milestones and interim deliverables; and (4) incorporate opportunities for the project panel to review, comment on, and approve milestone deliverables. The resulting guide should address methods, procedures, tools, and techniques for improving organizational performance in the context of disruptive technologies. At a minimum, it should address potential effects on organizational structure and performance in terms of safety and mobility, planning, programming, asset management, investment strategies, and overall operations. Where possible, proactive and innovative practices and strategies should be identified, including a review of relevant experience outside of the United States.

After more than a decade of steady progress, transportation agencies have reached a critical moment in advancing TPM practice. Federal performance management regulations initiated by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established a new paradigm of nationally-coordinated performance measurement, target setting, and reporting across a range of domains including safety, asset management, multimodal mobility and air quality, and transit. State departments of transportation (DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and transit agencies have responded – meeting the challenge by prioritizing advancement in areas including data collection, measure calculation, target setting, coordination and communication, and performance-based planning.
These advances have required significant investment on the part of state DOTs and other transportation agencies. Organizations including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) have also worked extensively to assist agencies in implementation: fostering the dissemination and adoption of successful practices, promoting performance management concepts, and helping develop improved tools and approaches. Yet practitioners also recognize that performance management implementation is a process of continuous improvement and many real issues and challenges remain to be resolved.

The objectives of this project are to (a) document (beyond anecdotal discussions alone) concerns, issues and challenges DOTs and other government agencies have encountered in implementing federal transportation performance management (TPM) regulations; and (b) provide a framework for more systematic assessment of the costs associated with implementation.

The research should build on previous research by NCHRP and others to characterize at least the following components of these concerns, issues and challenges:

• Prioritized list of concerns, issues and challenges encountered
• Explanation and discussion of each concern, issue, or challenge
• Specific examples of each concern, issue, or challenge as experienced by DOTs, MPOs, or others
• Realistic proposals of how concerns, issues and challenges may be addressed, ameliorated, or eliminated, for example through staff training, provision of guidance or other technical resources, or revisions to regulations
• Proposed framework for data collection and analysis that agencies may use to develop estimates of their implementation levels of effort
• Possible next steps and action items to be undertaken by various stakeholders to address concerns, issues and challenges.