Growing concerns about equity, affordability, public health, safety, congestion reduction and environmental protection support more multimodal transportation planning and transportation demand management. Many jurisdictions have goals to improve and encourage non-auto travel. One major obstacle is the inadequacy of information on non-auto travel demands, including latent demands.

In any community a significant portion of travelers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and will use non-auto modes for some, most, or all their trips if those modes are convenient, comfortable, and affordable. Table 1 describes these demands and the costs imposed on users and society if those demands are not served. Communities that improve and encourage non-auto travel often experience significant increases in non-auto travel, indicating latent demands (Litman and Pan 2024).

Table 1 - Types of Non-Auto Travel Demands

In a typical community, 20-40% of travelers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and will use non-auto modes if they are convenient, comfortable, and affordable.

• Stephen Brumbaugh (2021), Travel Patterns of American Adults with Disabilities, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov); at https://bit.ly/3exIvnQ.
• Census (2021), “Commuting (Journey to Work),” American Community Survey, US Census (www.census.gov); at www.census.gov/topics/employment/commuting.html.
• Todd Litman (2024), Evaluating Transportation Diversity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf.

In practice, transportation planners and modelers often use incomplete data sets, such as the census commute mode share or regional travel surveys, to estimate non-auto travel demands. These surveys tend to underestimate non-auto travel demands, particularly demand for active modes (walking, bicycling and their variants) by overlooking and undercounting non-commute and off-peak trips, travel by children, recreational trips, local trips (those within a traffic analysis zone), and non-motorized links of journeys that include motorized trips. For example, a bike-transit-walk commute is usually categorized as a transit trip, and the trips between a parked vehicle and a destination are generally ignored even if they involve walking many blocks on public roads. U.S. census data indicate that only about 8% of commute trips are by non-auto modes, but more comprehensive surveys such as the National Household Travel Survey indicate that about 17% of total trips are by active modes, with higher rates in urban areas and by lower-income travelers. Because census data ignore non-commute trips, travel by children, and walking or bicycling links of journeys that include motorized trips, these modes are significantly undercounted.

For transit modes, rail and fixed-guideway modes typically have customized ridership forecasting approaches, but ridership forecasting for fixed-route bus and evolving service concepts (e.g., microtransit) can be challenging, especially for rural and small- to medium-sized agencies. Such forecasting often relies on elasticities, sketch tools, and formulas that are dated (e.g., TCRP Synthesis 66, Fixed Route Transit Forecasting and Service Planning Methods, was published in 2006) or newer tools that have not been sufficiently standardized or evaluated (e.g., projections from automatic vehicle location and automatic passenger count data, or big-data tools such as StreetLight Data and Replica).

Serving latent demands for non-auto travel can provide large benefits to the travelers who use those modes, their families and communities. Transportation agencies need better estimates of demand for such travel to incorporate into long-range and scenario plans, short-range and strategic plans, and project prioritization processes.

Various publications analyze some aspects of non-auto demands, such as travel activity by children and youths, people with disabilities, low-income households, zero-car households, visitors, and people who want more physical activity and fitness. Other studies examine demands for specific modes such as walking, bicycling, bike- and car-sharing, and various types of public transit. Some studies examine latent demands for non-auto travel and the benefits of serving currently unmet demands. However, few studies consider overall non-auto travel demands by all groups, total latent demands, and total benefits of serving them, and few documents provide technical guidance for performing such analysis.

As previously described, current analyses often rely on incomplete data, such as commute mode share, which undercounts non-auto trips, and often overlooks or underestimates latent demands for non-auto travel.

Below are some examples of current literature:

• Evelyn Blumenberg, Anne Brown and Andrew Schouten (2020), “Car-deficit Households: Determinants and Implications for Household Travel in the U.S.” Transportation 47, pp. 1103– 1125 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9956-6).
• Ralph Buehler and Andrea Hamre (2015), “The Multimodal Majority? Driving, Walking, Cycling, and Public Transportation Use Among American Adults,” Transportation 42, 1081–1101 (doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9556-z).
• Caltrans (2020), Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, California Department of Transportation (https://dot.ca.gov); at https://bit.ly/3DDSm5H. Also see SB 743 Implementation Resources (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/sustainability/sb-743/sb743-resources).
• Chad Frederick, William Riggs and John Hans Gilderbloom (2017), “Commute Mode Diversity and Public Health: A Multivariate Analysis of 148 US Cities,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, pp. 1–11 (https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1321705).
• ITE (2023), Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) as a Metric for Sustainability, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at https://ecommerce.ite.org/imis/ItemDetail?iProductCode=IR-154-E.
• ITF (2017), Economic Benefits of Improving Transport Accessibility, The International Transport Forum (www.itf-oecd.org); at https://bit.ly/3QX64aC.
• ITF (2021), Travel Transitions: How Transport Planners and Policy Makers Can Respond to Shifting Mobility Trends, International Transport Forum (www.itf-oecd.org); at https://bit.ly/3BGJewh.
• Lawson, C.T., Muro, A. & Krans, E. Forecasting bus ridership using a “Blended Approach”. Transportation (48), 617–641 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10073-z
• Todd Litman (2013), “The New Transportation Planning Paradigm,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 83, June, pp. 20-28; at www.vtpi.org/paradigm.pdf.
• Todd Litman (2023), Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified, World Conference for Transportation Research (https://wctrs-society.com); at www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf.
• Todd Litman (2024), Evaluating Transportation Diversity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf.
• Todd Litman and Meiyu (Melrose) Pan (2023), TDM Success Stories, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmss.pdf.
• Glen Lyons (2020), The Benefits of a ‘Decide and Provide’ Approach to Transport Planning, Transport for the North (https://transportforthenorth.com); at https://bit.ly/3F8sst3.
• María del Mar Parra López, Jan Anne Annema and Bert van Wee (2022), “The Added Value of Having Multiple Options to Travel: An Explorative Study,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vo. 98 (doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103258).
• WRI (2019), Reducing Demand for Vehicle Trips in Cities – Learning Guide, The City Fix (https://thecityfixlearn.org); at https://bit.ly/3u4qtC1.
• WSL (2008), Adoption of Statewide Goals to Reduce Annual Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled by 2050, Washington State Legislature (https://apps.leg.wa.gov); at https://bit.ly/3rdP6KH.
• Fang Zhao, et al. (2013), Transportation Needs of Disadvantaged Populations: Where, When, and How?, Federal Transit Administration (www.transit.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/3QS7Ut1.

