Develop guidance for more comprehensive analysis of non-auto travel demands, including latent demands.

The current draft of the problem statement is available as a word document here: https://www.tam-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/08/Non-Auto-Travel-Demands-Research-Needs-Statement-08222024.docx

The objective of this research is to determine how transportation agencies are quantifying the direct and indirect treatment costs associated with improving assets as an input to their asset management systems, and the corresponding impact on their capital program as a whole.

Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to):
• The components of an asset improvement project included in the budgets used in the asset management system, such as the construction project itself, preliminary engineering, land acquisition, etc.
• The source of treatment cost data, such as contract lettings, final design estimates, programming estimates, etc.
• The frequency of updating the treatment costs in the asset management system.

Proposed Research Activities: Information will be collected through a review of the 52 state agencies’ 2022/2023 Transportation Asset Management Plans, a survey of DOTs and other transportation agencies, and follow-up interviews with selected agencies for more detailed information. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.
Susan Lime

KEYWORDS/TERMS – treatment unit costs, asset management systems, direct costs, indirect costs, program costs

Update products of NCHRP 20-24(37)G – Technical Guidance for
Deploying National Level Performance Measurements.

• Seek better data from the private sector and third parties, and fuse this data with DOT data to generate new comparisons and insights.
• Collect and develop datasets for mobility and traffic.
• Explore the availability of new datasets and identify ways to use datasets with DOT data for calibration of QA/QC.
• Compare the scope, availability, reliability, and accuracy of privately available transportation mobility and traffic datasets sold by companies such as INRIX, Teralytics, Streetlight, etc.
• Update and improve data definitions, especially for traffic. (State DOTs often measure traffic in discrete measures like AADT, but people are increasingly using a blend of modes to move from origin to destination, and traffic data should reflect that.)

• Understand state DOTs' rules governing their data sharing agreements and intellectual property
• Explore agency methods and examples for monetizing data
• Identify what IP exists for sharing and selling data
• Find and highlight best-practices in multi-state data agreements
• Understand what agencies and organizations are doing to support their data sharing agreements
• Recognize what data should be collected, sought, and shared

• Identify the best locations for AV deployment which would deliver equity for all communities
• Understand the elements of equity surrounding AV and shared mobility deployment

The objectives of this research are to develop guidance in the following initiatives which can be used to develop effective risk visualization communication within DOT’s, with external agencies, and the public in the by performing study into the following initiatives:
1. Establishing intra-agency communication.
2. Establishing external partnerships and two-way communications channels with community organizations.
3. Crafting an effective visual, verbal, and written communication strategy with materials (ie., metrics, dashboards, regular reports) with a clear explanation of uncertainty.
4. Determining the appropriate message vehicle.
This research will examine current strategies and methods of risk visualization communication at various DOT’s. Internal communication, two-way communication channels with external organizations, associated strategies, and other aspects of communication in relation to risk visualization will be extensively explored.

LINK TO 2021-2026 AASHTO STRATEGIC PLAN: This project aligns to the AASHTO Strategic Plan by providing information that will help DOTs develop further organizational excellence and effective services in knowing how to create the best risk communication strategies that will share risk information both internally and with external agencies and the public at large. Knowledge of risks will lead to better transportation products and services by helping to identify what aspects of transportation require improvement and safety enhancement. This will also lead to further examination of current and emerging trends present in transportation policies and practices, while promoting a range of new policy options that can be implemented. This project will align with AASHTO’s plan to provide safety, mobility, and access for everyone by providing blueprints for effective communication with external agencies and the public. By making the public aware of potential risks, and pursuing solutions to these risks, DOTs will be able ensure that social equity within the public sphere is preserved while transportation systems are made safer. Effective communication with community organizations, especially, will forge strong connections between transportation agencies with public interest.

The ability to effectively communicate risks both within an agency and externally to key stakeholders is important in decision-making and assuring effective mitigation strategies are assigned and appropriate resources are dedicated. Risk management is an effective tool for decision-making but communicating risks, potential impacts and likelihood of occurrence as well as appropriate mitigation is often not well understood.

