Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

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.

Guidance and Resources – Not Specific 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.

Guidance and Resources – Transportation-Related

• 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.

Objectives

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.

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

• 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.

Objectives

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.

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

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.

Objectives

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.

Keywords/Terms

Risk, Enterprise Risk Management, Financial Planning

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

The 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan includes a goal related to safety, mobility, and access for everyone. Within that goal are objectives to improve asset performance and strengthen resiliency. This research will develop the framework to accomplish these objectives through more impactful investment decisions that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential risks.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

• 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.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

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.

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

travel demand, transportation modes, travel models, Non-auto modes, active travel, travel forecasting

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

This project is aligned with the AASHTO Strategic Plan’s Goals and Objectives. It aligns with transportation agencies’ efforts to better connect community, economy, land use and the environment. Improving non-auto transportation helps achieve emerging goals related to equity, social justice and public health. It’s most closely aligned with the goal of safety, mobility and access for everyone, and the objective to advance a safe multimodal transportation system. A better understanding of non-auto travel demand can lead to planning that more effectively responds to users’ needs, and provides more cost-effective investments.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

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.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

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

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• Not just the pieces, but the overall functions
• Learn from things like Baldridge, other management systems

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Empathy, culture
Facilitating change management, team functions
Keeping workforce, mitigating staff turnover
Beyond organizational structure

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

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.

Objectives

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.

Keywords/Terms

resilience, resiliency, community resilience, performance management, measures, KPIs

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

This project would advance goals identified in the AASHTO Strategic Plan, most specifically the goal of “Safety, Mobility and Access for Everyone” that includes “strengthen resiliency.” This project would also support several strategies in the Strategic Plan, including establishing frameworks and tools to enable impactful policy decisions, supporting implementation within member agencies, advocating to minimize the impacts of climate change, and applying scenario planning to better weigh options in decision-making.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

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)

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

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

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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.)

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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 Search Summary

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)

Objectives

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.

Keywords/Terms

Transportation Equity

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

This project is aligned with the AASHTO Vision to provide improved quality of life through leadership in transportation and the values of diversity, equity and inclusion. The project would advance the goals and objectives identified in the AASHTO Strategic Plan. Under the goal of safety, mobility and access for everyone, nearly every objective is aligned with this research but especially advancing equity and social justice. This project would also support a number of strategies in the Strategic Plan, including developing policies and providing resources that support ensuring access to transportation systems for everyone applying scenario planning to better weigh options in decision-making.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

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.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

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

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Predictive maintenance
Possible synthesis?

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

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.

Objectives

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.

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

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.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• 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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Workforce turn-over, workforce expectations, change in tenure, workload business process reassessment

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

High urgency

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Speed of Technology Change, Slowness of organization change, Adaptability, Nimble Workforce, Ability to Anticipate, Trend Identification

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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?

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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.

Literature Search Summary

• 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

Objectives

The objectives of this project are:

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

Keywords/Terms

Asset Management, Mobility, Climate Change, Resilience

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

This project is in line with AASHTO Strategic Goal of providing/improving “Safety, Mobility and Access for Everyone”. Under this goal, this project aims to address the objectives of:

• Improving asset performance
• Strengthening resiliency
• Connecting community, economy, land use, and the environment

Urgency and Potential Benefits

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.

Implementation Considerations

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.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

The desired outcome and expected final product of this research is to develop a technical
memorandum that summarizes findings from a research scan of existing TSMO plans and current
emerging technology research to identify interdependencies and relationships. The goals of this
research is to: 1) provide a resource for integrating emerging transportation technologies into
TSMO planning; and 2) integrating performance management and systems impacts analysis around
emerging transportation technologies into TSMO planning. (This Research Needs Statement was drawn from a Systems Management and Emerging Technologies Research Roadmap because of its overlap with performance management.)

Literature Search Summary

Current research around TSMO plans looks at feasibility, resiliency, asset management, and how some
states are integrating technology into their TSMO plans. This does not address performance measures
of technology or how TSMO plans are assessing the integration of technology. Further, existing
research in emerging transportation technologies is focused on impacts on data, workforce training,
best practices, and asset management. There is no research about determining performance measures
for these technologies or how to apply those to existing state agency efforts. There are two gaps
addressed by emerging technologies into the context of performance measurements and one that uses TSMO plans to inform that process.

