Research to improve DOTs capability and capacity for data-driven decision making.

Research to advance the discipline of data-driven decision making within State DOTs

This research would produce an updated guidebook of current and emerging performance
measures used and for use by State DOTs.
NCHRP 20-24(37)G – Technical Guidance for
Deploying National Level Performance Measurements was completed in 2011. This project
would update this valuable guidance.

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

Highlight effective practices in each discipline (PM, RM, PI) and develop a guide to link the programs (including best practices).

Develop guidance for crafting an effective risk management communication strategy with materials (i.e.., metrics, dashboards, regular reports) with a clear explanation of uncertainty, risk tolerance, and associated risk mitigation strategies. 

Develop tools and strategies to measure the effectiveness of risk management processes in order to determine what works well. 

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

Both federal and recipient agencies have the goal of maximizing the public benefits from investment of the limited transportation funding. Additionally, there is a cost and/or risk to every activity or inaction related to program delivery. Whenever an available dollar is moved from physical or operational improvements on the system to program administration, the public loses the benefit of that dollar. Similarly, every dollar that is lost from the system because of fraud or diverted away from the program goals due to whatever form of mismanagement, the public loses the intended benefit of that dollar. Therefore, the goal of all agencies should be to minimize the negative risks and costs associated with administering the funding programs, even if that means the occasional dollar is lost to fraud or mismanagement when the cost to prevent that loss is greater than the cost of the loss itself. It seems especially important to avoid duplicative administrative costs generated from the various governmental levels. The essential issue is determining the end-user public return on investment (ROI) from adding program requirements for both the federal agency and the recipient agency.

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).

In many cases, states and other local government agencies have performance measures developed through the extensive public outreach involved in the various strategic planning efforts. For example, freight mobility in an urban area often means travel-time vs. in a rural area it means the system’s ability to carry the desired loads (i.e., height, width, and load restrictions not meeting expectations). In either case, the end results are wasted time and fuel and more GHG emissions.

By definition, these local measures are important to the end users of the transportation system, because of how they were developed through public input. Therefore, local policymakers often want or require these measures to be used in the decision processes and to tell the local story. From a local agency viewpoint, it would be ideal if these measures could also be used to tell the national story. This would avoid potentially conflicting stories between local and national measures and would avoid the duplicate work of collecting, monitoring, and analyzing similar measures related to the same basic goal.

Develop a means of consolidating the many related local measures into a national measure that describes and monitors the national transportation system’s ability to meet the traveling public’s needs.

Transportation agencies make resource allocation decisions for multiple service areas, and the impacts of these decisions are often captured with performance measures. Condition measures for physical asset classes pavements, bridges, etc.; performance measures for system operations (snow and ice control, traffic operations, emergency response) and quality of life measures (safety, accessibility, equity) are used by agencies to evaluate these resource allocations. State agencies generally have flexibility to adjust the level of investment of these categories, yet evaluation of the tradeoffs or optimization of these decisions are often limited to similar measures (e.g. asset measures bridge condition vs pavement condition). There is potential benefit in expanding the scope of these analyses to include performance measures and investment classes of less similar nature. What are the practices and tools used for cross asset resource allocation used by state agencies that include services and quality of life investments?

• Investigate, compile, and categorize examples of organizations’ efforts of using performance measures and data supported practices and tools for cross resource allocation and goal-oriented decisions.
• Develop methodology to capture qualitative descriptions of performance.
• Develop a framework to address resource allocation between capital and maintenance decisions (e.g. traffic operations, snow & ice vs physical assets).

Transportation agencies traditionally had a very steady workforce. The combination of changes in young people’s work patterns and the economic changes that drive workforce availability requires that agencies need to act more proactively on how to deliver transportation programs. Research is needed to understand the behavioral patterns and mechanisms to both mitigate variability in workforce availability and what can be done proactively to benefit the agency.

With the increased funding states are receiving based on the IIJA and BFP. NMDOT has identified the fact that we may run into contractor availability to meet the needs of the upcoming projects.

• 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

Several states have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. Over 30 of these offices participate in the Transportation Lean Forum (TLF), an informal group that operates in association with the AASHTO Subcommittee on Organization Management. In addition to formal offices, some states make less formal “grass roots” efforts to improve their processes. A synthesis would conduct a side-by-side study of the states’ efforts, including efforts in states that are not participating in the TLF, find what is working and what is not, assist states to identify improvements that they might implement, and set a baseline of the current “state of the art” that could inform future research on the outcomes of these efforts.

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) 

We want to achieve societal goals/quality of life and create public value. How do we measure this? Can the current emerging measures be utilized (e.g. accessibility, equity, resilience)? How about internal agency goals and measures? Measuring internal agency and non-traditional transportation areas would help show the achievement we want. This could/would include internal workforce and diversity measures but also non-traditional things out in the world, on/for the transportation system. How can we measure the public value created that is more expanded than just transportation benefits?

The public, society at large, is demanding that we consider impacts and performance in a range of dimensions that state DOTs have not traditionally focused on. This is likely to require non-traditional performance measures to capture the impacts of the system we deliver on those performance dimensions.

• Measuring the public value of transportation initiatives (I.e., education reduces crime). Utah is working on measuring the quality of life. 
• Identify new measures to address arising areas of importance such as accessibility, resilience, and equity.
• Includes developing new measures and using measures that exist but transportation has less experience with.
• Seek to represent non-traditional goals in the decision-making process
• Connect with the broader societal goals that the public really wants to achieve.
• Additional new measurement areas include: resiliency, maintenance, usage, supply chain, and climate change.

Performance measurement and performance-based management have a long history in state DOTs as a discipline to track progress toward goals and optimize resource decisions. However, transportation agency goals are evolving from a pure operational focus to a focus on broad societal goals and creating value for the public. The value created by transportation investments spans not only transportation but also education, human services, land use, environment, and economy. A broader view of value and methods are needed to account for not only quantifiable value but also qualitative value. Another challenge is time horizons - how to value and manage investments today to deliver benefits in the much longer term. This research would develop and test measures of wider societal benefits deriving from the delivery of transportation investments.

How to define pavement management sections. What gets included? What happens to the assets that we don’t decide to treat as part of a project?

All states are taking on resiliency in their asset management plans this year, and there are additional resilience-focused programs available from FHWA.

• Explore current state of practice to establish a baseline.

Miscellaneous assets are secondary highway assets (not roadway or bridge), such as small culverts, highway lighting, retaining walls, etc. Formerly these assets were dealt with while doing major pavement/bridge projects. As those projects have become more “focused”, we need systematic approaches to managing those miscellaneous assets in their own program/projects. What is the right life cycle approach for these kinds of assets? There is a cost to collect, inspect, and manage inventories of these assets. For some assets, it may not make sense to track at all, and just replace as the asset reaches the end of its life.

Determine how to best manage miscellaneous assets, and to what level.

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.
• As the accuracy of techniques such as mobile LiDAR improves, the ability of traditional asset management data begins to converge with the accuracy needed for engineering purposes such as design and construction. If asset data at the network level becomes sufficiently accurate redundant data collection can be eliminated. The research should consider any refinements that would need to occur in network level asset management data collection to make the data useful for compliance (i.e. ADA), safety (i.e. bridge clearances) or engineering purposes.

Reimagine the DOT Organizational and Decision Making Paradigm from - one that is driven by planning, design and construction – to one driven by the need to maintain and operate an established system based on principles of asset management and transportation system operations

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.

