Research to improve DOTs capability and capacity for data-driven decision making.
NCHRP Project 23-27 Strategies to Strengthen Data-Driven Decision Making Details here.
Create a best practices guide for using data to inform equitable deployments of AVs and shared mobility.
Great research has been done to help integrate Asset Management, Performance Management and Risk Management (NCHRP 08-113) and for implementing Enterprise Risk Management (NCHRP 20-24(105)). Agencies often have programs (performance management, Risk management, and process improvement) that operate separately but are linked rather linearly. Performance management shows where we’ve been, Risk management highlights what would inhibit us from achieving a desired future, and process improvement links well to development of mitigation measures. In the vein of the above-mentioned research, a guide to step from one area to another would make these programs more effective and linked within the agency.
All transportation agencies must effectively manage asset condition and performance while identifying and addressing risks potentially undermining performance goals. In order to provide well maintained, reliable, and up to date networks, three management practices work together within an agency. Process improvement is the task of identifying, then proactively improving the current processes within an organization in order to achieve greater efficiency, functionality, and quality. Performance management utilizes system information to strategically achieve investment or policy goals. Risk management works to identify and mitigate uncertainties that may arise by using analytical and managerial strategies. Past research has often focused on these management practices separately, or one in conjunction with another. This study aims to show how effective linking of these management practices leads to improved organizational functions overall.
Process improvement is of general interest to DOT’s as well as any large organization seeking to improve internal efficiency and quality of established processes. As a result, past study has been performed into the subject of improving internal processes within an organizational framework, though less research exists on process improvement within DOT’s. Study often focuses on improvement in a specific process, as opposed to a more holistic view of overall process improvement within an organizational context. Process improvement has also been linked in study to risk management, as risk management processes require consistent improvement to meet new challenges.
Risk management has been a particular focus of much past research. It has been suggested that by managing performance to achieve objectives the risks to those objectives can be identified and mitigated accordingly. A well-considered evaluation can lead to substantial rewards and accomplishments. Whether it is at the top of an organization's strategy, or it is on the frontline of the organization's daily operations, risk management should be ingrained in the daily operations of the organization. From the active discipline perspective, risk may also be defined as: “The systematic application of policies, procedures, and practices to the identification and management of uncertainty or variability on achievement of agency objectives.” In order to describe boundaries, similar to the risk appetite, the agency needs to consider general guidance on risk treatment-selection decisions. Since risks differ, it is unlikely that there will be a precise guide that is suitable for all decisions. An analysis of benefits and costs should be considered in categories where costs and benefits can be estimated. Research has also been performed into how risk is now inferred or implicit in many decisions concerning agency investments. The selection of pavement treatment sections is based in part on the risk associated with providing poor pavement to high-volume roads compared to low-volume roads. The project selection process takes into account the risks caused by missing or inadequate traffic control devices or by potential structural failures.
Regarding the relationship of performance measures to other management practices, past research has suggested that current FHWA rules do not workably link performance and risk, leaving a DOT’s management of these elements to be uneven. However, research has indicated that these systems of management prove to be most effective when working hand in hand. Effective Performance measures and related management, along with the definition and quantification of risk, is essential to risk management. Likewise risk management informs performance management about the projection of uncertain elements such as funding.
Overall, this study will build on past research by creating an effective frameworking linking process improvement, performance measures, and risk management within the organizational context of a transportation agency. This will provide more detail on the relationship between these management practices and the benefit that a strong relationship between them brings to an organization.