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

There is an urgent need to better understand non-auto travel demands, including the ability to forecast future demands and the impacts of serving those demands. This study can provide large benefits by better aligning the planning and investment decisions of state DOTs and other transportation agencies with the needs and preferences of transportation system users. Many policy makers and planning practitioners recognize that a significant portion of travelers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and will use non-auto modes if they are convenient, comfortable and affordable, and many jurisdictions have mode shift targets, but practitioners lack the data needed to achieve these goals. Current planning practices tend to overlook and undervalue non-auto travel demands, particularly latent demands, resulting in underinvestment. Improving our understanding of non-auto travel demands can make planning and investment decisions more responsive to user and community needs.

The research would be beneficial to state DOT professionals at any level as well as transportation organization partners and stakeholders who all have a vested interest in better understanding the demand for different modes of transportation. Implementation elements include a communications plan to ensure awareness of the research and TRB, FHWA and AASHTO presentations to share the findings. Venues include workshops, peer exchanges, and committee meetings.

There are several other AASHTO and TRB committees interested in transportation’s contribution toward equity that would likely support this project, including:

• AASHTO
• Committee on Performance Based Management (CPBM) – Christos Xenophontos, Chair
• Committee on Planning
• Council on Active Transportation
• TRB
• Performance Management (AJE20) - Michael Grant, Chair
• Equity in Transportation (AME10)
• Transportation Planning Policy and Processes (AEP10)
• Transportation Planning Analysis and Application (AEP15)
• Public Transportation Planning and Development (AP025) – Peter Ohlms, Chair
• Bicycle Transportation (ACH20)
• Pedestrians (ACH10)
• Communication and Implementation Period: 6 months

AASHTO requirement for interim deliverable review:

• Interim deliverable(s): The results of this research are critically important to the DOTs. As such, an interim deliverable is required to be reviewed by the applicable AASHTO Committee(s). The AASHTO Committee on Performance Based Management has developed and sponsored this needs statement on behalf of member DOTs. Interim deliverables could include literature reviews, surveys, interim reports, and full draft reports.
• Stakeholder engagement: As part of the interim deliverable, the project team and research panel should engage DOT stakeholders for feedback during the project. Engagement could include webinars, workshops, presentations, surveys, user testing of draft tools, and interim reports and literature reviews.

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

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) play a critical role in the management, maintenance, and development of each state’s transportation systems. Agencies are responsible for allocating billions of dollars in public funds, ensuring that transportation networks are safe, reliable, and sustainable. However, as transportation demands increase and budgets become more constrained, there is growing pressure on state DOTs to operate with maximum efficiency while maintaining high standards of service delivery.

Organizational efficiency at state DOTs is a key factor in ensuring that dollars are used effectively and that transportation projects are completed on time and within budget. Efficiency in this context refers to an agency’s ability to optimize resources—both human and financial—to deliver transportation services in a manner that reduces waste, streamlines processes, and achieves desired outcomes. Despite its importance, measuring organizational efficiency at state DOTs remains a complex and multifaceted challenge.

Current efforts to assess organizational efficiency in transportation agencies are often limited by inconsistent metrics, varying definitions of efficiency, and a lack of standardized methodologies for evaluation. While many state DOTs track performance indicators related to project delivery, budget adherence, and staff productivity, these measures often fail to provide a comprehensive view of overall organizational efficiency. Traditional efficiency metrics may not fully capture the complexities of modern transportation agencies, which must balance competing priorities such as mobility, safety, infrastructure maintenance, sustainability, innovation, and equity.

This research aims to develop a standardized framework for measuring organizational efficiency at state DOTs. By providing clear guidance and best practices, this research will empower transportation agencies to assess their internal processes, identify areas for improvement, and enhance their operational performance. The proposed framework will also align with broader state and federal goals, ensuring that transportation agencies can demonstrate accountability, improve project outcomes, and better manage resources.

Additionally, the research will examine how emerging technologies, such as data analytics, automation, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and digital project management tools, can improve efficiency measurement and foster a culture of continuous improvement. The guidance will also address how state DOTs can incorporate efficiency measures related to sustainability and equity, which are increasingly important components of transportation planning and service delivery.

This research will provide state DOTs with the tools they need to measure and enhance organizational efficiency, resulting in more effective transportation systems that meet the needs of the public and align with long-term strategic goals.

The measurement of organizational efficiency at State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) is a growing area of interest. There has not been significant research in transportation agency organizational efficiency. The following presents resources that are broadly applicable to any organization and resources that are related to transportation.

• “The Lean Six Sigma Pocket Toolbook: A Quick Reference Guide to 100 Tools for Improving Quality and Speed” by Michael L. George, John Maxey, David Rowlands, and Mark Price (2004)
• A widely-used guide that provides an overview of Lean and Six Sigma methodologies, offering tools that can improve efficiency and reduce waste in government agencies and other organizations.
• “Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation” by James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones (2003)
• This book introduces Lean principles and illustrates how organizations, including public sector entities, can streamline operations and increase efficiency.
• "The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement" by Eliyahu M. Goldratt (2004)
• A seminal work in the field of organizational efficiency, focusing on the theory of constraints and how organizations can identify and overcome bottlenecks in their operations.
• “Managing and Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations: An Integrated Approach” by Theodore H. Poister (2014)
• This book provides detailed strategies for developing performance measurement systems and aligning them with organizational goals in public and nonprofit settings.
• “Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action” by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton (1996)
• Introduces the Balanced Scorecard, a popular framework for measuring organizational performance that goes beyond traditional financial metrics to include customer, internal processes, and learning and growth perspectives.
• “Big Data in Practice: How 45 Successful Companies Used Big Data Analytics to Deliver Extraordinary Results” by Bernard Marr (2016)
• Offers real-world examples of how organizations, including government agencies, can utilize big data to enhance efficiency, streamline operations, and make informed decisions.
• “Public Performance & Management Review (Journal)” by Routledge (Ongoing)
• This journal offers peer-reviewed articles on performance management, accountability, and organizational efficiency in the public sector.
• “The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering” by Janet V. Denhardt and Robert B. Denhardt (2015)
• A book that critiques the "New Public Management" model and promotes a more service-oriented approach to public administration, which also emphasizes efficiency in government services.