Financial risks can threaten the strategic objectives of transportation agencies - e.g., the safe and reliable and efficient movement of people and goods. For example, the Highway Trust Fund is tied to taxes on gas and diesel. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic greatly reduced American consumption, thus dramatically reducing revenues. State DOTs have seen their budgets slashed by 30% or more, forcing delays in some projects. Furthermore, external mandates can impose both risks and opportunites. A well-funded mandate could mean state DOTs have additional funding for enhancing resilience, while an unfunded mandate could force a DOT to choose between maintenance and projects. The objective of this project is to help transportation leaders with decision-making tools for allocating limited resources when subjected to unpredicatable financial conditions.

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

FHWA Directive 5520 encourages state DOTs to develop risk-based, cost effective strategies to minimize the impacts of climate change. Environmental stressors, such as extreme heat and extreme cold, and changes in the frequency and magnitude of extreme events, is changing the lifecycle of transportation assets; i.e, reducing service life, shortening replacement cycles, and increasing maintenance costs. Maintenance personnel offer valuable insight as to the costs associated with achieving performance goals. At the same time, maintenance personnel will require guidance as to how to incorporate risk models into maintenance, inspection, replacement, and repair cycles so that scheduled and routine maintenance continue to mitigate the risk from asset deterioration.

The purpose of the proposed research project is to develop a framework and guidance to help state DOTs on how to integrate and manage risk into maintenance practice. The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:
• Task 1 – Conduct an in-depth literature review of all studies related to risk assessment and its incorporation in maintenance practices not only in the transportation sectors but also in other sectors (e.g., water sector, etc.)
• Task 2 – Conduct a gap assessment of the state of practice to determine what is still needed to incorporate risk assessment in maintenance practices
• Task 3 – Develop methodologies to incorporate existing risk assessment methodologies into maintenance practices.
• Task 4 – Develop methodologies for determining how to adjust maintenance cycles and changes in maintenance costs under non-stationary conditions.
• Task 5 – Develop guidance to help state DOTs to implement risk assessments into maintenance practice.

Ranked 3 in 2021

Started from War Games topics, planning to submit to the Domestic Scan Program
• Focused on how do we integrate accepted best practice learnings and revisit our organizational mission across sectors to create a more safe, equitable society?
• Currently researching organizational missions, emerging performance areas, and equity plans within organizations before next meeting

Areas we may want to include:
- Organizational components that have been successful (for example)
- Organizational factors
- Risk management approaches
- Innovative strategies
- Stakeholder partnership (more than engagement)
- Successful support systems
- Strategic frameworks - organizational missions
- Performance management systems
- Equity plans, etc.
- Types of leadership exhibited in high-performing agencies

Also consider barriers to addressing societal needs, how leading agencies have overcome these challenges (for example):
- Rapid pace of change
- Complex, sometimes conflicting social pressures
- Funding
- Politics
- Other?

Process
- I.D. promising practices
- Assess likelihood of reproducing these results
- Investigate issues, assess tech transfer opportunities and methods
- Document results

 Emerging technologies, such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, and continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data (among others), hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management. As this technology has been evolving and improving, federal regulation, specifically, MAP-21 and the FAST Act, has pushed many agencies to collect and utilize a detailed inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. With the collection of high-volume asset inventory and condition data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, the accessibility and affordability of data collection has become a clear issue for agencies, particularly as they aim to manage and visualize collected data for both strategic and operational transportation asset management planning purposes. Therefore, research and guidance on the benefits and applications of these emerging technologies as well as how frequently that inventory and condition data need to be collected or assessed is necessary.
The focus of this research would be on the following:
• Address the adoption and practical application of these emerging collection technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
• Provide guidance on the level of detail and frequency interval necessary for data collection to support TAM at both the state and local levels.
• Determine how condition assessment can be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets.
• Further investigate and recommend tools capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting data to stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.
• The research should consider any refinements that would need to occur in network level asset management data collection to make the data useful for compliance (i.e. ADA), safety (i.e. bridge clearances) or engineering (design or construction) purposes.

Working backward from the key decisions that need to be made across stakeholder groups over an asset’s lifecycle, this project seeks to identify current practices and recommend ongoing improvements in relation to collecting, storing, sharing, and maintaining asset inventory and condition data (“data management”). With a focus on implementation, the project will build on existing research by identifying the pros and cons of different data management methods and technologies, so that decision makers across departments can collaborate more effectively when planning and investing in data management approaches. The practice of data management is evolving at a rapid pace, given the proliferation of new technologies that are being used increasingly alongside traditional approaches. In parallel, agencies are recognizing the multi-stakeholder nature of asset management, as departments such as compliance, safety, engineering, operations and environmental begin to see the benefits of access to reliable, accurate asset information. This project will answer key data management questions such as: What data should be collected to address all stakeholder needs? How, when, and how often? Using which technologies and platforms? At what cost? And why?
It will also provide guidance to agencies on the most appropriate approaches to collecting, storing, sharing and maintaining asset data, based on the needs of the various stakeholders involved in data-based decision-making.

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.

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.

This is a typical function of an AMS, in which different asset classes, such as different types of roads (interstate, state, local, or possibly differentiated by traffic volumes), bridges, etc are allocated different treatments and possibly different budgets per asset class. This synthesis could be both a panel study (cross-section of states) and a time series study (how the policies developed over time), and could also involve systems which use life cycle costing and those which do not.

Among the many difficulties raised by COVID-19, the pandemic does have the potential of affecting asset management practices in diverse ways. On the one hand, reduced traffic might reduce road maintenance costs; on the other hand, ordering more goods might increase truck traffic and thus increase deterioration. Even if deterioration were the same, the road agency would always have the option of utilizing a less expensive treatment alternative and thus reduce the capital needs and maintenance budget.

● 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.

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:
o analysis activities to forecast impact
o scenario planning including identifying alternate investment options with an equity lens
o investment tradeoff decision-making
o 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.

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.

A State DOT Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) documents the investment strategies and expected outcomes from various asset classes, starting with the bridges and pavement of the National Highway System. The State DOT TAMP does not replace any existing state transportation plan (e.g., LRTP, freight plan, operations plan, etc.) but does provide critical inputs to existing plans, linking capital and maintenance expenditures related to asset preservation.
At the same time that state DOTs were developing their TAMPs, states also implemented a performance-based planning and programming approach, which applies performance management principles to transportation system policy and investment decisions. Performance-based long range transportation plans, statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs), metropolitan planning organization (MPO) TIPs, and other performance-based plans like state freight plans must define key goals and objectives and establish measures to analyze short-, medium, and long-term implementation progress.
This Synthesis should review the advancement of State DOTs and MPOs to implement performance-based planning and programming with the help of implementation plans like the TAMP and documented processes for planning, investing, and evaluating performance outcomes.

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

Research is needed on the importance of data governance from the conception of a project’s data dictionary, through the inventory and condition assessment and continuing with the data management and integration into transportation asset management systems. A question worth pursuing is whether all aspects of language, wording, numbering, and measurement units should be standardized or if template guides could be developed for each agency to standardize their unique asset type requirements, but in a nationally recognized format for easy translation.

After establishing governance routines for asset data collection and management, the next phase of research would involve the security aspects of an agency’s data as well as the quality assurance measures applicable to grow confidence in the data’s quality. A full review of best practices for data security procedures could break the barrier of IT to asset manager. Additionally, once definitions and governance procedures are established, the quality assurance process becomes more stream-lined and gives better confidence to the decision makers.