The objectives of this research are:
1. Gather information on best practices for each discipline.
2. Clearly outline successes and best practices in each field.
3. Define any obstacles and opportunities that may exist in linking the disciplines.
4. Highlight common/uncommon language between the disciplines that may cause confusion.
5. Develop a framework on how to best link the disciplines.
6. Determine the best communication tools to support the framework.
Without the establishment of a global framework that links performance measures with risk management, and process improvement, the future efficiency of DOT’s may be impacted and redundancies in workflow and information systems may be introduced. Additionally, communications between parties at DOT’s may be affected without the incorporation of process improvement, leading to disruption of plans due to mixed responses. Improving the framework by which risk and performance are measured may be financially beneficial, due to increased efficiency and more proficient communications between parties. Developing the relations between these three processes within a framework may mitigate the aforementioned issues while simultaneously aligning agencies in their efforts to reach key goals and objectives.
Within a DOT, it is expected that employees and directors directly associated with development of process improvement, along with Risk and Performance Management departments will be the most likely to utilize the results of this research. Any departments within a DOT associated with Process Improvement and Risk/Performance Management through project work would also utilize this information. After research is complete, a DOT will be able to implement study findings by updating or strengthening their current risk management and performance measurement strategies based on the reported study results. Training, any required updating of systems, and development of new processes may be required. Presentation of study findings to risk or performance management managers, and other project managers within the DOT could be an effective method of creating awareness of updates to current risk and performance measurement and management practices. Communication of findings can be relayed to departments associated with risk or performance management, to ensure that updated practices can be implemented across multiple levels.
AASHTO Strategic Plan Alignment: This project aligns to the AASHTO Strategic Plan by developing transportation standards and guidance. This research will aid DOTs in the furthering of organizational excellence and effective services by providing a framework through which risk and performance can be effectively measured while creating improved processes organizationally. This framework will further align internal and external agencies and their transportation interests by suggesting global updates to effective performance and risk management. As current guidelines are analyzed and potential updates are identified, transportation agencies and systems can improve through the promotion and implementation of these new processes. From this endeavor, DOTs will be able to develop continual process improvement, ensure stronger alignment among committees, and in turn create effective transportation workforce capabilities.
Risk communication is the act of sharing information about potential threats to people and infrastructure with the objective of saving life and property. This covers a wide range of information, including asset condition, mobility, safety, economic impacts, environmental impacts, and others. Effective verbal, visual, and written communication promotes the recovery of disrupted systems while maintaining public confidence in these systems. This requires that all communication tracks be congruent and effective.
Barriers to effective risk communication exist, both internally and externally. One major barrier to internal communication is organizational “siloing”. Staff working within different functional areas (such as safety, operations, and emergency management) may feel little incentive to collaborate if they believe their missions are independent of other departments. Organizational silos result in duplication of effort and inefficiency, and lack of various perspectives in approaching problems.
Another major obstacle is delivering the appropriate message at the right time with clear language that speaks to all audiences. If not properly delivered, communication may inadvertently create hysteria, unease, and confusion. Barriers to external communications with outside agencies stem from a lack of established two-way communications channels, dissimilar language, and varying definitions of risk. Communications with the public and others need to eliminate rumors, lack of expert consensus, over-hyped reporting, failure to understand of ethnic differences, and so on. Ultimately, overcoming these obstacles requires:
• Leadership direction including a reality-based vision, the "path forward", and incentives to interact
• Organizational support from multiple groups
• Clear definition of both Inter- and intra-agencies including:
- What collaboration may look like
- The reason and importance of the collaboration
- How and when collaboration takes place
• Partnerships with community organizations
• Defined and appropriate language for messaging that effectively outlines the hazards, severity, location, affected population, and uncertainty of risk
• Alignment of verbal, visual, and written communications to relay complementary messages.
• Selection of appropriate messaging vehicles (email, variable message sign, web site, etc.)
These efforts require research to identify the best methods and current examples of how to implement such communication at a DOT. As many options exist for internal and external risk communication, and various agencies and organizations have their own communication requirements, effective research will provide a path forward to establishing effective risk visualization and communication at a DOT.