• NCHRP Report 708: A Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measurement for Transportation Agencies (2012)
• Outlines various ways to measure efficiency in relation to sustainability goals, providing a foundation for the integration of sustainability metrics into broader organizational efficiency frameworks.
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Performance Management Guidebook (2013)
• Emphasizes the importance of linking organizational efficiency to specific performance metrics, such as project delivery times, cost adherence, and customer satisfaction. However, the guidebook also acknowledges the need for more comprehensive measures that capture internal operational efficiency beyond project outcomes.
• NCHRP Report 706: Uses of Performance Measurement to Support Decision Making for State and Local Transportation Agencies (2012)
• Offers detailed insights into how performance metrics, including financial and operational data, can be used to gauge organizational efficiency. This report highlights best practices from leading state DOTs but also points out inconsistencies in metric application and reporting across agencies.
• Lean Deployment in State Transportation Agencies: A Synthesis of Practices (NCHRP Synthesis 533, 2020)
• Documents the application of lean principles in state DOTs, including case studies from departments such as the Ohio DOT and Arizona DOT, which have implemented lean initiatives to reduce bottlenecks, improve project delivery times, and increase productivity.
• FHWA’s Office of Innovative Program Delivery
• Published several reports on process improvement strategies, such as Value Engineering and Process Mapping, which help DOTs streamline operations and achieve cost savings. These techniques are often associated with greater organizational efficiency, though they are typically applied in specific project areas rather than as part of a broader agency-wide efficiency framework.
• TRB Research Circular E-C227: Advancing Performance Management in Transportation (2017)
• Highlights how state DOTs have faced difficulties in aligning organizational efficiency with broader state and federal goals, particularly in the context of constrained budgets and competing priorities.

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

Urgency:

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are facing unprecedented challenges, including aging infrastructure, budget constraints, increasing public demand for accountability, and the growing need to incorporate sustainability and equity into their operations. With limited resources, it is essential that state DOTs operate with maximum efficiency to ensure public funds are used effectively and that transportation projects are completed on time and within budget. Despite the importance of organizational efficiency, many state DOTs lack a standardized framework for measuring internal performance, leading to inconsistent practices and missed opportunities for improvement. As the complexity of transportation networks increases, compounded by the demands of advanced technology, climate adaptation, and equity, there is an urgent need for a robust and adaptable framework to guide DOTs in optimizing their operations.

Potential Benefits:

The development of a comprehensive framework for measuring organizational efficiency at state DOTs will offer numerous benefits, including:

1. Optimized Resource Allocation: By identifying areas of inefficiency, DOTs can better allocate their human, financial, and technological resources, leading to cost savings and more streamlined operations.
2. Improved Project Delivery: A standardized efficiency measurement system will enable DOTs to improve project management processes, reducing delays and ensuring transportation projects are completed on schedule and within budget.
3. Enhanced Accountability and Transparency: Implementing clear, measurable efficiency metrics will enable DOTs to demonstrate improved performance and accountability to the public, stakeholders, and funding agencies.
4. Alignment with Strategic Goals: The framework will allow DOTs to align their operational efficiency with broader state and federal priorities, such as sustainability, equity, and resilience, ensuring that they meet modern transportation challenges.
5. Technology Integration: By incorporating data analytics and automation into the efficiency framework, state DOTs will be better equipped to leverage emerging technologies for real-time decision-making and performance monitoring.
6. Long-Term Sustainability and Equity: With sustainability and equity becoming core concerns in transportation planning, the framework will include measures to ensure that efficiency gains also promote environmental sustainability and equitable access to transportation services.

By addressing these urgent needs, this research will provide state DOTs with the tools to enhance operational efficiency, ensure effective use of public resources, and adapt to the evolving demands of transportation systems in the 21st century.

Past surveys of state transportation agencies have revealed that the risk register is the most popular tool for prioritizing risks. However, risk registers, and other tools such as heat maps, do not enable an economic analysis of alternative adaptation strategies that might decrease the likelihood or consequence of future risk events. The Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA) has asserted that quantitative models provide greater insights into risk and greater support for decision making, but transportation agencies have been reluctant to adopt quantitative models and probabilistic modeling to assess potential consequences associated with risk events. Common barriers include the perceived complexity of the analysis, the lack of trained personnel, and the lack of reliable data.

To help eliminate these barriers, guidance is needed to demonstrate the use of mixed-method research model and quantitative modeling techniques and data in planning investments leading to a more resilient transportation system. Several models that potentially apply including qualitative models, relative assessment/index models, quantitative system and probabilistic models. This project description emerged in part from the roadmap developed under NCHRP Project 23-09, which focuses on developing the scoping study and roadmap to develop an all-hazards risk and resilience model for highway assets.

In addition to NCHRP Project 23-09, other relevant research in this area includes:

• A Guide for Program-Level Risk Management Performance Metrics (NCHRP 23-35 pending), National Cooperative Highway Research Board, Project has not been awarded.
• Incorporating Resilience Concepts and Strategies in Transportation Planning (NCHRP 08-129), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2022.
• Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk and Asset Management Practices (NCHRP 08-115), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2021.
• Risk Assessment Techniques for Transportation Asset Management (NCHRP 08-118), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2021.
• Development of a Risk Management Strategic Plan and Research Roadmap (NCHRP 20-123(04)),National Cooperative Highway Research Board, 2021.
• Consistency Review of Methodologies for Quantitative Risk Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 26, 2020.
• Implementing NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2018.
• Managing Risk Across the Enterprise (NCHRP 08-93), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2016.
• A Systematic Approach to Safety – Using Risk to Drive Action, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014.
• Guide to Integrated Risk Management, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2014.
• Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, The National Academies Press, 2012.
• Assessing Criticality in Transportation Adaptation Planning, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
• Executive Strategies for Risk Management by State Departments of Transportation (NCHRP 20-24(74)), National Cooperative Research Board, 2011
• Victorian Government Risk Management Framework, Secretary Department of Treasury and Finance, 2011.
• All Hazards Risk and Resilience, Prioritizing Critical Infrastructure Using the RAMCAP Approach, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Innovative Technologies Institute, 2009
• Guidebook on Risk Analysis Tools and Management Practices to Control Transportation Project Costs (NCHRP 08-60), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2009.
• Port Risk Management and Insurance Guidebook, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping, 1998.