Objectives

Research focus areas include current standards research and emerging technology management tools, task forces, and regulations. To successfully complete this research, the following key tasks will need to be completed:
• Conduct a national scan of state TSMO plans
• Review best practices for how TSMO plans can integrate emerging transportation technologies
• Look at existing case studies of how states use their TSMO plans to test or deploy emerging transportation technologies
• Synthesize and merge research around performance metrics and management for emerging transportation technologies
• Identify applicable research conducted by USDOT and AASHTO/TRB committees
• Develop 5-6 case studies showcasing the relationship between TSMO plans and existing research

Keywords/Terms

TSMO, systems operations, systems management, transportation plan, emerging technologies, performance management

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

TSMO plans aim to improve the efficiency of transportation systems by addressing immediate
transportation needs and efficiently planning for future goals. Further, TSMO plans are becoming a
permanent and integral part of state DOT transportation plans as they look toward the future of
transportation. The primary purposes of TSMO plans and emerging technologies are to improve safety
and one of its primary criticisms has been the lack of transparency about the direction of emerging
technologies and how guidance will be developed for those technologies. This leads to skepticism
about if these technologies will serve transportation systems and lack of trust from the public,
with an added layer of being unsure of how these technologies will be evaluated. The guidance
developed by this project can address if such technologies can be used in a way that addresses
transportation system issues, includes state and local agencies, and improves the public’s trust in
the technology. This directly supports AASHTO’s vision statement to improve quality of life, and
AASHTO’s values of safety, trust and integrity, and transparency. The research also addresses several AASHTO goals and objectives, and
strategies.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

States have a clear interest in integrating TSMO plans into existing agency functions. TSMO plans are becoming core functions of transportation agencies and to permanently accommodate these programs, agencies are developing TSMO plans that outline strategic, programmatic, and tactical visions with the necessary steps to achieve this vision. This includes outlining business cases, program performance measures and goals, organizational structure, staffing and workforce needs, leadership needs, and policies for implementation. TSMO plans can build on existing research from USDOT, and AASHTO/TRB committees addressing these elements in the context of performance measures for emerging technology.
Conducting this research is important to ensure emerging technologies can be incorporated into state plans for updating transportation systems. As TSMO plans are designed to be forward thinking and implementation focused, they are well equipped to address emerging technologies from the standpoint of developing and integrating performance measures. Not conducting this research may leave a gap around implementation and require state DOT’s to evaluate proposed programs, products, and policies without an established base of metrics or guidance. Transportation agencies at the state and local levels will rely on this body of research to build out TSMO plans that quantify impacts, and eventually all road users can benefit from TSMO plans that address performance measures for emerging transportation technologies. This will also benefit the larger community of practice and merge a key focus area of state DOTs with emerging transportation technologies.

Implementation Considerations

Within a state DOT, departments focused on the evaluation and integration of emerging technologies
into the transportation system will likely be responsible for using the research results. Some
state DOTs have dedicated staff focused on transportation and innovation while other DOTs have
merged this into their departments focused on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

State DOTs can use the body of research developed by this statement to modify existing TSMO plans
or develop new plans that integrate performance measures for emerging transportation technologies.
The findings from this research are also anticipated to support needed coordination across
departments when considering the evaluation and implementation of emerging technologies, including
coordination around staff working on TSMO plans and evaluating emerging transportation
technologies.

Existing venues for further discussion around the project and the findings will include AASHTO
meetings, SMET joint-subcommittee, and meetings of the Transportation Research Board. There will
also be opportunities to coordinate findings with other national organizations and the Federal
Highway Administration.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

The purpose of this research is to: 1) conduct a scan of state and local agencies with documented and quantified performance measures related to the integration of technology; 2) develop a summary of such performance measures; and 3) propose a set of synthesized draft standards for CAV, ITS/TSMO, EV, SM/MoD/MaaS, and UAS/UAM projects that also align with federal requirements. (Note: This RNS has been drawn from a System Management and Emerging Technologies (SMET) research roadmap because it overlaps with Transportation Performance Management.)

Literature Search Summary

Existing research in emerging transportation technologies is focused on impacts on data, workforce training, best practices, and asset management. There is some research to date around quantifying the impact of emerging technologies or determining performance measures for these technologies. Research around performance management looks at integrating performance management into processes rather than developing metrics for performance. This project will build off existing research and support development of performance measurements for emerging transportation technologies and support development of process for quantifying and evaluating impacts with considering of existing performance measure requirements, and one that develops performance measurements.