● 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)

Due to external stakeholder requirements and expectations (e.g., MAP 21 and FAST Acts) as well as internal DOT uses, DOTs typically collect pavement condition data (i.e., roughness, cracking and rutting or faulting depending on the pavement surfaces) on an annual cycle. However, disruptions of typical agency activities related to COVID-19 have resulted in data collection challenges, focusing attention on potential impacts of missing a data collection cycle. DOT may also face unforeseen workforce, contracting, data collection or processing challenges or other issues which could result in missed pavement data collection. In these cases, DOTs would benefit from understanding the range of potential impacts as well as potential mitigation strategies available to address these issues. Furthermore, in times of reduced budget, DOTs may desire to reduce the frequency of data collection, however they should be informed of the potential impacts of that decision.

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.

TAM and TPM provide the foundation for performance-based investment decisions in transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Despite the fact that many transportation agencies have embraced the implementation of robust TAM and TPM programs to support their stewardship responsibilities, these topics are not typically incorporated into traditional education programs. In many cases, practitioners working in these areas acquire the skills needed while working on the job or take advantage of training materials available through various sources with limited support. Challenges with attaining skills, building competencies in an organization are compounded by knowledge succession needs with an aging workforce, tighter budgets, and uncertain in-person opportunities during an on-going pandemic, as well as evolving career expectations from skilled candidates in a globally competitive digital economy. A more accessible, efficient and attractive landscape of offerings, programs and career paths are needed to tackle the spectrum of training needs and challenges for effective TAM and TPM.
This study will explore cross-functional, multidisciplinary competencies, training needs in the TAM and TPM areas so that funding can be sought to streamline usage of existing opportunities, better integrate TAM and TPM principles within available programs, identify new skills needs driven by emerging risks or advancing technology, develop new training programs and partnerships needed. This also includes gaining an understanding of flexible, inclusive career paths to support innovation and productivity while improving return on training investment in a time of economic recovery. The study will inform AASHTO and TRB committees of existing gaps in training and recommend a strategy for addressing the gaps through a separate research study.
It is anticipated that this scoping study would be part of a three-phase research project:
• Phase I: Scoping Study for Developing an Education, Training and Workforce Development Program for TPM and TAM (this project)
• Phase II: Prototype and Testing of TPM/TAM Education, Training and Workforce Tools and Resources
• Phase III: Formal Development and Ongoing Support of TPM/TAM Education, Training and Workforce Tools and Resources

Task Description

Task 1: Define TPM and TAM Training and Education Needs
• Conduct a contextual and comprehensive analysis of the training needs for practitioners in TPM and TAM.
• Assess the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed by practitioners to perform their jobs well.
• Consider delivery methods in addressing needs.

Task 2: Conduct a Gap Analysis
• Summarize available training programs/materials in the US and abroad (notably Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand) and through other resources.
• Identify gaps between desired outcomes and current outcomes from available training and education.

Task 3: Develop Recommendations
• Summarize the findings from task 1 and 2.
• Recommend strategies for addressing the gaps.
• Present findings and recommendation in a final report.
• Prepare a Research Problem Statement(s) to develop the recommendations.
• Meet with the project panel to discuss recommendations.
• Incorporate changes into a final version of the report.

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

Determining the value of a transportation organization’s physical assets is important for both financial reporting and transportation asset management (TAM). In financial reporting, determining asset value is a fundamental step in preparing a balance sheet for financial statements to inform regulators and investors. For TAM, presenting data on the value of physical assets, such as pavement, bridges, and facilities, communicates what an organization owns and what it must maintain. Furthermore, information about asset value and how it is changing can help establish how the organization is maintaining its asset inventory and helps support investment decisions.

Calculating asset value for TAM is not simply good practice; it is also required of state Departments of Transportation (DOT) by Federal regulations. Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 515 details requirements for State DOTs to develop a risk-based Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). The TAMP must include a calculation of the value of National Highway System (NHS) pavement and bridges, as well as the cost to maintain asset value.

Recently NCHRP Project 23-06 was performed to develop guidance for calculating asset value to support TAM applications. This research resulted in the development of the Asset Valuation Guide. This document is intended as a companion publication to the Transportation Asset Management Guide published by AASHTO. The Guide is accompanied by a web tool with an online version of the guidance. The guidance was developed to provide immediate support to highway and transit agencies developing their 2022 TAMPs, and to provide continuing support for other TAM-related applications.

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.

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.

Research Tracks:
Threat Identification and Modeling
Asset Vulnerability from Identified Relevant Threats
Asset Characteristic
Establishing Risk and Resilience Performance Metrics and Levels of Performance
Intersection between Risk/Resilience Assessment and Performance Management
Intersection between Risk/Resilience Assessment and Asset Management
Education and Outreach

This program will establish a series of individual research projects 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. 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 decision-making. The product of this research program will be a collection of tools and techniques that transportation agencies can for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis similar to what has been produced for the Highway Capacity Manual and the Highway Safety Manual.

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

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.
An initial assessment of these data sets has been conducted. In 2020, FHWA sent out letters to each state DOT indicating whether they had made significant progress towards their target achievement for the five safety performance measures. And, in 2021, FHWA sent out subsequent letters about making significant progress with respect to the asset measures and system performance measures. AASHTO obtained copies of these data and conducted its own preliminary analysis of the data to better understand:
1. How far off were the targets from the actual numbers?
2. What is the impact of those states that did not make significant progress?
3. How many states' targets showed improvement?
4. What kind of targets did states establish?
5. What is the correlation between target setting technique and making significant progress?
6. Are there other techniques that could be used to determine making significant progress?
The results of this preliminary analysis was insightful and revealed a lot of good information. For example, a number of visuals were developed to show the how impactful missing a target by less than 0.05% can have on a state DOT not making significant progress. It also demonstrated the complexity associated with understanding what it meant for a state DOT to meet or exceed a target. However, this preliminary analysis, conducted by AASHTO staff and consultant support through the TPM Pooled Fund project, was very limited due to the resources available.
In fall 2021, the Committee on Performance-Based Management leadership group agreed that a more robust and extensive analysis is warranted that includes not only an analysis and assessment of the data, but recommendations on future capacity building activities to support state DOTs in the future as well as an assessment of future performance measures that may be better at telling the national TPM story.