This research will develop guidance and an enterprise risk model framework-driven process for transportation agency leadership to decide the best course of action in addressing short and long-term enterprise-level risks. This will lead to improvements in the practice of enterprise risk management through right-sizing investments in a wide array of risk mitigation strategies to avoid much higher costs tomorrow. Efforts include:

• Investigate both quantitative and mixed-method research models for estimating vulnerability, likelihood, and both direct/indirect consequences associated with a variety of risks.
• Document the costs to, and assemble a representative catalog of data and information to support the most promising models.
• Develop a methodology for evaluating the potential impacts of risk events and the benefits associated with possible mitigation strategies.
• Demonstrate how the methodology can be applied to multiple planning topic spaces, such as emerging technologies, resilience, equity, and workforce, over a short and long-term investment planning cycle.
• Develop draft problem statement developments for post-research funding mechanisms such as NCHRP 20-123, NCHRP 20-44 and promote the findings through CEO workshops.

As transportation agencies face wildfires, flooding, and other forms of destruction to the transportation system with more regularity and intensity, there is an increased urgency for methodologies that support modeling future uncertainties and evaluating when risks reach the point that investments in mitigation strategies are warranted to offset the potential for huge economic and social impacts. The guidance developed through this research will lead to the ability for transportation agencies to better analyze potential risks, as actuaries do regularly to support the insurance industry. The results will lead to a more resilient transportation system with fewer disruptions.

• Communication and Implementation Funding: $150,000 to offer CEO workshops and peer exchanges to support implementation.
• Communication and Implementation Period: 18 months following completion of the research.

Performance and risk-based approaches for managing curb space when considering adding curbside charging stations are needed by Departments of Transportation and local agencies. Challenges such as mobility resiliency, trip and fall hazards, vandalism, climate resilience, asset life-cycle planning, and comprehensive levels of service are not well understood as the nature of shared curb space is changing. New expectations for increasing transportation options such as pickup/drop-off areas as a tradeoff to parking, bike corrals and electric bike sharing stations, and the potential need to add curbside public EV charging stations add complexity to decisions transportation planners, engineers, and maintenance staff have to make to respond to travel needs.

Curb Management efficiently manages curb space for loading/unloading, ride-hailing and deliveries, and reduces double-parking and illegal stopping. Benefits include improved traffic flow and reduced congestion around busy areas like transit hubs or commercial zones. The use of MaaS and MoD, both affected by curb management, promotes integrating multiple modes of transportation (e.g., public transit, car/bike/scooter sharing, and ride-hailing) which reduces the use of single-occupancy vehicles which, in turn, reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT), directly mitigating congestion. A performance and risk-based approach to curb management could provide the transportation industry with a good practices and effective methodologies to determine how states manage curb usage.