This proposal builds off of a similar RPS developed as part of NCHRP 20-123(04) but adds in and emphasizes the element of visualization to improve communication. It also emphasizes the concept of risk tolerance.  

Emphasis on developing tools and methodologies to document risk tolerance and acceptance parameters associated with taking risks. 

Greater understanding of the elements of good organizational culture and how it can be applied to transportation agencies to achieve greater resiliency is needed. This research project would include identification of agencies that have had success in building resiliency and examine what elements of organizational change supported the successful resilience building. Research on sectors outside of transportation where resilience is important would be conducted to understand the organizational culture elements. The ingredients for building organizational culture to achieve greater focus on building resilience will be created for transportation agencies.

The proposed research be composed of the following components:
• Conduct a literature/practice review of the relevant information
• Identify organizational practices and determine how they can be generalized to support guidance
• Develop guidance for agencies
• Demonstrate/evaluate guidance through at least one case study
• Produce a final report including an executive summary

Develop a means of determining the balance between program requirements that minimize the risks of fraud and/or of not meeting program goals with maximizing the benefits to the end users (i.e., the public).

Develop a means of consolidating the many related local measures into a set of national measures that describes and monitors how well the national transportation system is meeting (or not meeting) the traveling public’s needs as related to Congress’ strategic goals for the nation’s transportation system.

Investigate, compile, and categorize examples of organizations’ efforts of using performance measures and data supported tools for cross resource allocation and goal-oriented decisions.

• Understand changes in transportation workforce behavior
• Understand the economic forces that change transportation workforce behavior
• Determine ways that transportation agencies can better manage with these forces
• Recommend steps that agencies can take to work within these forces

Lean Improvement research questions:

1. Are there other states and countries with Lean Improvement or similar offices?
2. In what types of work are they achieving success?
3. Are there difference in focus between the DOTs?
4. Are there lessons to be learned by DOTs about how they might best improve their improvement efforts? (e.g., the Lean effort in England focuses mainly on the application of Lean principles in construction, but US States have not yet adopted Lean Construction to any great extent.)

Efficiency research questions:

1. Are there other states and countries with efficiency reporting requirements?
2. How do the reported efficiencies compare?
3. Are there types of efficiency that are reported in some states but not others?
4. Are there lessons to be learned by DOTs about how they might best improve their efficiency?

Lean Improvement: Several DOTs have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. These include a t least thirty US States, five Canadian Provinces, England, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Efficiencies: Several state DOTs (e.g., CA, MN, OH) and England are required to submit annual efficiency reports.

(30 states + other agencies have initiatives). What can be learned from these efforts? For instance, in England, the focus is on construction-only. (Nigel) 

Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate.

The proposed research would include the following tasks, at a minimum:
• Review of existing transportation asset management systems and the approaches agencies use for developing projects from management system treatment recommendations.
• Development of a framework for transportation asset project development. The framework should incorporate: asset lifecycle strategies, other investment objectives that may lie outside of existing asset management systems, such as improve equity, accessibility and mobility; major constraints and parameters related to development of projects; and other factors.
• Gap assessment to identify issues in current practice and opportunities for improvement.
• Development of prototype tools that supplement existing management system treatment recommendation to better support project development.
• Piloting the framework and tools with one or more transportation agencies.
• Development of a research report documenting the results of the research effort.

• Explore current state of practice to establish a baseline.

Recent research has documented approaches to performing this work and several states have developed programs of differing levels of maturity. A Synthesis project at this time will enable agencies to understand the current state of the practice and identify leading practices that can be adopted to advance their own programs.