Approach

This research will conducted in four parts.
Part 1 will focus on the detailed analysis of each of the 17 performance measures for the three federal performance measurement areas (safety, asset condition, and system performance). The analysis will primarily include the four years of performance measurement data reported by state DOTs as part of the federal performance management requirements for the first reporting period which goes January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021. This data is consistent among all of the states and for all of the performance measures resulting in important consistency among the performance measures.
For each of the performance measurement areas, the following will be conducted:
• Data Analysis—Analysis of the performance measures data to better understand how states are performing. All of the data should be made available through the
• Target Setting Approach—Analysis of what type and how state DOTs established targets.
• Target Achievement—Assessment of the extent to which state DOTs achieved their targets.
All of this data and analysis, where applicable, should be made available through the AASHTO TPM Portal Benchmarking website at https://benchmarking.tpm-portal.com/.
Part 2 will focus on developing a comprehensive performance management story which provides an authoritative assessment and narrative of how state DOTs are performing. The performance management story should be based upon the following three categories:
• Funding Sources—A detailed analysis and assessment of the funding sources that state DOTs use to fund transportation projects in their states. This should include an assessment at the individual state as well as at the national level.
• Project Selection Process—A summary of the approaches, frameworks, and techniques state DOTs use to identify projects to fund using their funding sources.
• Condition, Outputs, and Outcomes—Using the results of the Data Analysis from Part 1, provide a summary of the condition of critical assets, the type of outputs state DOTs are seeing through their project selection process, and the long-term outcomes of the project selection process.
The State DOT TPM Story should be made available through the AASHTO TPM Portal website at www.tpm-portal.com. The State DOT TPM Story should include a print version and interactive web-based version that can be reasonably updated as new data is made available.
Part 3 will focus on future capacity building activities and performance measures that could be used to better tell the national TPM story. First, based upon the results and insights gained from Part 1 and 2, needed capacity building activities will be identified and delivered as resources allow. These activities could include training programs offered through the AASHTO TC3 program, new/updated NHI training, or peer exchanges. The focus should be on how best to build the capacity of transportation agencies to deliver a performance-based management program gained from the insights and experiences of the first performance management reporting period.
Second, the final report will provide some conclusions on future performance measures, approaches, and technologies that could be used by transportation agencies to implement and deliver a performance-based management program. These recommendations should be based upon the insights and experience from the first performance management reporting period. It should reflect the idea that the performance management field is constantly changing and evolving, just as society and technology does, and that what and how we measure performance is dynamic.

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.

Funding: $550,000 (estimated)
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

TOTAL: $550,000

Evaluate and assess the existing national-level performance measure requirements for asset management at the state level to determine applicability and usability of PM measures in asset management decision making. As appropriate, provide recommendations and refinement of the performance measures for better use an application.

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.

The goal of this research is two-fold: to provide guidance on how transportation agencies can best use existing management systems and tools to integrate network and project-level analysis and provide a framework for an improve asset modeling approach that better integrates the project and network levels incorporating multiple asset types and consideration of multiple objectives. The research is intended to be of immediate value in helping transportation agencies better comply with Federal requirements to set performance targets and develop asset management plans. Also, it will help agencies to extend asset management approaches to additional systems and assets, besides the NHS pavement and bridge assets addressed through the Federal regulations. In addition, the research will help define improved approaches for asset management models for public agencies, researchers and system developers to use in developing the next generation of asset management systems.

Accomplishing these objectives will require:

• Conducting a literature review of existing asset modeling approaches implemented for use in transportation agencies, including network and project-level approaches.
• Performing a targeted set of interviews of selected transportation agencies to supplement the literature review.
• Establishing the current state of the practice in TAM, particularly with respect to how network and project-level analyses are integrated, how results for different asset classes are combined, and how consideration of multiple objectives is incorporated.
• Assessing the gaps in existing TAM modeling approaches and how they are implemented by state DOTs and other transportation agencies.
• Developing guidance for performing network and project-level asset investment analyses. The guidance should detail recommended approaches for addressing the gaps identified in the gap analysis, and should help agencies better meet Federal requirements.
• Recommending a framework for the next generation of asset management investment models that better integrates project and network-level analyses, integrates multiple asset classes, and includes consideration of multiple objectives.
• Preparing a case study illustrating application of the framework using actual data from a participating agency to the extent feasible.
• Organizing and facilitating a one-day workshop to review the initial products of the research and incorporate perspectives of the broader transportation community in the research.
• Writing a research report documenting the guidance, framework, and other products of the research.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

The proposed research will help transportation agencies better respond to recently-adopted Federal requirements related to asset management. Over time the research will help transportation agencies develop more accurate performance targets and TAM plans, as well as help agencies better incorporate best practices in TAM in their business processes. Also, the research will help define transportation agency’s needs for improved future asset management systems and models, lowering the cost and shortening the development time required for the industry to develop the next generation of asset management systems.

Implementation Planning

The target audience for the research findings and products of this work will be State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and other transportation agencies, as well as researchers and engineering staff involved in transportation. The key decision-makers who can approve, influence, or champion implementation of these research products are the senior staff and CEOs of the transportation agencies. The AASHTO committees that will be involved in the adoption and implementation of the results will be the AASHTO Committee on Planning and its subcommittees on Asset Management.

Literature Search Summary

The proposed research is intended to build upon previous research related to developing asset management analytical approaches, including:

• NCHRP Report 545, Analytical Tools for Asset Management;
• NCHRP Report 590, Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems;
• NCHRP Report 666, Target Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies;
• NCHRP Report 806, Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance;
• NCHRP Synthesis 494, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Management of Highway Assets; and
• NCHRP Project 08-103 to update and extend the cross-asset resource allocation guidance detailed in NCHRP Report 806.

This research should:
• Identify pertinent data sources, data types, as well as relevant collection and analysis methods employed by transit agencies.
• Provide a synthesis of examples or State of the Practice applications for MPOs/DOTs.
• Outline communication strategies to the relevant decision-makers.

The proposed research must consist of:
• An extensive literature search or survey of the current body of work.
• A survey of agencies’ practices and the cultural effects of those practices on both agency members and the general public.
• A series of webinars and/or workshops aimed at facilitating increasing knowledge regarding risk analysis practices in transportation
• A final report as well as an executive summary summarizing the findings of the various practices at different agencies, as well as the content of the webinars and/or workshops.

The objectives of this research are to examine methods for evaluation of system assets. Thorough research should:
• Identify international practices and determine how they can be applied in the US
• Better marry engineering and accounting in financial planning
• Demonstrate benefits through a case study (may be fictional)

The proposed research will have the following deliverables:
• A literature review, and well as a review of current practices.
• A tool to assess the functionality of the current practices of American agencies, as well as compare those practices to their overseas counterparts.

The focus of this research is to support a scan tour or peer exchange addressing organizational alignment for TAM. This falls into three distinct but equally necessary categories: a review of previous knowledge, a inter-agency gathering to assess differing organizational models and policies to TAM, and finally a report or summary of the findings.

As outlined above, the first component of the research is a literature and practice review, which should include:
• A Catalogue of Candidate Practices
• Template Organizational Charts that support comparison of alternative models

The inter-agency scan workshop must focus on bringing together agencies that can speak to distinct organizational models. The first step is to identify candidate agencies to participate in scan. Next, draft amplifying questions to guide discussion toward identification of what led to successful practices. Finally,
conduct the workshop and document results

The final summary report must document the findings of the workshop, such as successful practices in aligning organizations to support transportation asset management and linking operational activities to organizational structures.

Research is needed addressing the question: “What are the organizational/cultural factors that were in place before and/or during implementation that created a successful TAM program?” Develop a guidebook to convey lessons learned. Key point: must use an organizational development or similar consulting firm. Not the usual suspects!

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 accessible executive summary

This research will focus on understanding TAM’s relationship to other transportation goals such as economic development, safety, environmental sustainability, mobility, and livability. Two products are sought through this research: 1) Framework for understanding the relationships between TAM and broad transportation goals. 2) Guidance on how to ensure TAM connectivity to broad transportation goals throughout the transportation decision-making cycle.

As part of this research, the contractor will research domestic and international frameworks for TAM’s relationships with broad transportation goals. These frameworks should be described in sufficient detail with visuals aids to communicate these relationships. The contractor will work in cooperation with the project panel in identifying the best framework for communicating the relationship between TAM and broad transportation goals. Based on this interaction with and feedback from the panel, the contractor will then develop guidance on how these relationships can more explicitly be used during the planning, programming, project delivery, and maintenance/operations process to maximize TAM benefits. Other issues that should be considered include the following: (1) What are the performance measures for understanding the relationships; and (2) are there quantitative ways to demonstrate how these relationships can be influenced?