• NCHRP Report 1090 Risks Related to Emerging and Disruptive Technologies: A Guide covers risks related to increased competition for curb space amongst modes such as MOD, MaaS and the desire to proliferate an EV charging network. 1090 highlights that pickup/drop-off and modal options – including bicycles and scooters – potentially compete for the same space as curbside charging capabilities. The report did not identify specific approaches or good practices for how to manage risks to the curb space when considering adding curbside charging stations. The report provides isolated high-level mitigation strategies for individual areas, but does not look at the risks and trade-offs from a wholistic curb management perspective or the interaction of these uses. The curb management was a small subset of this research and can serve as a starting point for the proposed research.
• NCHRP Synthesis 597 Micromobility Policies, Permits and Practices Reviewed implementation of micromobility and quantified associated risks to other users in the curb space, could serve as a useful starting point for risk assessment on this curb use
• NCHRP 340 Web only Doc. Dynamic Curbside Management: Keeping Pace with New and Emerging Mobility and Technology in the Public Right-of-Way, Part 1: Dynamic Curbside Management Guide and Part 2: Conduct of Research Report (2022). Provides current standards and best practices in curb management including the CurbLR open data spec and Curb Data Specification (CDS) as well as a framework for understanding the goals of curb management. It discusses the trade-offs of EV chargers and other emerging technologies. Some of the largest risks are discussed as considerations but no framework or guidance is provided on how to incorporate risk in the decisions. This document should be a foundation of the proposed research.
• NCHRP Report 1066 Risk Assessment Techniques for Transportation Asset Management and the appendices web only doc 366. Provides techniques for risk assessment of transportation assets, no discussion of “the curb” but some of the techniques and considerations for other assets could be applied.
• Consensus Study Report The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape (2021). Extensive discussion of the types of risk associated with a variety of emerging curb uses, no framework for assessment.
• ITE Curbside Management Practitioners Guide – Provides many good considerations for how curb uses and design, minimal consideration of risk or emerging technology
• TCRP report 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Third Edition: Chapter 18, Parking Management and Supply provides quantitative data on how people react to changes in parking supply these techniques could be expanded to consider dynamic curb use and the addition of charging infrastructure.
• “Management of the curb space allocation in urban transportation system” Yu and Bayram; 2021; International Transaction in Operations Research; https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12941. Developed dynamic vs fixed curb allocation optimization models based on max profit and min delay objectives. Could build on this framework with a min risk objective.
• “Curbside Parking Monitoring With Roadside LiDAR” Chen, Xu, Liu; 2023; TRR; https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231193410. Provides new method for short term deployment and curb monitoring could be a valuable technique during this research.
• “Testing Curbside Management Strategies to Mitigate the Impacts of Ride sourcing Services on Traffic” Ranjbari, Machado-Leon Goodchild; 2020; TRR; https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120957314. Looked at 2 curb management strategies for their impact on passenger satisfaction, travel speeds and traffic safety.
• “Demystifying Urban Curbside Freight Management: Strategic Incremental Approach from Washington, D.C.” Dey, Perez, Dock; 2019; TRR https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119863773. Focused on pricing strategies and freight operations at the curb.
• “Enabling Factors and Durations Data Analytics for Dynamic Freight Parking Limits” Castrellon, Sanchez-Diaz, Kalahasthi; 2022; TRR; https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221115086. Looks at factors necessary and algorithms for dynamic parking duration policies, these would be type of policy that needs to be evaluated for the risk as compared to other curb management strategies.
• “Optimal Curbside Pricing for Managing Ride-Hailing Pick-Ups and Drop-Offs” Liu, Ma, Qian; 2022; SSRN; Liu, Jiachao and Ma, Wei and Qian, Sean, Optimal Curbside Pricing for Managing Ride-Hailing Pick-Ups and Drop-Offs. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4068718 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4068718 They modeled travelers make joint choices of modes (driving or ride-hailing) for different curb pricing strategies. This technique could be modeled to include additional mode and uses for Mobility as a services and EV charging options as well.
• “Approximate Optimum Curbside Utilisation for Pick-Up and Drop-Off (PUDO) and Parking Demands Using Reinforcement Learning” Ye, Feng, Qiu, Stettler, Angeloudis; 2022; IEEE; DOI: 10.1109/ITSC55140.2022.9922036. Looks at optimization between Pick up drop off and long-term parking.
• Dynamic Curbside Management: Keeping Pace with New and Emerging Mobility and Technology in the Public Right of Way. This paper provides guidance on dynamic curbside management including the development of performance measures (and potential conflicting goals) for curb use, considerations for data collection and management, potential tools, and considerations of technological advancements including autonomous and electric vehicles.
• Dynamic Curbside Management: Keeping Pace with New and Emerging Mobility and Technology in the Public Right-of-Way, Part 1: Dynamic Curbside Management Guide and Part 2: Conduct of Research Report | The National Academies Press
• Automated Vehicles and Infrastructure Enablers: Curbs and Curbside Management covers design, maintenance, and management approaches for curbs and adjacent infrastructure for passenger pick up and drop off. While this paper discusses curbside infrastructure and alternate mobility methods, the impact and interactivity of EV charging infrastructure is not discussed.
• EPR2024005: Automated Vehicles and Infrastructure Enablers: Curbs and Curbside Management - Research Report (sae.org)
• Estimating and Mitigating the Congestion Effect of Curbside Pick-ups and Drop-offs: A Causal Inference Approach focuses primarily on the effect of PUDOs on curbside utilization and a rerouting method which could be referenced with regard to mobility resilience. This paper addresses aspects of curbside usage, but does not take a wholistic view of curbside performance.
• Estimating and Mitigating the Congestion Effect of Curbside Pick-ups and Drop-Offs: A Causal Inference Approach | Transportation Science (informs.org)
• Community Charging: Emerging Multifamily, Curbside, and Multimodal Practices focuses on identifying existing EV charging station practices and recommends approaches for implementing and maintaining infrastructure for providing charging to individuals without private off-street parking. This paper does not address the risks of curbside charging to other aspects of the curbside.
• Community Charging: Emerging Multifamily, Curbside, and Multimodal Practices (driveelectric.gov)
• Designing a Prototype of a Mobile Charging Robot for Charging of Electric Vehicles discusses the process of designing a mobile charging robot and potential applications. This provides a potential alternative to fixed charging infrastructure, but would not likely be a viable solution in the short term.
• 2024-01-2990: Designing a Prototype of a Mobile Charging Robot for Charging of Electric Vehicles - Technical Paper (sae.org)
• Curbside Management, 2023 Executive Briefing. This document provides a general approach to curbside management that includes consideration of EV charging, passenger pickup/drop-off, and other curbside services. However, the approach does not explicitly provide guidance with respect to risks posed by each potential service: 2023 Executive Briefing Curbside Management (dot.gov)
• Managing the Curb: Understanding the Impacts of On-Demand Mobility on Public Transit, Micromobility, and Pedestrians: https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/1904-Shaheen-Curbspace-Management-Shared-Mobility-Pedestrians.pdf. Examines the needs and management of curb space. This paper highlights concerns over the impact, equity and access, and safety concerns associated with the growing demand for curb space. Some of the concerns highlighted include congestion and competition among users, access to curb space, and the need for clear and safe allocations for pedestrians and cyclists to minimize conflicts. The paper also suggests strategies and provides frameworks to manage curb space, including designated areas, dynamic pricing, and community involvement when planning. The paper also provides performance metrics for the management of curb space such as number of accidents, number of accessible vehicles or devices, among many others. The paper does include high level risks, and performance metrics for curb management, but does not go provide enough detail for states to understand implementation or integration within management decisions.

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

There are numerous ongoing funding opportunities that states are actively implementing that demonstrate that implementation is occurring faster than approaches to good management strategies, summarized below:

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program allocated approximately $4.1 Billion in funding to states to strategically deploy EV charging stations and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability. Eligible NEVI funding include:

• The acquisition, installation, and network connection of EV charging stations to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability;
• Proper operation and maintenance of EV charging stations; and,
• Long-term EV charging station data sharing.

Although proper operation and maintenance was a funding eligible activity, there was no guidance provided on how to do it, or what levels of acceptable service are.

The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program is allocating approximately $2.5 Billion in funding to deploy publicly accessible electric, hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling infrastructure along designated corridors, and within communities, that will be accessible to all drivers. Eligible activities within the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant include:

• The acquisition and installation of publicly accessible electric charging, hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling infrastructure.
• Operating assistance for 5 years of operations after the installation.
• Install traffic control devices located in the right-of-way to provide directional information to eligible infrastructure acquired, installed, or operated with the grant.
• Projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to expand or fill gaps in access to publicly accessible electric charging, hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling infrastructure.
• Fund educational and community engagement activities to develop and implement education programs through partnerships with schools, community organizations, and vehicle dealerships to support the use of zero-emission vehicles and associated infrastructure.
• The program does define corridor and community eligibility, and does state that traffic control devices must follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). There was no guidance on the performance and risk-based approaches to curb management in relation to the installation, operation assistance, or maintenance of these devices.