To rethink how a transportation agency should be organized to maintain and operate an existing system in real time. That includes a focus on preservation and maintenance of existing assets, responding quickly and effectively to incidents and emergencies, and operating the system at an optimized level of service given funding constraints. The research will consider what systems and processes need to be in place to monitor conditions and operations, the role of maintenance and asset management in programming and project development, effective use of agency forces, budgeting for maintenance and replacement over the lifecycle, and how to manage risk as a compliment to resource constrained asset management strategies. The research will look at various public and private sector models that look at organizational structure, element driven contracting, funding allocation models, and the role of in house vs contract resources to maximize the cost effectiveness of resource investments.
Project objectives envision developing a synthesis using the following guidance:
1. Identify organizational practices that integrate maintenance and operational needs into capital planning processes.
2. Perform a domestic and international scan of how and what transportation agencies do organizationally to implement effective Asset Management and TSMO practices for holistic decision-making throughout the asset lifecycle.
3. Identify decision-making, communication, and organizational practices to in-clude all stakeholders in the lifecycle of the assets.
4. Identify project criteria and business practices that can be used for realizing improved transportation system performance over time. This includes how or-ganizations take into account maintainability, sustainability, resiliency and functional performance in the development, design and construction of pro-jects.
5. Develop case studies on how capital transportation projects are delivered and the problems that occur across functional areas. Agencies will be interviewed to determine root cause analysis of projects to evaluate both successes and problems with the long term lifecycle management of assets arising from poli-cies, organizational practices, and knowledge transfer and how that impacts an agency’s ability to maintain a state of good repair for new and existing assets.
6. Evaluate how federal funding mechanisms could be employed to fund mainte-nance needs of new and existing asset types arising out of capital project prior-itization.
7. Evaluate how agencies integrate performance targets and measures into their maintenance, operations, program management and asset management pro-cesses to drive decision making.

The purpose of the proposed research project is to provide state DOTs with the necessary tools to assess and manage financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.

The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:

• Task 1 – Conduct an in-depth literature review of all studies related to assessment and management of financial risks in transportation agencies, especially at the enterprise and program levels, including national and international examples as available.
• Task 2 – Conduct a gap assessment of the state of practice to determine what is still needed to incorporate financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 3 – Develop a methodology for identifying and quantifying financial risks at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 4 – Develop metrics and performance indicators for evaluating effectiveness of financial risk countermeasures.
• Task 5 – Develop decision-making tools for resource allocation under conditions of financial uncertainty.
• Task 6 – Develop methodology and guidance on consideration of program and potentially project-level financial risk within the enterprise.
• Task 7 – Pilot test the developed processes with multiple state DOTs and revised methodology as needed.
• Task 8 – Develop an implementation guide to help state DOTs to incorporate these processes into existing agency programs and projects.

Rank 5 in 2021

Emerging technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset analysis can offer an agency as well as how frequently that information needs generated.

Research is needed in the following areas:
• Address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
• What level of extraction detail and frequency interval is needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets?
• Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting such data to all stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.

● Survey and interview State DOTs and others as to their practices during COVID. For example: observe their budget outlays, activities performed and data collection.
● Focus on uncertainty in general - such as funding uncertainty; the results could be utilized for good practices not just in times of widespread disease, but also for times of economic austerity such as a recession. Note: The visualization committee (AED80) has been kicking around a research idea related to how to VISUALIZE uncertainty. Could be a good opportunity to collaborate with that TRB committee. Anne-Marie McDonell and Matt Haubrich are both on AED80 so feel free to reach out.
● Potential to focus on risk management with respect to federal TPM target-setting (rather than risk management with respect to funding uncertainty).

Several economic optimization methods are linked with TAM project selections. One of the economic indicators in measuring them is the ROI (which can be defined in various ways), but there are others such as NPV, IBC, FYRR and more. This research needs statement refers to the need of connecting prioritization / different approaches to asset management (such as optimization) and TAM project selections and economic indicators.

There are several known methods of estimating the maintenance backlog – via budget (raising the network to a given level within a given number of years), length or percentage of the network under a given maintenance standard (such as PCI, PSI, IRI or other indicator),

This question is usually dealt with in road assets but can be expanded to bridges and other assets as well. It is part of a life cycle cost analysis when the evaluation is performed on different treatments which are differentiated by their frequency (usually every X years) and thus influencing their cost. Many Asset Management Systems incorporate this kind of analysis.