This research will focus on understanding successful organizational models for TAM program so that guidance can be provided on how to improve organizational capacities. Two products are sought through this research: 1) Understanding of current organizational models for TAM programs 2) Catalog of possible organizational models for TAM programs that transportation agencies could consider for improving TAM capabilities.

As part of this research, the contractor will research domestic and international models for TAM program organizations and develop a set of models that represent the various approaches. These models should be described in sufficient detail with diagrams for DOTs to use to improve TAM program organizations. The contractor will work in cooperation with the project panel in identifying the best organizational models for TAM programs that an agency should consider when seeking improvements for their TAM programs. Based on this interaction with and feedback from the panel, the contractor will define at a minimum four distinct organizational models for TAM programs. These models need to be described in sufficient detail with diagrams and key role descriptions. Other issues that should be considered include the following: (1) How to balance accountability versus collaboration; and (2) how would you measure the effectiveness of one model versus another?

The objective for this research is to examine the costs and value associated with maintaining assets, and then to develop a usable model for forecasting the cost and value. Such a model must include, but not be limited to:
• A framework for quantitatively assessing the value of an asset that has been properly maintained.
• A tool for calculating the long-term costs of maintaining an asset, in line with industry standards for safety and reliability.
In addition to developing the model, the research should also establish guidance targeted at helping practitioners conduct forecasting analyses and communicate the results.

The proposed research will:
• Conduct a literature review, and well as a review of current practices.
• Develop a forecasting model for the costs and value of maintaining assets, as described in the objectives.
• Perform a series of pilots illustrating the effectiveness and usefulness of the model.
• Prepare a final report incorporating the guidance document and detailing the research performed as part of the project

The proposed research will:
• Evaluate various technologies for tagging and tracking assets and capturing asset history. Each proposed tracking technology should be evaluated for various factors, such as cost, ease of use, efficacy, and time required to implement.
• Create a standard for transportation asset tagging and tracking that can be used intermodally and across agencies.
• Develop a business case to demonstrate the lifecycle savings that can be achieved by transportation entities. This case study may be fictional if a suitable real-world example cannot be identified due to the new nature of the technologies.

The research plan should:
• Evaluate current technologies for the various criteria that denote a usable solution for assent inventory and tracking
• Propose fit-for-use of technology type by asset class. A single technology may not be suitable for all classes of assets, so categorizing
• Establish policies and protocols for capturing asset data
• Develop lifecycle costing models for use of asset tracking/ tagging technologies

The proposed research will:

• Identify and classify data items required to inform the maintenance and rehabilitation of different asset types.
• Determine the degree of relevance/criticality of select data items towards treatment decisions.
• Identify the level of detail required for asset management decisions at both the project and network level.
• Construct sensitivity analyses between data elements and infrastructure performance to explore the relationships that exist between them. This would also justify which data items are worth investing more resources into in order to mitigate uncertainties in developing long-term infrastructure preservation plans.

The research plan should:

1. Conduct a literature review of relevant studies and practice within the scope of the research problem.
2. Conduct a survey of current practices by planning agencies and state departments of transportation (DOTs) on current data availabilities and their use for decision-making
3. Perform an in-depth case studies involving the management and application of critical data items to support infrastructure management decisions, particularly around key assets such as pavements.
4. Develop a consolidated list of data elements and the level of detail required to support treatment decisions.
5. Propose a method to identify the data that are critical to predict the infrastructure performance. The method should include but not limited to the plan of data collection, data mining, data analysis, model development and validation process.
   

   References:

   • Flintsch, G. W., & Bryant, J. W. (2006). Asset management data collection for supporting decision processes. US Department of Transport, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

The proposed research will first develop a methodology that will allow dynamic changes to treatment plans. Then, the research must test the methodology, as well as identify and quantify cost savings benefits of using the methodology or tool.

The research plan should:
• Contain a literature review- focused on treatment timing, methodology, and successful dynamic processes
• Select the promising methods to test using the proposed methodology
• Quantify benefits and cost benefits of the different methods

Identify linkage between ISO standards and MAP-21 TAMP requirements. Identify gaps or inconsistencies and propose solutions. The proposed solutions may include guidelines for agencies, research needs, modification to the standards, or agency specific standards that address agency specific needs.

The project will include at least the following tasks:
• Literature search of directly relevant standards
• Identification of gaps and issues between ISO standards and MAP-21 requirements
• Propose solutions, develop guidance, recommend modifications to standards
• Identify and report on several case studies

The focus of this research can be divided into three main categories. Firstly, prior information must be collected and organized. This is accomplished through:
• Case studies and examples of best practice
• Creating a synthesis of state’s best practices
The next step is to build tools that allow for better asset management marketing, such as:
• Communication, sales, and/or a media science application to help craft a way to tell the story
• Creating a marketing plan that can be used to educate and train
• Training to Speak a language that all can understand
• Communicating the secondary benefits of TAM
Finally, follow-ups of the methods must be conducted to measure efficacy. This could include examining:
• How effective are the marketing and communication? Is the message being received?
• How has public perception changed?

A developed and complete research plan must focus on the three main categories of research. There must be a review of international and domestic best practice. This should include relevant existing guides and past work, such as NCHRP 742: Communicating the Value of Preservation. Focus groups and piloting of stakeholders should be formed to do media/communicate/develop sales techniques to frame topics to best to change minds
After these focus groups, a tool kit should be developed that addresses a multi-level audience. Finally, follow-ups should assess the effectiveness of the marketing plans or communication skills, and monitor techniques for continuous improvement.

The objectives of this research are to quantify the expected abilities of autonomous vehicles, to establish an expected timeline of integration within the greater transportation networks, and to examine what infrastructure changes are most beneficial for autonomous vehicles.
The capacities of autonomous vehicles are not yet quantified. The research should:
• Determine what types of roads are suitable for such vehicles.
• Examine safety for both drivers/passengers, and other users of the roadways, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
• Explore limitations, such as fog or extreme conditions.
• Establish a timeline for adoption. Since the technology is expected to change rapidly, current capabilities will change.
The infrastructure requirements for autonomous vehicles are greatly dependent on the capabilities of the vehicles. Nevertheless, certain changes can be expected to improve the safety and usefulness of the vehicles, such as:
• Repainting roadways to help the vehicles operate.
• Installing RFID that could communicate with the vehicles directly.
• Determining what challenges would face a mixed-stream road of autonomous vehicles and vehicles under driver operation.

Research into this area requires surveying all the major players involved in the development and implementation of autonomous vehicles.
• Survey of industry on current and future plans and timeline to implementation, as well as quantifying the current and future capacities of their vehicles.
• Survey DOTs to determine capabilities and gaps in the existing infrastructure.
• Survey of industry on what changes to the road networks would have the greatest impact of ease of implementation and safety of autonomous vehicles.
After the surveys are completed, a conference with the players would validate the findings of the surveys, and generate a report as well as an executive summary.

The primary focus of this research is, at a most basic level, to help agencies strengthen their work force. This should be accomplished by researching areas where:
• Agencies lack a comprehensive list of necessary skills for a given position
• Agencies lack a comprehensive list of which positions are most critical to keep fully staffed. In an era of shrinking budgets, effectively prioritizing hiring decisions is crucial.
• There is a gap in knowledge regarding existing certifications.