FHWA just released their National Deployment Plan for Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Technologies “Saving Lives with Connectivity: A Plan to Accelerate V2X Deployment” in it they discuss the current investments being made in connected infrastructure:

• Invested $61.5 million in V2X technology research and deployment through the FHWA Turner Fairbank Highway Research Program over the last five years, with $12.5 million in follow-on research projects budgeted for FY24
• Identified and promoted funding opportunities made available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including awards to seven Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) and four Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN) grants that include V2X elements. Approximately $200 million in active, grant funded projects are underway now, including earlier Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) grants.

They also set the following goals:

• Top 75 metro areas have 25% of signalized intersections V2X enabled by 2028
• Top 75 metro areas have 50% of signalized intersections V2X enabled and V2X installed in 40% of the nation’s intersections by 2031

The top metro areas will have the largest competition for curb space and connected infrastructure will be located in the curb. Also, Cyber Security is a highly discussed risk, and given the traditional adage that “physical access is total access” and every connected device is a potential physical access point the risks to DOT and city systems needs to be considered.

One of the two primary task for States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Public Agencies in the National Deployment Plan for Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Technologies is to Deploy and operate secure interoperable, cybersecure infrastructure-based V2X technologies and applications. Without understanding the risks we cannot provide for security.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• NCHRP 20-83(05): Climate Change and the Highway System: Impacts and Adaptation Approaches (NCHRP Report 750, Volume 2, Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner's Guide and Research Report.)
• NCHRP 08-129: Incorporating Resilience Concepts and Strategies in Transportation Planning (NCHRP Research Report 1052)
• NCHRP 15-80: Design Guide and Standards for Infrastructure Resilience
• NCHRP 23-26: Measuring Impacts and Performance of State DOT Resilience Efforts (Active Project, Start Date: 10/26/2022)
• NCHRP 23-32: Transportation Asset Risk and Resilience (Active Project, Start Date: 11/28/2023)
• NCHRP 08-36/Task 147: Strategic Mobility Research: Enhancing Mobility, Stimulating Economic Activity, Saving Lives

The objectives of this project are:

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

Recent trends observed in the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters and extreme weather- and climate change-related issues experienced by state DOTs increased the urgency of incorporating climate resilience into TAM strategic goals. Concerns related to satisfying mobility demands and reducing user impacts further exacerbate the urgency of these issues.

This study will provide state DOTs with theoretical and practical knowledge to align their TAM efforts with the broader objectives of improving mobility and climate resilience in their regions.

The research developed through this study will support agencies increase resilience considerations in their asset management practice. A cursory review of DOTs latest TAMPs revealed a basic incorporation of resilience considerations by agencies often noting identified threats to the system that could undermine system resilience, but lacking in tracking resilience improvements over time or methods to measure the current system resilience. This research will move toward further integrating resilience into asset management as well as decision-making.

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

Predictive maintenance
Possible synthesis?

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

Changes in freight
How infrastructure moves with advancements in technology.
Implications on infrastructure

Transportation Performance Management (TPM) is a strategic approach that uses system performance data to guide decision-making and optimize the planning, operation, and maintenance of transportation networks. As states, regions, and local governments increasingly face challenges like budget constraints, aging infrastructure, population growth, and the need for sustainability, effective performance management becomes essential in ensuring that transportation investments deliver maximum value.

In the United States, federal legislation, such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, has established a national framework for performance-based transportation management. These mandates have encouraged state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a performance-driven approach to managing transportation assets, reducing congestion, improving safety, and advancing environmental sustainability.

The Transportation Performance Management Blue Book is proposed as a comprehensive guide that will standardize and document best practices, metrics, methodologies, and case studies to help transportation agencies effectively implement TPM frameworks. This Blue Book will serve as a critical resource for state and local transportation agencies to benchmark their performance management efforts, identify gaps, and integrate performance management into long-term planning and investment strategies.

In addition to addressing current best practices, the Blue Book will explore emerging trends such as the integration of advanced data analytics, smart technologies, and real-time data collection systems that enhance TPM. It will also examine challenges faced by transportation agencies, such as data interoperability, funding limitations, and the need for cross-agency collaboration.

By creating this guide, the project aims to equip transportation agencies with a practical, user-friendly resource that will promote more consistent and effective transportation performance management nationwide. The Blue Book will ultimately support the development of more efficient, safe, and sustainable transportation systems.

By creating this guide, the project aims to equip transportation agencies with a practical, user-friendly resource that will promote more consistent and effective transportation performance management nationwide. The Blue Book will ultimately support the development of more efficient, safe, and sustainable transportation systems.

Guidance, Documents, Research, and Resources:

NCHRP Report 1035: Guide to Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets

• Designed to help state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations identify effective methods for setting transportation performance targets based on established national measures.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Performance-Based Planning and Programming Guidebook (2013)

• This guide provides best practices for implementing TPM and the processes used to comply with federal requirements.

FHWA Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Toolbox

• An online resource containing tools, examples, and strategies for agencies to implement performance-based programs.

FHWA: Transportation System Performance Monitoring (2015)

• Addresses issues in performance data collection, data management, and interoperability challenges in transportation agencies.

AASHTO - Transportation Performance Management Portal

• A resource portal with tools and documents that support the implementation of performance-based transportation management across state DOTs.

FHWA Performance Management Guidebook (2016)

• A detailed guide that provides step-by-step instructions on how to design and implement a TPM system.

Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 329: Adapting Transportation to Climate Change (2019)

• Discusses the integration of resilience and sustainability into transportation performance metrics, particularly in the context of climate adaptation.

NCHRP Synthesis 532: Emerging Trends in Transportation Performance Management (2019)

• Reviews the latest advancements in TPM, such as smart infrastructure and real-time data analytics.

National Academies Press: Improving Transportation Resilience through Performance Management (2020)

• Examines how performance management frameworks can be adapted to address transportation system resilience and climate change mitigation.

Urban Institute: Equity in Transportation Performance Management (2019)

• This study investigates how transportation performance measures can incorporate equity considerations, particularly in underserved communities.

World Resources Institute (WRI): Inclusive Transportation Planning and Performance Management (2020)

• Provides insights on how equity-focused metrics can be integrated into transportation performance measures, especially for transit services and accessibility.

NCHRP 08-127 Emerging Issues: Impact of New Disruptive Technologies on the Performance of DOTs

• Provides a guide for state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation planning agencies to understand, predict, plan for, and adapt to the potential impacts of emerging disruptive technologies.