The objective of this synthesis is to identify best practices from State DOTs of how to improve processes through required performance-based planning and programming document development and implementation through exploring:
• How State DOTs and MPOs are linking and including asset management decisions in their traditional planning processes;
• How agency’s integrate asset management project identification and prioritization into required planning processes;
• Gap analyses of where State DOTs and MPOs identify a need for more guidance on how to connect required performance-based documents to programming decisions;
• What management systems are in use to help agencies implement risk-based asset management with performance objectives and targets.
• Examples of where MPOs work in partnership with State DOTs to mobilize National Highway System partner owners (local agencies) to plan/program to performance targets.

Question whether this topic should wait until the results of NCHRP Project 08-113 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices are released. They are covering similar topics, though the current research statement seems to be more focused on the federal TAMP/ TPM while 08-113 is about AM/ Perf Mgmt more generally

● Guidance on establishing BIM data governance and quality standards to support asset management.
● Recommend standards for data transfer between data collection and asset management systems.
● Develop maturity scales for BIM implementation and establish appropriate maturity level for integration of TAM
● Research on BIM applications to support DOTs' data governance specific to the collection of data by one part of the agency can be used directly by other parts of the agency
● Evaluate cost effectiveness of collecting and managing data through BIM at a sufficient level of quality.
● Aligning the focused but detailed project-level data with network-wide but less detailed TAM data.

TRB Research Ideas – Data Quality/Standardization
• Data quality and confidence
• standardize terminology between different systems so singles source can inform GIS/500 reports/DELPHI/FMIS etc. so reports all use the same words or numbers the same way
• Updated asset type definitions and extraction methodologies.
• Performance Metrics for Assets other than pavement and bridge, i.e.. signals, signs, barriers, culverts
• Asset ratings biases, potential to rate lower to obtain funding

TRB Research Ideas – Data Governance
• Our largest challenge is data governance, feature collection and maintaining asset/inventory data
• Data governance is still looming large from an implementation perspective
• Data history, implementation and its security (both cyber and other forms of security)

1. Evaluate the impacts of incomplete/missing annual pavement data collection to various aspects of agency asset and performance management, including technical considerations, such as network-level condition summary and performance forecast, maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction decision-making, and condition deterioration and treatment improvement modeling.
2. Consider the effect of incomplete/missing data on the organization and processes, such as federal performance reporting and transportation asset management planning requirements, as well as impacts to other internal and external stakeholders and decision-making processes.
3. Analyze and derive recommendations on mitigation strategies that DOT could implement to minimize the impact of incomplete condition data.

Proposed research activities include:
1. Conduct a literature review to document:
○ DOT motivations and/or requirements for annual data collection.
○ Potential technical and organizational impacts or issues associated with missing an annual data collection.
○ Techniques available to mitigate the impacts of missing the collection.
○ DOTs known to currently (or in the recent past) complete pavement data collection on a 2 or more year data collection cycle.
2. Building from the literature review, survey State DOTs to capture:
○ DOT motivations and/or requirements for annual data collection
○ Potential technical and organizational impacts or issues associated with missing an annual data collection
○ Techniques available to mitigate the impacts of missing the collection.
○ DOTs that currently (or recently) collected pavement data on a 2 or more year data collection cycle
○ DOTs which have previously missed their established collection cycle
3. Conduct follow up interviews/surveys with DOTs that have longer collection cycles or which had previously missed an annual pavement data collection to understand perceived vs. actual impacts (both technical and organizational) and any mitigation strategies they employ.
4. Summarize literature review, survey results and follow up interviews to guide ongoing research activities
5. From a representative set of DOTs, collect available pavement condition and work history data, pavement deterioration and improvement benefit models
6. Utilize collected data to complete a statistical evaluation of the impact missing a year of data collection with respect to forecasted vs. actual performance results, and ability to identify priority investment areas based on previous year’s data collection, as well as other issues identified through the survey
7. Identify potential strategies to mitigate the impacts of incomplete condition data
8. Document survey results and evaluation outcomes
9. Produce a technical report summarizing impacts of, and potential mitigations for, missing an annual pavement collection cycle
Desired products include:
● Detailed listing of current requirements and/or motivations for annual pavement data collection
● Summary of perceived and actual impacts of missing an annual data collection against the listed motivations, supported with a statistical evaluation of actual DOT datasets where applicable
● A summary of potential mitigation strategies that can be employed to reduce the identified impacts

Recommended funding of $250,000 includes $225,000 for a half-time investigator for 18 months.