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Emerging technology, connected and autonomous vehicles, zero emission vehicles, performance measures, transportation metrics, equity

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

One of the main promises of emerging technologies is to improve quality of life by meeting more transportation user needs, and reducing the barriers that users face daily. Further, these technologies are integral to supporting state DOTs to bring them into the future of transportation. The primary
purpose of emerging technologies is to improve safety and one of its primary criticisms has been the lack of transparency by operators leading to skepticism about operators’ integrity and lack of trust from the public. The body of research developed by this project can address if such technologies can deliver on the promise of safety, use metrics to help operators be more transparent, and improve the public’s trust in the technology. This directly supports AASHTO’s vision statement to improve quality of life, and AASHTO’s values of safety, trust and integrity, and transparency. The research also addresses several AASHTO goals and objectives, and strategies.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

As emerging transportation technologies are deployed on public roads, state DOTs are presented with a new challenge because the impacts of these technologies are still being evaluated. Further, the ability to evaluate impacts is hindered by the fact that many emerging technologies are still in the development stage and commercial use cases that will be scaled nationally are not yet known.
As road users in different jurisdictions are exposed to the safety issues presented by emerging transportation technologies, state DOTs are looked at to answer how these technologies will be regulated, monitored, and assessed. Part of this includes quantifying their impact on the transportation
system both at a local level and a federal level. Understanding how these technologies will transform transportation and road usage is integral to protecting the safety of road users while also understanding how proposed use cases may or may not impact the transportation system.
This research can be used to guide state DOTs in implementing emerging transportation technologies in a safe way that is based on the quantitative effects of the technologies on the transportation system. The benefits of this research will be the ability to provide guidance about the impacts of emerging transportation technologies to State DOTs and local agencies, which can then be used to steer the deployment of these technologies via standards development. Further benefits include understanding how these technologies will change the transportation system and developing performance measures for emerging technologies that are accessible to state and local governments.

Implementation Considerations

Within a state DOT, departments focused on the evaluation and integration of emerging transportation technologies into the transportation system will likely be responsible for using the research results. Some state DOTs have dedicated staff focused on transportation and innovation while other DOTs have merged this into their departments focused on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
State DOTs can use the body of research developed by this statement to modify existing standards or develop new standards for the testing and deployment of emerging transportation technologies. The findings from this research are also anticipated to support needed coordination across departments when considering the evaluation and implementation of performance measures, including coordination around staff working on emerging technologies and staff supporting modeling.
Existing venues for further discussion around the project and the findings will include AASHTO meetings, SMET joint-subcommitee, and meetings of the Transportation Research Board. There will also be opportunities to coordinate findings with other national organizations and the Federal Highway Administration.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

New Gen/Emerging Performance Measures (the statement was submitted on behalf of the Task Force on Emerging Performance Areas)

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

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

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Nathaniel Vogt – Ohio DOT: we are working on Carbon Reduction Strategy and Resiliency Improvement Plan. We’ve had a few questions come up about how to measure performance and goals on resiliency and reducing emissions from the transportation system.

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

The perennial question remains: what is an effective performance measure for transportation resilience in a community, state, or other jurisdiction? Progress toward good answers has been underway for several years, though desultory and usually off-target. 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. Our colleagues are very good at measuring resilience for specific infrastructure, an organization, or a supply chain, but not for community mobility. This research will tease out how best to really 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? There are some seeds of ideas, but the same questions are shared by multiple agencies, PIARC, AASHTO committees, TRB committees, and surely others.

Literature Search Summary

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 evidence and examples

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

resilience, measures, performance management, community resilience

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

This project would advance goals identified in the AASHTO Strategic Plan, most specifically the goal of “Safety, Mobility and Access for Everyone” that includes “strengthen resiliency.” This project would also support several strategies in the Strategic Plan, including establishing frameworks and tools to enable impactful policy decisions, supporting implementation within member agencies, advocating to minimize the impacts of climate change, and applying scenario planning to better weigh options in decision-making.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Transportation resilience has grown in importance and this gap in practice needs to be addressed.
This research should be completed in parallel with the NCHRP 23-32 Risk & Resilience guidance development to be able to inform those products.
[to be expanded]

Implementation Considerations

This research would primarily be used by transportation agencies and others responsible for implementing resilience performance measures and management systems. 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.