NCHRP Report 991: Guidelines for the Development and Application of Crash Modification Factors (2022)

• Guidance on provide transportation professionals with the kind of quantitative information they need to make decisions on where best to invest limited safety funds.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 335: A Guide to Computation and Use of System-Level Valuation of Transportation Assets (2021)

• Guidance on calculating the value of assets as an indicator of asset management needs.

Case Studies and Best Practices:

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Gray Notebook

• A quarterly performance report that tracks WSDOT’s progress in key performance areas.

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Smart Scale Program

• An initiative that prioritizes transportation projects based on performance metrics like congestion mitigation, safety, and economic development.

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) - Performance Dashboard

• A digital platform that provides real-time performance data related to traffic, safety, and infrastructure conditions.

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

Urgency:

The need for effective Transportation Performance Management (TPM) has never been more critical. With the increasing strain on transportation systems due to aging infrastructure, growing populations, and heightened demand for sustainable solutions, transportation agencies are under pressure to make more informed, data-driven decisions. Additionally, federal mandates such as MAP-21 and the FAST Act require transportation agencies to adopt performance-based management systems, adding urgency to the implementation of TPM frameworks. However, many agencies face challenges in developing standardized metrics, managing vast datasets, and aligning performance goals with long-term strategic plans. Without a comprehensive and accessible guide to TPM, agencies risk inefficient use of resources, missed performance targets, and delays in addressing critical infrastructure needs.

Potential Benefits:

The TPM Blue Book will provide transportation agencies with a standardized, user-friendly resource to guide the implementation of performance management frameworks. Key benefits of this research include:

1. Improved Decision-Making: By offering clear methodologies and best practices, the Blue Book will help agencies make informed, data-driven decisions that optimize resource allocation and improve system performance.
2. Increased Accountability and Transparency: The Blue Book will enable agencies to establish clear performance metrics and reporting processes, fostering greater accountability to stakeholders and the public.
3. Enhanced Safety and Efficiency: Prioritizing safety and congestion reduction as key performance measures will lead to safer, more efficient transportation systems.
4. Alignment with Federal Requirements: By synthesizing federal performance management mandates into a practical guide, the Blue Book will help agencies meet compliance requirements, reducing the risk of funding penalties or missed opportunities for federal aid.
5. Sustainability and Equity: The Blue Book will incorporate emerging trends in sustainable transportation and performance measures that address equity, ensuring that transportation investments benefit all communities and reduce environmental impact.

By equipping agencies with the tools to implement effective TPM systems, this research will contribute to the development of more resilient, sustainable, and responsive transportation networks.

To successfully develop and implement the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Blue Book, several key considerations need to be addressed throughout the research and dissemination phases:

1. Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration
2. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Customization and Adaptability
4. Technology Integration
5. Funding and Resource Allocation
6. Training and Capacity Building
7. Continuous Improvement and Updates
8. Equity and Sustainability Considerations

Note: More can be added to the above list.

By addressing these implementation considerations, the TPM Blue Book can be successfully developed, adopted, and utilized across diverse transportation agencies, ensuring it provides maximum value in improving transportation system performance.

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

The Reason Foundation produces a ranked list of state agencies
Are there better ways to measure agency effectiveness such as data envelopment analysis
Come up with ways other ways to add value such as wanting to be able to find peer agencies to learn from?
How much money are we actually spending to manage programs?
What is the effectiveness of the funds allocated?
Want to have state legislatures understand when they are underfunding an area and know the impact of it.

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

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

Urgency: Mid to high priority over a long timeframe.

Potential Benefit: Creating an adaptable workforce, streamline/improve efficiency, technology leverages the skillsets of a workforce.

While many states have committed to transportation equity, a critical gap exists in understanding how programs of projects contribute to achieving transportation equity. Currently, most programming uses an asset management lens, which assumes the existing system continues to meet evolving needs. However, newer state and federal goals reflect a holistic, bigger picture focus than asset management. Recent statewide multimodal transportation plans reflect this shift with ambitious safety, equity, and sustainability targets. Maintaining the current programming approach may hinder the ability to achieve these goals.

Recently, the federal government committed to the Justice 40 program which states that 40% of benefits from specific federal programs will go towards disadvantaged communities. This new federal initiative has increased interest from state DOTs in how to measure equity in transportation.

Literature exists on equity in transportation focused on policy and project decisions, or specifically federal grant programs. Research is needed that focuses on incorporating equity into broader programming decisions at state DOTs. (Note: we can add short summaries about these in further revisions to this RNS).

Existing literature about transportation equity includes:

• Elevating Equity in Transportation Decision Making: Recommendations for Federal Competitive Grant programs (2024) https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/27439/elevating-equity-in-transportation-decision-making-recommendations-for-federal-competitive-grant-programs
• NCHRP Project 20-05 Synthesis Topic 53-01 Practices to Promote Equity in Transportation Funding (2023) https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/53-01/FinalReport.pdf
• NCHRP 20-123(19) A Research Roadmap for Institutionalizing Transportation Equity [Active] Support for AASHTO Committees and Councils https://trid.trb.org/view/2011425
• Tools to Integrate Equity into Active Transportation and Safety Investments http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=5128
• Transportation Equity Project Prioritization Criteria (2020)

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

The following research tasks will support the main objective:

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

Equity is increasingly a key goal for state DOTs and the federal government. In addition to the federal commitment to Justice 40, many state DOTs are coming to terms with their past actions that have caused harms in disadvantaged communities throughout the country and are seeking remedies. States and local communities have adopted commitments to transportation equity to address on-going inequities in transportation. The social unrest in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd showed the impact that entrenched inequities can have on the population. The resulting outrage fueled the desire for a greater focus on equity across the country.

State DOTs spend billions of dollars every year on transportation projects across the country. This investment has the ability to greatly benefit disadvantaged communities and reduce existing inequitable outcomes if DOTs and other transportation providers are able to evaluate and measure their program in regards to equity. Transportation access is necessary for employment and improved transportation access greatly improves job opportunities and access to other important destinations.

The research would be beneficial to state DOT professionals at any level as well as transportation organization partners and stakeholders who all have a vested interest in improving equity in transportation and overall. Implementation elements include a communications plan to ensure awareness of the research and TRB, FHWA and AASHTO presentations to share the findings. Venues include workshops, peer exchanges, and committee meetings.