Better define the needs for education, training and workforce development related to transportation asset management and transportation performance management. Develop resources as needed for the following sub-areas:
Education—Writing curriculum for undergraduate and graduate courses
Training—For DOT and MPO staff in-depth career training, NHI, etc.
Workforce Development—e.g., TC3

No more than 15 months to complete the scoping study.
Additional time needed to establish the project with NCHRP.

Implementation of NCHRP 08-118: Risk Assessment Techniques for Transportation Asset Management

Implementation of NCHRP 08-129: Incorporating Resilience Concepts and Strategies in Transportation Planning

The objective of this implementation project support further testing and use of Asset Valuation Guide developed through NCHRP Project 23-06. This project will aid a set of transportation agencies in implementing the asset valuation guidance. A set of case studies will be developed based on the agency implementation efforts. Details on the case studies will be added to the web-based version of the asset valuation guidance and subsequent versions of the Asset Valuation Guide. Further, the web and printed versions of the Guide will be revised to reflect the additional experience gained from the case studies.

To support accomplishing the research objectives the effort will incorporate the following activities at a minimum:
• Delivery of a set of workshops to review and summarize the Asset Valuation Guide.
• Identification of a set of six transportation agencies to participate in implementation of the asset valuation guidance.
• Application of the asset valuation guidance for the selected set of agencies, resulting in calculation of asset value by asset class, the cost to maintain asset value and related measures such as the Asset Consumption Ratio, Asset Sustainability Ratio and Asset Funding Ratio.
• Illustration of how information on asset value can support improved TAM decisions.
• Refinement of the Asset Valuation Guide (printed and web versions) based on the results of the case studies.
• Development of supplemental tools and worksheets to assist in calculating asset value to support TAM utilize the Asset Valuation Guide.

Integrating Risk and Resilience into the Performance Management Decision-Making Process

1. Evaluate current federal PM2 measures, both pavement condition measures and bridge measures, for performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to: Consistency, Usefulness, and Alignment.

2. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure for consistency, including thresholds. For example, determine if wheel path cracking considerations could be revised to provide more consistent results across pavement types (e.g. composite, concrete) and pavement widths (e.g. <12 ft.) 3. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect conditions enhance decision-making taking into account not only the assessment of current and future condition but also their implications in economic analyses of long-term maintenance and rehabilitation.

NCHRP 20-24(20), 20-24 (97), 20-24 (127)
NCHRP 20-24(37): This project, Measuring Performance among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices, put in place a foundation on which the first set of national performance measures were created. A similar program needs to established on which to further develop relevant national-level performance measures.

Research is needed in the following areas:
● Address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
● What level of extraction detail and frequency interval is needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets?
● Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting such data to all stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.

This research project would aim to develop a Primer or Guidance document to help agencies tasked with managing infrastructure (including pavement and bridges) to assess their current data, data collection processes, and data needs to best position them to be able to take advantage of burgeoning artificial intelligence techniques to develop increasingly accurate predictive models regarding their infrastructure.

The ultimate objective is to provide the decision-maker with tools that add value to the decision-making process and improve the robustness of the infrastructure network as a whole. In that sense, novel approaches for the evaluation of risk will be sought to capture the stochastic nature of interdependent infrastructure. A graph theory approach to evaluate criticality of network node failure as shown by Buldyrev and colleagues (2010) may prove interesting for the evaluation of consequences, and thus the real option value for the infrastructure, simulated by network programming methods.

The objective of this research is to develop a comprehensive framework for measuring organizational efficiency at State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). This framework will provide standardized metrics and methodologies to assess and improve the internal processes, resource allocation, and overall performance of state DOTs. By identifying key areas for efficiency improvements and incorporating best practices from both public and private sectors, the research aims to empower transportation agencies to optimize operations, reduce waste, and enhance accountability. Additionally, the framework will address emerging considerations such as technology integration, sustainability, and equity, ensuring that DOTs are better equipped to meet the evolving demands of modern transportation systems while maximizing public value. In addition to the framework the research should produce tools to help state DOTs measure organizational efficiency.