The research plan for this project must include, but need not be limited to:
• A complete review of existing certifications.
• Completing competencies
• Developing position descriptions for use when advertising vacant positions
All of this data should be compiled in a detailed report, as well as a succinct executive summary that is accessible to all decision-makers.

The research should focus of two primary areas of focus. The researchers must develop a guidebook for data integration across jurisdictional lines, as well as review the existing standards for civil data. This could include projects such as Civil Integrated Management (CIM) and the researchers must document the positive and negative ramifications of the various standards.

The research plan must consist of:
• A thorough and comprehensive review of existing standards. Due to the nature of integrating data across various platforms, all the types of data management must be well accounted for to ensure proper integration.
• Developing a guidebook. This should be the primary tool that an end user would utilize to determine how to best integrate their data across jurisdictions.
• Planning a pilot program. Ideally, a pilot program would be implemented and then analyzed for success, but at a minimum, a comprehensive plan for an initial test of the data integration framework must be completed.

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.

• Identify tools (online forum, listserve, or others) to facilitate the community of practice.
• Create practitioner consortium database
• Webinars to build awareness
• Facilitation/moderation to foster the community of practice
• Report on lessons learned and successful practices identified through the community of practice
• Examine the consistency of the underlying data that goes into bridge/pavement data collection

This project proposes the establishment of a community of practice for asset management data collection rather than the creation of a traditional research report.
• The mission of the community of practice will be to articulate strategic, operational and tactical business needs relevant to emerging technologies for asset data collection and to recommend improvements to business processes, data, and information systems to meet the highest priority needs.
• The community of practice will seek to connect the experts and build the network to move the state of practice forward more effectively and efficiently
• The project will seek to foster the community of practice so that it is sustainable beyond the conclusion of this research

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 quality of data is extremely important – “garbage in, garbage out” - and quality of data in terms of accuracy and precision is already getting much needed attention. However, while many agencies are actively improving collection of accurate and more data, collection the right quality data for accurate and precise prediction requires an additional level of scrutiny.

Collection of more accurate and precise data will undoubtably increase the accuracy of predictions, accurate predictive modeling also relies on understanding the underlying variables that affect the predictions. For example, variables that might affect the structural deterioration (for instance in the next time period) of an infrastructure element such as a pavement management section, might include:
- Structure information such as layer thicknesses and materials
- Environmental conditions such as temperature means and variation, rainfall etc.
- Load information such as traffic and truck traffic
- Current condition such as current cracking, rutting and roughness information
- Current condition such as layer properties and structural strength
- Information on previous maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction actions

Similar attributes would be considered significant variables for deterioration prediction in bridges, and this would also apply to many other non-bridge, non-pavement types of infrastructure assets.

Statistical analysis of this type of data for predictive analysis purposes is not new and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) techniques have been used in this area for decades. However, with the advent of automated data collection techniques and with the quantity of available data growing at a considerable rate (so called ‘Big Data’), various types of AI such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and deep learning techniques, are beginning to supersede some of these traditional statistical techniques. The ‘training’ portions of these techniques will require accurate and repeatable data as well as information on significant variables.

In addition, one the most valuable aspects of AI is the ability these types of techniques to continuously learn and improve. In this respect, it is again very important for agencies to understand how this learning could be accomplished, not just initially but continuously over time, using processes that involve continuous updates (e.g. through crowd sourcing). Agencies would therefore benefit considerably by having guidance available to help them set up their data capture and governance techniques to best benefit from AI modeling, training and continuous learning in the future.

Ideally, an agency would collect data that has the necessary attributes to facilitate an AI analysis and have processes in place that would allow continuous learning such that predictive modeling for the agency would continue to be trained and improved as the AI continued to learn. The current reality is such that condition data that is being collected may not be easily utilized in an AI analysis. The consequence is that the complicated decision-making process that highway agency executives depend upon may not be producing the level of accuracy in condition and funding projections that is required to make funding decisions in their investment strategies.

The Real Option method allows infrastructure owners to evaluate the advantage of options that an infrastructure manager has over time. As time passes, a manager will have the ability to intervene as as an object may deteriorate at a faster rate than expected. Likewise, a manager may postpone a planned intervention if the condition is better than expected. In addition to the option to defer, a manager may have the option to expand or contract the infrastructure or the infrastructure network, as well as to shut it down temporarily, abandon it, grow it or switch it (de Neufville and Scholtes, 2011).

The options provide an owner with the flexibility adapting the infrastructure to uncertain future needs. Owners, thus, neither under-, nor overinvest and consequently minimize the risks of their decisions. The external factors affecting risk include weather events, condition development, system demands, funding and other critical variables. The methodology proposes a way to systematically analyse and define these uncertainties and make predictions taking the defined uncertainty fully into consideration.

Real option valuation is known using binomial lattices (a form of decision trees) and/or Brownian motion random walk algorithms. Infrastructure life-time net benefits can also be calculated by simulating the uncertainty using continuous Monte Carlo simulations. Using different stakeholders’ costs of different design alternatives and management strategies, the costs can be calculated over a large sample of potential futures. The methodology is able to address multiple levels of risk and weight them as necessary and thus make multi-objective, cross-asset investment decisions under uncertainty to best support the national goals identified in 23 USC 150(b).

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 application and evaluation of a large sample of data and data simulations is computationally challenging. Furthermore, decision-making tools are urged to be simple and understandable. As big data may improve predictability and performance of models, strong emphasis must be laid on the usability of such models. In this project, it is suggested that particular focus will be on addressing these challenges with the outlook of combining big data and the model’s user interface design.

References:
Buldyrev, S. V., R. Parshani, G. Paul, H. E. Stanley and S. Havlin (2010) Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks, Nature, 464, 1025-1028.
de Neufville, R. and S. Scholtes (2011) Flexibility in Engineering Design, Engineering Systems, MIT Press, ISBN 978-0262297332.
Savage, S. (2012) The Flaw of Averages: Why we underestimate Risk in the face of Uncertainty, Wiley, ISBN 978-1118073759.
Prof. Dr. Rade Hajdin, July 2019

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.

Synthesize best practices for workforce development and training in order to enhance the capabilities of a TAM team/staff or attract internal staff to become involved in TAM program/implementation.

Document and provide examples of condition assessments for all types of assets.

Create case studies addressing noteworthy applications of big data analytics to TAM.

This is a note test.

Research effective corridor planning strategies that promote sustainable capital asset improvements that impact asset class performance and other performance areas.

Develop a framework, recommended actions, and synthesis of noteworthy practices for agencies to use in incorporating change management strategies in TAM practice.

• Asset conditions are typically determined currently in separate silos - leading to asset treatments that are applied on varied schedules by asset (pavement, bridges, culverts) even over the same corridor.
• Significant resources may be misallocated on treatments applied at the wrong time due to lack of coordinated corridor planning.
• Corridor planning can organize the asset treatments — while also looking at environmental issues, congestion, and safety
• There may be other issues such as operation needs in a corridor as well.
o “Project delivery” can be achieved more efficiently because projects are organized into a corridor delivery strategy. Projects can be peeled off as funding is available
o Public can be engaged all at once instead of multiple times for multiple projects.
o Minimize contractor costs

Develop guidance on an asset management corridor planning process to prioritize and schedule project delivery for cost effectiveness while also considering mobility/accessibility issues, drainage, and more.