Review of existing literature on developing effective communication techniques, risk visualization, and implementing these initiatives in transportation agencies reveals that there are studies into aspects of these topics, but this proposed research will combine these aspects into a single topic. Previous research includes studies into project improvements through effective communication and its results, the relationship between collaboration and performance across regional safety coalitions, study into the issues of effectively conveying risk, especially among multiple assets, and the use of visualization and modelling to communicate ideas and facilitate communication among transportation planners and agencies. Literature on these topics and others provide information on aspects of communication that are useful to agencies. This research will combine the focus of these previous studies into specifically identifying how to effectively develop communication of risk visualization both within a DOT and with its partner agencies, as well as the public at large. This effort will provide specific inquiry into this subject, providing DOT’s and their partner agencies with valuable information on combining effective communication strategies with risk visualization techniques. This builds on previous study, which covered aspects of communication at DOT’s, risk communication, and other related topics, while not combining such study into a specific project.
The objectives of this research are to develop guidance in the following initiatives which can be used to develop effective risk visualization communication within DOT’s, with external agencies, and the public in the by performing study into the following initiatives:
1. Establishing intra-agency communication.
2. Establishing external partnerships and two-way communications channels with community organizations.
3. Crafting an effective visual, verbal, and written communication strategy with materials (ie., metrics, dashboards, regular reports) with a clear explanation of uncertainty.
4. Determining the appropriate message vehicle.
This research will examine current strategies and methods of risk visualization communication at various DOT’s. Internal communication, two-way communication channels with external organizations, associated strategies, and other aspects of communication in relation to risk visualization will be extensively explored.
Ineffective communication on Risk Visualization at DOT’s may lead to incomplete risk management and a lack of understanding of potential risks associated with DOT projects. This understandably can create severe issues that impact multiple people. Ineffective communication may cause breakdowns of information between agency departments internally, and with external parties. Lack of understanding of potential risks may lead to projects which do not mitigate these risks and create dangerous situations for users. Significant financial investment may be required to mitigate dangers that were missed due to ineffective risk management communication, or to ensure that missed information is eventually communicated. Ensuring that risk visualization is properly communicated and understood among DOTs, related departments, and the community, more effective lines of communications within an agency lead to effective understanding of potential risks, and the mitigation of these risk to create safe situations across transportation systems.
Within a DOT, it is expected that employees and directors associated with Risk Management departments will be the most likely to utilize the results of this research. Any departments within a DOT associated with Risk Management through project work would also utilize this information. After research is complete, a DOT will be able to implement study findings by developing or strengthening their current risk visualization communication strategies based on the reported study results. Training, any required updating of systems, and development of new processes may be required. Presentation of study findings to risk management managers, and other project managers within the DOT could be an effective method of creating awareness of new techniques for improving communication related to risk visualizations. Communication of findings can be relayed to departments associated with risk management, to ensure that communication strategies can be implemented across multiple levels (and in order to prevent departmental ‘siloing’).
LINK TO 2021-2026 AASHTO STRATEGIC PLAN: This project aligns to the AASHTO Strategic Plan by providing information that will help DOTs develop further organizational excellence and effective services in knowing how to create the best risk communication strategies that will share risk information both internally and with external agencies and the public at large. Knowledge of risks will lead to better transportation products and services by helping to identify what aspects of transportation require improvement and safety enhancement. This will also lead to further examination of current and emerging trends present in transportation policies and practices, while promoting a range of new policy options that can be implemented. This project will align with AASHTO’s plan to provide safety, mobility, and access for everyone by providing blueprints for effective communication with external agencies and the public. By making the public aware of potential risks, and pursuing solutions to these risks, DOTs will be able ensure that social equity within the public sphere is preserved while transportation systems are made safer. Effective communication with community organizations, especially, will forge strong connections between transportation agencies with public interest.
The ability to effectively communicate risks both within an agency and externally to key stakeholders is important in decision-making and assuring effective mitigation strategies are assigned and appropriate resources are dedicated. Risk management is an effective tool for decision-making but communicating risks, potential impacts and likelihood of occurrence as well as appropriate mitigation is often not well understood.