The objective of this research is to develop performance and risk-based approaches to curb management. The research will provide guidance and good practices to better enable DOTs in managing performance and threats added with transportation features like electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, Mobility as a Service (MaaS), and Mobility on Demand (MOD) as they compete for the same curb space as more traditional physical transportation elements such as pedestrian and vehicle parking/loading usage. The research will include the identification of good practices, necessary data to support performance and risk-based decision making, and a framework for developing performance and risk-based approaches to managing shared curb space.

This research seeks to clarify and refine what it means to have an effective, outcome-based, high-level performance management approach to resilience. Toward this end there are three essential parts:

1. Confirming definitions. For example, is resilience an inverse of vulnerability? Or does it imply an inverse of sensitivity and adaptive capacity (e.g., per the Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool [VAST])? If resilience is infinite, is exposure irrelevant? Consistent with the VAAF, is there consensus on the definitions for risk, criticality, consequence, and other essential terms? Through these definitions, resilience measures will be compared and contrasted with risk and related performance areas.
2. Community mobility, or mobility and destination access across a jurisdiction of any size, for all users and modes. This is distinct from infrastructure-focused resilience for a specific asset, e.g., a bridge. For a community subject to natural or human-caused disasters, how can they know whether they are more or less resilient? Is there a role for the broader 4R concept of Robustness – Redundancy – Resourcefulness – Rapidity?
3. Effective performance measures. Define performance measures for the resilience community. Agency leaders need relevant, feasible, and quantifiable evidence of improved resilience that is outcome-based and trackable over time. These metrics should measure continuous data in the form of substantive change and performance in resilience as opposed to activity metrics already in play or project-specific evaluations. Performance measures should also reflect disparate impacts to mobile communities or disadvantaged areas and populations.

In addition to developed guidance, this project will pilot the implementation of a high-quality resilience performance measure into existing performance management frameworks for up to five agencies. Not only states, but MPOs, e.g. Los Angeles and San Diego have promising initiatives already developed.

The current draft of the problem statement is available as a word document here: https://www.tam-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/08/Research-Needs-Statement-for-Implementing-Effective-Resilience-Performance-August-2024.docx

i. What portion of travelers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and would use non-auto modes if they are convenient, comfortable and affordable.

(combined with elements of the omissions and biases in the planning process idea as appropriate. from symposium 1:

Research that combines the following two ideas:
Better understanding of non-auto travel demands. What portion of travelers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and would use non-auto modes if they are convenient, comfortable and affordable. This will require more detailed and targeted travel surveys, and case studies which measure the travel changes that result from non-auto improvements and incentives.
Omissions and biases in the planning process. A number of studies indicate that current planning tends to overinvest in automobile facilities and underinvest in non-auto improvements, TDM programs and Smart Growth development policies compared with what is fair and efficient. Some of these reflect the previous-describe omissions and others result from funding biases that make it much easier for public agencies to invest in highways and mandate off-street parking than to improve other modes. We need research that identifies these biases and provides a roadmap for more efficient and equitable transportation planning.)

The objective of this research is to understand how programs of projects contribute to achieving transportation equity and determine how to adjust current programming processes to achieve more equitable outcomes.

The following research tasks will support the main objective:

• Task 1: Define program equity. Review literature and conduct targeted outreach to state DOTs to identify current definitions of equity and performance measures related to equity.
• Task 2: Evaluate current system performance against equity outcome-based programming principles. Determined potential equity-based outcome measures. Use a case study to evaluate existing system performance measures compared to an equity outcome-based measure.
• Task 3: Identify programming processes that advance transportation equity. Develop a list of potential improvements and propose specific additional tools, analytical methods and other information that would be needed to meet the needs of state DOT more fully.

The current draft of the problem statement is available as a word document here: https://www.tam-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/08/Equity-in-Programming-NCHRPProblemStatement-FY26-8222024.docx

i. Research objective is to understand how owners and travelers can use AI and massive data sets during events and understand the appropriate use of the datasets (reliability, risks) *TO REFINE

i. The research objective is to develop a guide to identifying and managing EV, CAV risks to roadway safety infrastructure.