There are several other AASHTO and TRB committees interested in transportation’s contribution toward equity that would likely support this project, including:

• AASHTO
• Committee on Performance Based Management (CPBM) – Christos Xenophontos, Chair
• Committee on Planning
• TRB
• Committee on Equity in Transportation (AME10)
• Performance Management (AJE20) - Michael Grant, Chair
• Strategic Management (AJE10)
• Transportation Planning Policy and Processes (AEP10)
• Transportation Planning Analysis and Application (AEP15)
• Communication and Implementation Funding: $20,000
• Communication and Implementation Period: 6 months
• AASHTO requirement for interim deliverable review:
• Interim deliverable(s): The results of this research are critically important to the DOTs. As such, an interim deliverable is required to be reviewed by the applicable AASHTO Committee(s). The AASHTO Committee on Performance Based Management has developed and sponsored this needs statement on behalf of member DOTs. Interim deliverables could include literature reviews, surveys, interim reports, and full draft reports.
• Stakeholder engagement: As part of the interim deliverable, the project team and research panel should engage DOT stakeholders for feedback during the project. Engagement could include webinars, workshops, presentations, surveys, user testing of draft tools, and interim reports and literature reviews.

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

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

from symposium 1:

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

High urgency

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

The greatest challenge we have is changing the culture, which is something we don't do very well as engineers and planners. Is there a way to outline the process to change the culture of the organizations with regards to implementing TAM. Talk to states that have done it— what worked and didn't work? States that need culture changed are least likely to read a report on this.

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

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

While there are several published resources referring to resilience performance, there remains a gap in effective performance measurement that this proposed research seeks to close.

• Disaster Resilience Framework Workshop, 2015, San Diego. The workshop notes (unpublished) includes a section about Community Resilience Metrics.
• Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework (VAAF), 2017, FHWA HOP (link). An important go-to guide for anybody working on transportation resilience.
• Integrating Resilience into the Transportation Planning Process, White Paper on Literature Review Findings, 2018, FHWA HOP (link). A good resource for background and context, including a history of Federal rules on resilience. This document correctly places performance measure formulation after goals but before solutions.
• Investing in Transportation Resilience: A Framework for Informed Choices, 2021, NAS/TRB (link). This also included a Committee on Transportation Resilience Metrics. The document includes some relevant points but is generally of limited value for performance management given its focus on project-specific evaluations and benefit-cost analysis.
• Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide, 2021, NAS/TRB (link). Follows on a 2018 resilience summit in Denver. A wealth of information about resilience, but measurement appears limited to project-specific risk reduction.
• Developing Transportation System Climate Resilience Performance Measures, 2022, Minnesota DOT (link). A survey showed most states do not have resilience performance measures. Those that do are not outcome-based.
• A Perspective on Quantifying Resilience: Combining Community and Infrastructure Capitals, 2023, Gerges et al (link).
• Measuring Impacts and Performance of State DOT Resilience Efforts, 2022-2024, NCHRP 23-26, underway (link). Potentially valuable for this proposed research, but measures are not defined until after solutions and appear to focus only on monitoring project effects.
• Transportation Asset Risk and Resilience, 2023-2026, NCHRP 23-32, pending/underway (link). A relatively large effort to generate new guidance, which may or may not include performance.

There are many laws, rules, references, and guidance documents going back many years, and right up to the current PROTECT Program guidance. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (2020), H.R.1865, calls on the “Secretary of Transportation to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study through the Transportation Research Board on effective ways to measure the resilience of transportation systems and services to natural disasters, natural hazards, and other potential disruptions.”

Be wary of two tangents in literature: those focused solely on infrastructure and others about operational/organizational resilience, which are mostly unhelpful and distracting. Apart from published guidance, this research project will include a scan of select agencies to gather more evidence and examples, including efforts to integrate transportation resilience with broader initiatives like communication and energy infrastructure.

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

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

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

Transportation resilience continues to grow in importance and this gap in practice needs to be addressed. Beyond natural hazards, this work should address increasing system demand (e.g., growing or shifting populations), technology and mobility advancement risks (e.g., new or changing modes), and institutional issues such as risk appetites and scarce resources.

This is proposed as an implementation project for NCHRPs 23-26 Measuring Impacts and Performance of State DOT Resilience Efforts, planned to be completed by the end of 2024. It may also be done in parallel with the new 23-35 Developing New Performance Metrics for Risk Management.

This research would primarily be used by transportation agencies and others responsible for implementing resilience performance measures and management systems and build on some of the research conducted on other projects. Recently completed NCHRP Project 23-09 established a framework and research roadmap for assessing risk to agency assets and the traveling public from extreme weather, climate change, and other threats and hazards. Follow-on NCHRP Project 23-32 Asset Risk & Resilience will develop the technical resource in three phases, including planning, execution, and final product development. As described above, this research should be conducted along a parallel and complementary timeline. Critical implementation elements include a communication plan to ensure awareness of the research products and TRB, FHWA, and AASHTO webinars to share the findings. As this work emphasizes resilience measures that are outcome-based and trackable over time, implementing organizations that are expected to monitor performance over time may benefit from collaboration.

A subsequent phase of this research funded through NCHRP 20-44 may be helpful to disseminate the research findings more broadly and develop case studies showing the use of the research guidance. There are several other AASHTO and TRB committees interested in resiliency that would likely support this project, including:

• AASHTO
• Committee on Performance Based Management (CPBM) Task Force on Emerging Performance Measures - Deanna Belden, Minnesota DOT and Kelly Travelbee, Michigan DOT, Co-Chairs
• CPBM Subcommittee on Risk Management
• Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience (CTSSR)
• Committee on Planning
• Highways and Streets Council
• Subcommittee on Asset Management
• TRB
• Strategic Management (AJE10) - Steve Woelfel, Massachusetts DOT, Chair
• Performance Management (AJE20) - Michael Grant, Chair
• Asset Management (AJE30)
• Risk Management (ATO40)
• Critical Infrastructure Protection (AMR10)
• Extreme Weather and Climate Change Adaptation (AMR50)
• Transportation Planning Policy and Process (AEP10)

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

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

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

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

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