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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As transportation agencies are faced with aging and deteriorating infrastructure in a context of limited resources, it becomes imperative that assets are managed efficiently and effectively. To this end, Federal Regulations Title 23 CFR Part 515 require state transportation agencies to develop Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMP), including a risk management plan. The risk management plan must include identification, assessment, evaluation, and prioritization of risks, as well as a mitigation plan for addressing and monitoring top priority risks. State transportation agencies are seeking to improve the assessment of risks to transportation assets as part of optimized investment decision-making.

Transportation agencies must contend with a wide variety of risks as they manage transportation assets. Owners must respond to impacts of events both within and outside their control. These risks can include funding uncertainty, regulatory changes, leadership and policy changes, increasing costs, severe weather events, evolving technology, and others. Underestimating risk can lead to costly repairs and reconstruction, while overestimating risk can lead to wasted resources. Asset owners require better techniques for assessing and managing risk.

Approaches to managing risk range from qualitative assessments of likelihood and consequence at the enterprise level to quantitative, probabilistic approaches at the network and program levels such as scenario analysis, simulation, and other approaches to predictive modeling. Successful organizations, across both the public and private sectors, effectively and efficiently quantify the effects of risk and uncertainty related to threats and opportunities.

The objectives of this research project are to
• Develop enhanced techniques to consider and evaluate asset management-related risks as part of investment decision-making practices, including qualitative, quantitative, and analytical methods—building on and aligning with previous and continuing research efforts in the areas of TAM and risk management;
• Review effective processes to determine how existing and potential approaches can be used when integrating enterprise, network, and program level risk analysis. Alternative approaches should address how state departments of transportation (DOTs) make multi-objective, cross-asset investment decisions under uncertainty to best support national, state, and local asset performance goals for pavements, bridges, and other assets;
• Develop strategies and procedures for risk mitigation and response with applicable tools and tracking mechanisms for transportation agencies to improve risk assessment in existing and evolving asset management business processes; and
• Develop implementation guidance, including practical tools and techniques for incorporating risk and uncertainty, as well as possible measures of asset resilience that can be integrated into risk assessment procedures in support of national, state, and local asset performance goals.

The research plan should be presented as a two-phase effort. Phase I will synthesize materials on existing practice and perform a critical assessment of existing tools, approaches, performance measures, and procedures that can be used to build new or improved risk assessment tools and techniques in support of transportation asset management. Phase II will produce supporting implementation guidance and tools.

The research should build on existing asset management guidance detailed in previous NCHRP reports, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Transportation Asset Management (TAM) Guide, and other state-of-the-practice guidance for assessing and managing risks, including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). AASHTO material is available on the AASHTO TAM portal, and FHWA guidance is accessed through its web pages focused on asset management and resilience. The research also will help improve the state of practice in risk-based transportation asset management and help ensure that the full range of relevant factors is incorporated into transportation agency resource allocation procedures.

In meeting the objectives of this study, the research plan should consider, but not be limited to, the following.

Phase I

1. Incorporate results from a review of available literature, ongoing research, legislative requirements, and state-of-the-practice for risk assessment into a set of possible approaches for managing transportation assets more effectively, including identifying gaps in current procedures.

2. Identify and assess potential approaches and techniques for enterprise, network, and program level risk assessment to develop procedures and strategies for improving existing asset management decision in support of project objectives. Potential approaches should address how state DOTs make multi-objective, cross-asset investment decisions under uncertainty in support of national, state, and local asset performance goals for pavements, bridges, and other assets.

3. Identify potential constraints and barriers to implementation and steps to address them.

Phase I will conclude with preparation of an interim report detailing the results of Phase I research and presenting an updated detailed scope of work for Phase II. Phase I should account for no more than 40% of the overall effort. NCHRP will meet with the research team at the end of Phase I to review. NCHRP approval of the interim report is required before proceeding with Phase II.

Phase II

4. Based on the conclusions of Phase I, develop improved strategies and tools for risk-based asset management and prepare draft implementation guidance.

5. Conduct a set of test scenarios with three or more state DOTs using the draft implementation guidance and associated tools. Summarize lessons learned and present recommended changes and improvement to the guidance and tools as appropriate.