• When to determine if it is maintenance or engineering activity
• Lifecycle considerations
• BC/ROI considerations for maintenance vs engineering treatments
• Possible synthesis?

The objective of this research is to develop a comprehensive Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Blue Book that standardizes best practices, performance metrics, and methodologies for transportation agencies across the United States. This guide will provide actionable insights to help agencies effectively implement TPM frameworks, improve decision-making, optimize resource allocation, and align with federal requirements. By addressing challenges such as data management, funding constraints, and equity considerations, the TPM Blue Book aims to support the development of more efficient, safe, and sustainable transportation systems.

i. define organizational efficiency
ii. offer varying frameworks depending how an organization/agency works (5-6 differing
iii. agency scenarios
iv. get specific metrics for organizational/agency efficiency
v. offer a toolbox that different agencies can use
vi. develop guidelines on how efficiency measures/KPIs can be used/applied

• Knowledge capture of retirees and other employees
• Best practices, case studies, tools (downloadable), experts
• Practical assistance that can quickly be understood and applied (simple)
• Identifying core business functions (knowledge interviews of outgoing employees, e.g.)
• Beyond procedural documentation

i. Recommendation of strategies to address changes in workforce.
ii. Strategies on identifying issues in workforce expectations.
iii. Framework to assess organizational culture/values – Bridging gap between agency culture and new workforce hires.
iv. Comparison of public vs. private organization approaches.

from symposium 1:

How to ensure the work gets done
Understand changing demographics
Training, transition plans
Tools - best practices (broadly)
Turnover and ability to aim employees, including leadership bench strength (transitioning into leadership positions)
Scan of practice
Broadly, look at other sectors
Mindset shifts - "farm team" approach - mentoring, training, non-traditional recruitment

c. Research Objectives:
i. Learning how organizations can optimize the use of technologies.
ii. Leveraging technological advances to organizational needs.

i. Genesis/imperative for this topic: There's a lot of turn-over occurring. Losing one key player can take down an agency's TAM strategy. How to build the bench?
ii. look at agencies where AM is integrated in the business processes as examples. Policies, documents, etc. org structure
iii. how to plan for management to come?

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.

The desired outcome and expected final product of the research is to develop a technical memorandum that summarizes findings from the scan, maps the relationships and interdependence among the organizations developing and leading use of performance measures related to technology, synthesizes and recommends performance measures that align with integration of emerging transportation technologies, and identifies and recommends future research focused on use of performance measures to support continued integration of emerging technologies.

In February 2024, TAM Webinar 67 presented the findings from a research effort to understand "How Pavement and Bridge Conditions Affect Transportation System Performance." (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop22077/fhwahop22077.pdf) Among the paper's findings were that (1) "A TAMP program manager is likely to focus on IRI values, rutting, cracking, and faulting because those relate to the measures and targets the TAMP must address. However, research indicates that in many cases, it is friction and not those metrics that drive pavement-related crash reduction," and (2) "[D]ata from Continuous Pavement Friction Measurement (CPFM), combined with crash data and road characteristics, provide significant insight regarding whether friction improvements may reduce crashes." The authors call on stakeholders to use "today's unparalleled access to data" to deliver a risk-based TAMP development process that can optimize and "simultaneously enhance asset conditions and system performance." CPFM is still an emerging method of measuring and monitoring pavement friction within the United States despite being the dominant method of managing pavements for safety outside of the United States. Accordingly, there are benefits to providing the US TAMP community with guidance, tools, and best practices on how to effectively link pavement management and safety using CPFM. Specifically, TAMP staff considering whether to pursue the findings highlighted TAM Webinar 67 may benefit from strategies to set pavement friction measurement targets and determine appropriate pavement friction performance measures, guidance on various treatments’ dual impacts on pavement condition and safety, as well as tools and strategies to coordinate effective pavement friction management implementation in partnership with an agency’s safety and pavement management programs.