• Conduct a review and evaluation of existing agency corridor planning processes with respect to transportation asset management
• Synthesize noteworthy practices in asset management corridor planning
o Identify potential case studies targeting specific corridor planning scenarios
o Develop a framework for corridor plans that can be applied for better asset management and resource allocation
• Conduct targeted stakeholder outreach (interviews or similar) to validate and further develop noteworthy practices and framework (consider whether research statement addresses inclusion of international practice)
• Develop asset management corridor planning guide outline and complete how-to guide
o Identify steps for agency necessary to address, for example: potential project areas; asset inventory/proposed treatment schedule; traffic volume/transit analysis; land use inventory and future land use; drainage issues; financial resources, schedule and coordination).
o Identify candidate case studies
• Drawing upon review and outreach efforts, develop 3-6 case studies for inclusion in the guide
• Plan and deliver three regional workshops to present guide and framework and advance corridor planning at DOTs/MPOs

• Asset management corridor planning how-to guide including case studies
• Workshops to introduce guide and advance corridor planning

Agencies have made progress in implementing TAM within their agencies. The impact of TAM will be much greater if stakeholders are engaged as a part of the decision-making and TAM approaches were collaborative for given geographic areas.

Develop communication tools and methodologies for engaging stakeholders in TAM program activities such as strategies development, performance management implementation, and budget development.

• Collect existing documentation of best practices related to TAM stakeholder engagement and communication
• Consider conducting a synthesis of practices used by agencies to communicate successfully the importance and value of TAM
• Package communication and other engagement resources from existing examples in a way that makes it possible for other agencies to use it for their stakeholder communication and engagement needs
• Assess the stages of maturity in communication and engagement and determine what actions and resources are most relevant to advance practice given current practices
• Develop guidance on when stakeholder engagement is important and what processes and products are most useful at each engagement opportunity
• Develop new resources that support the guidance

• Communication portfolio that allows asset owners/managers to draw on best practices from others during TAM program activities to engage stakeholders
• Stakeholder communication and engagement guidance

• Recent NCHRP research products have documented data governance techniques and provided tools for agencies to assess their current data governance practices and identify strategies for improvement.
• NCHRP 08-115 (publication pending) included data governance as one of several foundational activities for improving use of data and information for transportation asset management. An NCHRP 20-44 proposal is in process to conduct pilot implementations of the guidance and assessment tool developed through that project, and produce supplemental guidance materials based on the pilots.
• Many DOTs are implementing data governance – through establishing governance bodies, defining data stewardship roles and putting standard processes in place. The AASHTO Data Management and Analytics Committee has established a Chief Data Officer (CDO) peer group to enable ongoing sharing of data governance practices.
• This project would build on the established base of prior and ongoing work on data governance. It would focus specifically on providing specific examples or models that can be applied to help advance asset management practice through data governance.

Provide support to implement the data governance practices and processes recommended through NCHRP 08-115, Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management.

• Conduct outreach to identify implemented examples of transferable TAM-related data governance practices. These might include:
o role/responsibility descriptions for asset data stewards and asset management system owners,
o charters for TAM advisory bodies or governance groups,
o asset data-related policies or guidance documents,
o flowcharts or process descriptions for initiating new asset data collection efforts,
o work products related to establishment of data glossaries, catalogs or standards,
o asset data quality management plans or process descriptions, and
o asset data MOUs or agreements.
• Conduct a series of follow-up interviews to document the processes by which each of the identified examples were developed, and to seek permission for sharing the examples.
• Make the documented examples accessible (via the AASHTO TAM Portal and/or the AASHTO Data Management and Analytics Committee website)
• Conduct a webinar highlighting selected examples – featuring the DOT staff who were involved in their implementation.
• Recommend an ongoing mechanism for periodically refreshing the body of examples collected through this effort.

• Library of documented examples
• Webinar slides and recording
• Recommended approach for ongoing updates to the body of examples

• It’s difficult to communicate the value of an asset management approach to the public.
• In many cases agency leaders and stakeholders, including the public, may not see discernable benefits from TAM, reducing support for a preservation-focused investment strategy and/or improved systems and data required to support a TAM approach.
• Research has been performed in the past regarding how to calculate the return on investment (ROI) of TAM systems and how to communicate the value of preservation. Also, private sector entities use a separate set of approaches for evaluating the benefits of providing transportation as a concession.
• Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits of TAM generally, and incorporate consideration of other factors such as sustainability, equity, resilience, etc.

Develop a framework and guidance for calculating and communicating the overall benefit of improved asset management approaches to transportation agencies, transportation system users, and society of improved asset management approaches. The framework should address monetized benefits, as well as issues such as equity, sustainability, and resilience. Illustrate use of the framework and examples through a set of pilot studies of U.S. agencies.

• Literature and practice review
• Develop TAM benefit framework
• Prepare guidance for implementing the framework
• Perform a set of pilots to test and refine the guidance, as well as to help illustrate the benefits of TAM
• Provide updated examples of effective communication of TAM benefits
• Prepare a guidebook detailing the framework, guidance, pilots and communication examples.

• Guidebook for calculating and communicating the benefits of a TAM approach
• Spreadsheet or web-based tool transportation agencies can use to perform their own calculations following the guidance.

Managing risk is a critical component of asset management. On a day-to-day basis transportation asset managers spend much of their time responding to or mitigating a large number of risks, which may range from external events that damage transportation infrastructure to unplanned changes to budget or workloads resulting from unexpected events. Various recent and on-going research efforts aim to improve approaches for risk management for transportation agencies. However, most of these efforts treat risk management as a high-level activity. Further research is needed to develop quantitative, repeatable approaches at the appropriate staff level, to assessing and identifying the highest priority risks transportation agencies face in managing physical assets. This project aims to develop such approaches to assess risks (e.g., financial, strategic, operational, political, environmental, technological, social justice risks) and incorporate them into life cycle analysis and planning efforts.

The objectives of this research are to:
• Generate risk identification techniques to determine high risk threats at project and network levels,
• Develop quantitative, repeatable approaches for assessing likelihood and consequences for these threats,
• Develop visual, interactive characterization methods (e.g., dashboards) to reflect an agency’s level of risk and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions,
• Allow risk and resilience to be on par with traditional performance measures.

High risk threats to be studied include, but are not limited to, extreme events (e.g., earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes), asset failure (structural and operational), financial, strategic, political, environmental (e.g., sea level rise, flooding), technological, and social justice risks.

The final deliverables could include guidebook with a spreadsheet or a framework for assessing high risk threats and incorporating the results into TAM efforts. The guidebook should feature a comprehensive review of existing literature and current practice. It should present a standard definition of resilience as well as step-by-step instructions to develop models, methods, and metrics for estimating resilience of highway systems to high risk threats. Pilot studies should be conducted with select agencies to test the guidance and calculation procedures.

The target audience for the research results is asset management and risk-management champions at state and local government transportation agencies. The results of this project will potentially empower these individuals in convincing other decision makers in these agencies to take actions that not only align with traditional performance management objectives but also that result in lower risk and higher resilience for the whole transportation system. The results of this project can also be effective in communicating the rationale behind risk-based decisions to the general public. Due to legal implications of identifying and documenting risks, the research and final product should include advice on how to protect the agency from litigation if they cannot implement a recommended action.