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
• 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)
• a. Communication and Implementation Funding: [to be completed]
• b. Communication and Implementation Period: [to be completed]

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

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

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

One of the key inputs to transportation asset management systems is the unit cost of each treatment. Costs associated with improving an asset consist of three components:
• Direct treatment costs: Cost of the treatment itself. This component includes just the pay items required to complete the treatment, such as the hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in a HMA overlay, or the concrete and reinforcement needed to construct a replacement concrete pavement.
• Direct project costs: Costs incurred as part of the construction project. These costs include traffic control, mobilization, ancillary features such as traffic signals and guardrail, etc.
• Indirect costs: Costs in advance of the project. This component includes Phase I studies, Phase II plan development, as well as any environmental investigations that may be needed. Also included in this component are utility relocations and land acquisition, and possibly costs associated with railroads.
The accuracy of the unit cost data is imperative to accurately managing a transportation system. If the costs are underestimated, the agency will program more work than can be accomplished. Anticipated conditions over time will be overstated as a result. This synthesis seeks to determine how transportation agencies are quantifying the direct and indirect treatment costs associated with improving assets, and the corresponding impact on their capital program as a whole.

Literature Search Summary

Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 54-22, Practices for Capturing Costs of Maintenance Operations in Maintenance Management Systems (Transportation Research Board), is similar but focuses on the maintenance side of asset management, particularly maintenance performed by the transportation agencies themselves.

Incorporating Cost Uncertainty and Path Dependence into Treatment Selection for Pavement Networks (Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Volume 110, pp 40-55), begins at the next step after treatment unit costs have been developed and looks at the effect of uncertainty in cost on the cost-effectiveness of pavement network planning.

NCHRP Report 545, Analytical Tools for Asset Management, notes that a translation process is required to develop unit costs that are usable by most management systems. The proposed synthesis will be an important step toward closing that gap.

NCHRP 02-26, Implementation of Life-Cycle Planning Analysis in a Transportation Asset Management Framework, acknowledges the importance of treatment unit costs as an input to life-cycle planning, but does not go into detail on the development of the treatment costs themselves.

Objectives

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

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

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

Keywords/Terms

treatment unit costs, asset management systems, direct costs, indirect costs, program costs

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

The research findings will assist transportation agencies in their development and use of comprehensive treatment unit costs as an input to life-cycle planning, enabling them to accurately project condition and therefore improve asset performance.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Very little detailed information on best practices related to treatment costs used in asset management systems exists, as noted below in the literature search summary. Yet the accuracy of treatment costs is of paramount importance in programming the proper amount of work that can be accomplished within given budgets and therefore in predicting asset performance into the future. The potential benefits of the research include agencies learning more accurate means of determining treatment unit costs, as well as identifying additional research needs to improve best practices nationwide.

Implementation Considerations

The asset management engineer and others in an asset management section will be responsible for using the research results. Anyone involved in configuring the inputs to the asset management system, particularly with an eye toward getting the best possible outcomes, would be interested in the results of this research. The implementation would likely involve an improvement to existing processes rather than creating new processes.
a. Communication and Implementation Funding:
b. Communication and Implementation Period:

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

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

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Brief Description
As we have more new techniques for managing assets using trenchless technology, do we know the expected life and subsequent treatments for these assets.
Champion
Susan Lime, NM DOT
Team
Baris Salman
Stephanie Dock

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Brief Description
TBD
Champion
Aimee Flannary
Team
TBD

Keywords/Terms

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Background Information

As the United States moves toward a fleet comprised of more EV and hybrid vehicles, important questions impacting the design and management of critical assets must be considered in future practice and policy making. For instance:

• Are heavier EV’s and hybrid vehicles deteriorating our bridges, pavements, and other assets before the end of their design/service lives due to their heavy loads?
• Will the live load increases to bridges and axle weight distribution from heavier EVs and hybrids impact asset lifecycle needs and level of service performance?
• Are new design standards needed for the engineering design of transit and freight roadways and bridges to reflect the increased live load changes?
• How is the accelerated rate of deterioration impacting asset lifecycle needs?

Answering these questions is critical as the types of vehicles using state and local transportation facilities transition to the next generation of vehicles.

Since asset management (AM) is a business process and decision-making framework using economic and engineering modeling over an extended time horizon, it can help inform many aspects of designing and planning for and implementing the expected service levels of roadways and structures to support adoption of next-generation vehicles. Developing guidance that reflects changes associated with EV and hybrid vehicles will lead to updated design models, more reflective deterioration rates, and improved planning for the preservation, improvement, and operation of road and bridge assets while protecting them from shorter lifecycles.