I think we should look again at how DOTs support and coordinate with local agencies in developing asset management capabilities. For example, MI has their AM Council, and in Iowa the state provides pavement data for ALL paved roads to local agencies to support pavement management. Would like to learn what other states/locals are doing and how we can encourage broader TAM efforts.

This research seeks to disentangle attempts to date and clarify what it means to have an effective, outcome-based, high-level performance management approach to resilience. Toward this end there are three essential parts:
1. Confirming definitions. For example, is resilience an inverse of vulnerability? Or an inverse of just sensitivity and adaptive capacity (e.g., per the Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool [VAST])? If resilience is infinite, is exposure irrelevant? Consistent with the VAAF, is there consensus on the definitions for risk, criticality, consequence, and other essential terms?
2. Community mobility, or mobility and destination access across a jurisdiction of any size, for all users and modes. This is distinct from infrastructure-focused resilience for a specific asset, e.g., a bridge. For a community subject to natural or human-caused disasters, how can they know whether they are more or less resilient? Is there a role for the broader 4R concept of Robustness – Redundancy – Resourcefulness – Rapidity?
3. Effective performance measures. Pin down for the resilience community what that means. Agency leaders need the most relevant, feasible, and quantifiable evidence of improved resilience that is outcome-based and trackable over time. These are not the abundance of output or activity metrics already in play, nor project-specific evaluations.
In addition to developed guidance, this project will pilot the implementation of a high-quality resilience performance measure into existing performance management frameworks for up to five agencies. Not only states, but MPOs, e.g. Los Angeles and San Diego have promising initiatives already developed.

Brief Description
Maybe an implementation project for Report 985 (Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices)
Champion
Chris Whipple (UDOT)
Team
Spencer Wagner (DCDOT)

- Organizational strategies for improvement
- Innovation challenges
- Thinking outside the LSS, Lean methodologies
- Office of competition at the federal level - mechanism exists at the - - - federal level
- Crowdsourcing improvement efforts

Potential benefit if you can align political and departmental alignment
Always need to balance top-down and bottom-up, operationalization of it
**Involvement of those doing the work is critical to long-term success - what are the contributing factors to make large-scale efforts successful?
https://sites.google.com/state.co.us/process-improvement/tools-resources/cascades-how-to-create-a-movement-that-drives-transformational-change
How do you build a movement in transportation
Customer-, Environment- centric momentum for organizational change - What are the key components needed to make process?
Related organizational changes needed to make it happen?
Dave - Brene Brown - “Clarity is Kindness” in all that we do, find tools that help break down barriers.
Ties in with KM, OM, Risk, etc.

Incorporating uncertainty into forecasting, target-setting, and monitoring - low /high matrix - inflation, funding,
performance, modeling uncertainty envelope (synthesis/peer exchange in lieu of research project?) (Risk as a
band of uncertainty v. a number) - Charles Pilson
There was a recent research idea on how to visualize/communicate uncertainty. Maybe a TAM conference
idea?

The RMS also has "ERM - Improving Risk Visualization and Communication Internally and Externally"
in the candidate pool. Not sure if that's related to the idea of communicating uncertainty? - Matt Haubrich

(please add clarifying details and topic title suggestions)
Many states and local jurisdictions have deployed some level of automated technologies , such as low speed shuttles, and or have partnered with private agencies or research institutions to do so
Little performance or other information is available in a consolidated and organized fashion about the results of these pilots, test cases and or deployments
Policy makers have become guarded about investing in pilots and similar deployments, especially given the recent disillusionment with technology potentials such as AVs, CVs and CAVs and want to understand what benefits and results have been achieved.
Challenges may include the availability of data, data agreements (which often preclude external data sharing) and or lack of sufficient data in cases of short term pilots.
What kind of data is available, can be analyzed and summarized into a consolidated report to understand 1. what pilot shave been conducted (over past x/3 years? ) and 2. What is the performance of these pilots and or deployments in terms of safety and system efficiency and operation? (Similar interest exists in understanding equity impacts but those would be even harder to quantify and are not included , unless data is available).
Potential partnership with Eastern Corridor Coalition