6. Prepare draft and final reports and supporting materials detailing the results of the research.

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

Final deliverables will include at a minimum: (1) implementation guidance and supporting analytical tools (e.g., visualizations, metrics, strategies); (2) a final report that documents the entire research effort; (3) an executive summary as a stand-alone document that outlines the research findings and recommendations; and (4) a presentation (e.g., a Microsoft® PowerPoint, video, etc.) aimed at state DOT staff and senior management that simply and concisely explains why the guidance and supporting materials are helpful and how they will be used. Any tools or models developed as part of the research program will be open source using readily available software. Final deliverables will also include a stand-alone technical memorandum entitled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The objectives of this research for NCHRP 02-25 are the following:
1. To produce a roadmap of effective human capital strategies for state DOTs, identifying critical areas necessary in the future to attract, retain, and develop a sustainable, qualified transportation design, construction, and maintenance workforce;
2. To identify trends, policies, and processes critical for developing and maintaining an adaptive organizational framework that will attract, retain, and develop a qualified workforce beyond 2030; and
3. To prepare an evidence-based guide that transportation industry organizations may use when developing and establishing an effective human capital program for a qualified workforce into 2030 and beyond.
The scope will be limited to the transportation workforce in design, construction, and maintenance.

Highway infrastructure inspection is critical in any transportation system because it ensures conformance with plans, specifications, and material requirements over the lifecycle of the asset. Historically, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have employed on-site workforces to execute infrastructure inspection using traditional inspection methods. With the latest technological advancements, the inspection landscape has been rapidly changing through incorporation of technologies such as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), embedded and remote sensors, intelligent machines, mobile devices, and new software applications. These technologies can potentially satisfy the need for cost-effective and efficient inspection and monitoring of highway infrastructure (e.g. roadways, bridges, drainage systems, signage).

The objective of this synthesis is to document the various technologies used by DOTs to inspect highway infrastructure during construction and maintenance of assets.

Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to):
• The technologies used for inspection of new and existing highway infrastructure assets (e.g., geospatial technologies, mobile software applications, nondestructive evaluation, remote sensing and monitoring);
• The different methods used to assess the viability, efficiencies, and return on investment (ROI) of inspection technologies;
• How information from these assessments is being used (e.g., for construction project management, to allocate resources, to determine condition of the asset).

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

Information Sources (Partial):
• Chase, S., Edwards, M. (2011). “Developing a Tele-Robotic Platform for Bridge Inspection.” Virginia Transportation Research Council and Mid-Atlantic University Transportation Centers Program.
• FHWA research on the use of RFID tags to track paving materials (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/14061/index.c fm)
• Heymsfield, E., and Kuss, M. L. (2014). “Implementing Gigapixel Technology to Highway Bridge Inspections.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000561, 04014074.
• Gibb, S. P. (2018). “Non-destructive Evaluation Sensor Data Processing and Fusion for Automated Inspection of Civil Infrastructure.” MS Thesis.
• La, H. M., Gucunski, N., Dana, K., and Kee, S. (2017). “Development of an Autonomous Bridge Deck Inspection Robotic System.” Journal of Field Robotics, 34(8), 1489–1504. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rob.21725, https://doi.org/10.1002/rob. 21725.
• Mulder, G. (2015). “e-Construction,” Iowa Department of Transportation, Presentation on May 27, 2015.
• NCHRP Project 22-33: Multi-State In-Service Performance Evaluations of Roadside Safety Hardware (Research in progress)
• NCHRP Synthesis 545: Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management
• NCHRP Synthesis 548: Development and Use of As-Builts Plans by State DOTS
• NCHRP Synthesis 20-05/Topic 51-01: Practices for Construction-Ready Digital Terrain Models (Current Synthesis)
• Effective Use of Geospatial Tools in Highway Construction (Publication No. FHWA HIF10-089, October, 2019)
• NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 17-01: Successful Approaches for the Use of Unmanned Arial Systems by Surface Transportation Agencies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase II will result in completion of all final documentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to the objective, the research plan should

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

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

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

Phase I

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

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

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

Phase II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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