Single occupancy vehicles, while a major cause for congestion, do not appear to provide measurable impacts to load weighting. Therefore, the next-generation vehicles considered under this study will include a comprehensive mix, including transit, garbage trucks, and freight. For bridge analysis, this research would evaluate existing data and account for the battery weight to develop a design load model for gross vehicle weight. Pavement analysis utilizes equivalent single axle load (ESAL) ratings.

The figure linked below, provided by the City of Seattle, illustrates the tremendous load impacts that buses and trucks have on pavements and bridges:

https://www.tam-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2023/10/Picture1.jpg

The City estimated that it would take about:

• 1,500 cars to equal the damage of the typical 18-wheeler on a Washington State Highway
• 2,500 cars to equal the damage of the average empty bus
• 5,000 cars to equal the damage of the average full bus
• 8,000 cars to equal the damage of an average full 60’ Articulated Hybrid

WSDOT, in its pavement design guide, advises that the average 18-wheel, double unit truck on a state highway has a total ESAL factor of 1.00 to 1.35 on average, a figure reached through their different studies of truck weights (at weigh stations, etc.). As the picture shows, the design loading is significantly lower than those being applied by buses, especially those with heavy batteries.

Transit buses have a federal exemption from axle weight limits that dates to the ISTEA transportation legislation in the early 1990s. Buses have gotten increasingly heavy over the last two decades with new equipment like hybrid powertrains, yet the number of axles remains the same because of the exemption. Furthermore, transit agencies are often not the owners of the roadways and bridges so they may not consider infrastructure conditions and design into their decision making.

The average bus empty is more damaging than the typical truck on a state highway. Add passengers, the exponential relationship between axle weight and fatigue, and the damage factor per bus increases to almost six times for the heavy articulated hybrids.

The figure hints at why agencies are struggling to maintain roads and bridges. As the transportation system is expected to carry heavier vehicles than they were designed for, it is critical to update design models and develop new deterioration factors to be used in asset lifecycle planning.

In addition to design and maintenance issues, the study will also consider environmental and social impacts and potential risks associated with next-generation vehicles. The inclusion of these factors enables asset management cross-asset trade-offs to be evaluated in terms of both positive and negative impacts. A comprehensive, triple bottom line study will pull from existing sustainability and economic lifecycle cost analyses on EVs and infrastructure construction along with societal factors such as increases in travel time from driving on deteriorated infrastructure assets.

Literature Search Summary

• ISO 15686-5:2017: Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Part 5: Life-cycle costing
• Whole life carbon assessment (WLCA) for the built environment (rics.org)
• Bus weight summary from the California Air Research Board: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/busaxleweightlimit.pdf
• Truck Platooning Impacts on Bridges https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/loadrating/pubs/hif21043.pdf
• FHWA Sustainable Pavements Program: Sustainability - Pavements - Federal Highway Administration (dot.gov)

Objectives

The objective of this study is to develop a guidebook with suggestions for updating asset management models used in pavement and bridge design and preservation. The guide will be developed from research to determine:

• The impacts of EVs and hybrid vehicles on typical pavement and bridge (component and element) deterioration rates and their potential impact on lifecycle planning strategies.
• Environmental and societal impacts associated with the use of EVs and hybrid vehicles to support a triple-bottom line analysis and cross-asset tradeoff assessments.
• Suggested modifications to pavement and bridge load models used in design activities.
• The feasibility of establishing battery weight limits, increased road user fees, or other strategies for addressing asset management impacts.

The guidebook will be supported by case studies from a variety of agencies (state and local, urban, and rural) illustrating the potential impact the resulting deterioration rates would have on pavement and bridge designs, maintenance strategies, and lifecycle costs.

Keywords/Terms

EV, buses, ESAL, hybrid vehicles, deterioration curves, vehicle size and weight, roadways, bridges, sustainability, infrastructure design, material selection, whole life cost assessment, agency and asset resilience, risk

Link to 2021-2026 AASHTO Strategic Plan

Safety, Mobility and Access for Everyone: Advance a safe, multimodal transportation system; Advance equity and social justice; Improve asset performance; Strengthen resiliency; Align transportation interests across partners and regions
National Transportation Policy Leadership: Deliver a proactive policy platform for the future; Evaluate emerging trends in technologies, policies and practices; Communicate the value of transportation; Advocate for sustainable funding; Promote a broad range of thoughts and policies
Organizational Excellence with World Class Services: Be the trusted developers and keepers of transportation standards and guidance; Build transportation workforce capabilities; Innovate and modernize products and services