Risk assessment is at the core of implementing a risk-based asset management approach. Therefore, FHWA and AASHTO view this as a subject of great importance. In addition, risk management cuts across all areas of a state DOT’s business and just about any AASHTO Committee and any state DOT and local agency could realize benefits from these research results.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) transportation bill established federal regulations that require each State Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), and implement Performance Management. These regulations require all DOTs to utilize nationally defined performance measures for pavements on the National Highway System (NHS). These nationally defined performance measures (referred as PM2 hereafter) are aimed at providing nationally consistent metrics for DOTs to measure condition, establish targets, assess progress toward targets, and report on condition and performance. Furthermore, Federal measures provide the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding investments.
State DOTs are expected to use the information and data generated from these Federal measures to inform their transportation planning and programming decisions. However, State DOTs are finding discrepancies between pavement conditions from PM2 measures as compared to their internal, state-developed measures. This discrepancy hampers the adoption of the PM2 pavement measures as the primary input into condition summary reporting and pavement investment prioritization and decision-making. In other words, State DOTs do not have confidence in the Federal measures, primarily because these measures cannot be used to inform decision-making processes such as investment decisions. Furthermore, the resulting differences between state metric-determined and federal metric-determined network conditions creates confusion among the public, senior executive staff, and legislative bodies, along with non-DOT owners of NHS assets.
As mentioned before, FHWA needs to collect consistent Federal measures across all State DOTs to assess the impact of Federal funding investment at the national level. However, State DOTs have been collecting pavement performance data for decades and used this data to inform their pavement management systems and processes to address specific needs. Typically, the data collection processes cover state-owned pavements and not only NHS pavements, which brings another layer of inconsistency. For this reason, there is a need for more flexible metrics that can be aligned to performance measures currently used by State DOTs and support decision-making processes such as investment decisions.

The objective of this research is to:
1. Evaluate current federal pavement condition measures (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking), performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to:
a. Consistency – across various pavement types, network designations, and lane configurations
b. Usefulness – in network-level pavement condition summary and asset management decision-making, prioritization, and forecasts; and
c. Alignment – with state established pavement condition metrics

2. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect pavement failure mechanisms and 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. Evaluate pavement leading indicators as an alternative to the current version of the PM2.

3. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking) 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.) 4. Evaluate structural capacity indicators for potential consideration as a Federal measure.

Proposed research activities include:
1. Conduct outreach interviews to State DOTs and evaluate DOT publications (e.g TAMPs) to:
a. Capture current uses for federal and state-specific pavement condition metrics and their relative strengths and weakness with respect to identified network-level uses
b. Quantify the extent of the State DOTs’ differences with current federal pavement metrics
c. Capture alternative procedures states are using to determine and communicate pavement condition and/or failure as well as network-level decision-making
d. Source State DOT condition data sets, including corresponding state and federal ratings and network-level pavement maintenance recommendations

2. Conduct a comparative analysis between state and federal measures and determine the ability to utilize federal measures to replicate network-level decisions.

3. Evaluate alternative methods of federal measure with best practices of state measures to develop a list of alternative methods that could be used for pavement management measures and meet both State and Federal needs.

4. Provide summary and comparison of current vs. alternative methods with respect to evaluation criteria at national and individual state levels

5. Provide guidance on how to enhance the utility of current federal measures and/or condition thresholds and recommend revisions in a format useful to adoption into the HPMS Field Manual

Desired products include:
• Evaluation of federal measure with respect to consistency, usefulness, and alignment
• Guidance on how to increase the utility of current metrics and/or thresholds
• Recommendations for revised pavement condition metrics and/or thresholds
• Recommendations for updated HPMS Field Manual

This topic is of significant interest to AASHTO, TRB, and the DOTs, having ranked third amongst potential NCHRP topics in the recent TAM Research Prioritization conducted as part of the 2020 Mega Meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management, in cooperation with the TRB Asset Management Committee (AJE30).
The following are organizations and contacts who may be interested in using the results of the research and supporting its dissemination:
• AASHTO Committee on Performance-based Management: Tim Henkel, Chair (Minnesota DOT, (651) 366-4829, [email protected]), Matt Hardy (AASHTO, (202) 624-3625, [email protected])
• AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management: Matt Haubrich, Chair (Iowa DOT, (515) 233-7902, matthe[email protected])
• FHWA Office of Asset Management: Steve Gaj (FHWA, (202) 366-1336, [email protected]) Tim Henkel, TAM Expert Task Group Chair (see contact above)
• TRB Asset Management Committee (ABC40): Tim Henkel, Chair (see contact above)

• State departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) across the United States are required to establish performance targets as part of their asset management efforts. The target- setting requirements for transportation performance management (PM2) of pavement and bridge condition generally require agencies to consider three factors; the measured condition of the assets, expected deterioration over time and project level accomplishments. The measured condition of the asset is the ultimate measure of progress and an effective way for agencies to demonstrate that they are making progress as required by federal regulations.
• Research assessing the consistency of National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition metrics has found variability between individual inspectors when inspecting “control bridges” for study. In other words, there is the potential for any given bridge inspector to assess the current condition of same bridge differently. This variability means that the conditions of bridge could improve in the absence of a project just by having a different inspector interpret the field condition differently. A similar potential exists for pavement condition assessments. This demonstrates the potential inconsistencies due to human interaction, but the same could be true of technologies if applied or calibrated differently across agencies.
• Pavement and bridge conditions rely on assessment methods that are subject to variability from one assessment to the next and from one assessor or one technology utilization to the next. This variability may occur in the absence of projects or significant field deterioration. This research project would attempt to evaluate the impact of condition assessment variability on agency wide target setting required for asset management.

The outcome from this effort will benefit quality assurance (QA) methods for data collection and inspection efforts, quantify the variability and sensitivity in target setting for DOTs, and help budget planning for asset inconsistencies.

• Review and summarize existing published research related to the
• consistency of field-assessed pavement and bridges whether based on human interaction or applied automation, and include a review of training programs associated with human and automated assessments. Additionally, review research on the impact of assessed condition variability on target setting.
• Review NBI and Highway Pavement Monitoring System (HPMS) submittals over multiple years to identify examples of spontaneous improvement or rapidly changing conditions from one assessment to the next and assess the sensitivity of condition assessment variability on target setting in transportation asset management.
• Develop a methodology and guidance manual to define the uncertainty associated with variability in condition assessment when setting asset management targets and provide means to rectify inconsistencies in the assessments when they appear.

• According to FHWA’s transportation performance management (TPM), the purpose of transportation asset management is to provide the most efficient investment of funds. This decision-making is being based on data that is subject to variability. Understanding and quantifying (if possible) the impact of data variability will allow federal, state, and local agencies to recognize the importance of data quality and how it might impact their ability to deliver projects and strive for the national transportation goals. The outcomes and benefits are:
o Showcase the importance of quality and consistent data collection methodology
o Tie the data to decision making and funding
o Evaluate the impact of condition assessment variability on agency wide target setting
o Highlight progress on 490.319(c) Data Quality Management Program
o Provide states and federal a baseline expectation for changes in annual variability in measures, failure to reach targets, and/or best practices to avoid data quality issues.

• Since the performance measures are consistently tied to specific data inputs, each state could use this research to understand the potential volatility in target setting and performance measures. The summary of best practices and pitfalls will also allow transportation agencies and vendors to improve inspection protocol. Testing of the data should be a part of the research, with a few select agencies comparing potentially the same data in a single year across multiple sources or reviewing the historic trends of individual data pints to highlight inconsistencies and the impact of those inconsistencies to overall measures and targets.
• This research would best be shared in an open forum or webinar so all agencies and consultants tasked with data management can obtain the information. The AASHTO Performance Management Committee should be interested in supporting this research to ensure that the performance measures produced by transportation agencies are of the highest quality.