This proposal builds off of a similar RPS developed as part of NCHRP 20-123(04) but adds in and emphasizes the element of visualization to improve communication. It also emphasizes the concept of risk tolerance.
“Risk” can simply be defined as an uncertainty that presents either an opportunity or a threat regarding an agency’s ability to carry out their mission. Thus, agency success in risk management rests on the ability to quantify the impacts of the full range of uncertainties that may apply to them. Typically, these impacts are assessed in terms of the agency’s existing performance measures, like asset condition or safety. However, there may be much more to the story in terms of the potential for value creation or cost-cutting related to uncertainty. This would mean not only identifying and quantifying all sources of value/cost related to uncertainty, but would also mean considering risk management as integral to asset management, and not just an afterthought or add-on to traditional condition-based asset management.
As part of this, an agency would need to quantify the benefits and costs of their risk management efforts overall. For example, “We have met X% of our risk mitigation goals in the fiscal year”. Hence, depending upon the nature of the goals and objectives of an agency’s risk management program, it is essential for the agency to have a “framework” that satisfies their management needs with appropriate measures, tools, methods, and processes. The term ”metrics” is a useful term for not only defining appropriate “measures” for quantifying risk-related entities, but also in articulating how these measures will be utilized in the overall risk management framework. This research is intended to explore the current practices and state-of-the-art for metrics, and identify potential options that would be suitable for transportation agencies in the future.
Much progress has been made in recent years regarding transportation agency capabilities in risk management. There are good examples across agencies regarding these successes, including risk management plans documented in their 2019 TAMP submissions. Guidance and clear objectives provided at the time were instrumental in driving agencies in their approaches and processes for identifying and managing risks, and documenting their plans accordingly. It was clear in 2019 that good things were happening.
But there is still significant room for increasing these capabilities, especially given the diversity of agencies, the types of risks and uncertainties they face, and the breadth and depths of the frameworks, methods, tools and valid processes that are needed to meet increasing requirements for consistency and success in risk reduction across agencies. The term “new metrics” has been coined for a reason, in order to elevate risk management to a new level, where a comprehensive examination of cost cutting and value creation options is conducted in managing the range of uncertainties that agencies face. The following section explicitly illustrates why additional research is necessary for agencies to be able to meet evolving requirements in risk management.
The purpose of this research is to:
1) Document practitioners’ ideas and preferences for managing risks and assessing the value-add of risk management programs. Some of these may be based on their current practices, and some may be based on methods they have intended to try.
2) Gather best practices for managing risks, valuing risk management overall, and implementing process improvement across the public and private sectors, including the use of “metrics” as part of these sound practices.
3) Create the basis for a “roadmap” that defines a coherent evolution in the use of performance metrics for risk management which is sensitive to the differences in agency situations, maturities in risk management, and diversity of threats they face.
4) Develop practical, actionable guidance for developing and using risk management metrics in transportation agencies.
Overall Requirements for Metrics: References for valid risk management processes and methods are helpful in getting organized to manage risk across an agency or enterprise. These include ISO 31000 and the AASHTO Enterprise Risk Management Guide. However, in order to fully cover the myriad types of threats that agencies may face, especially when these agencies are a diverse group in the first place, requires a robust approach to defining the metrics and the overarching framework they are used within. As a good example, the themes presented in 23 CFR 667 provide some help in understanding what a solid framework might consist of.
At first glance, a reasonable interpretation of key requirements from the “Evaluation” section of 23 CFR 667 might include the following:
• Consideration of a full spectrum of risks that may affect agencies, including threats on the transportation network, uncertainties in delivering projects as intended, risks associated with hitting performance targets (or not), and programmatic or organizational risks that could threaten success.
• Estimating future “risk costs” of each threat, across multiple criteria such as asset damage, safety impacts, traffic delays, environmental damage, and economic impact.
• Identifying and considering (“evaluating”) a full range of risk management strategies; some of which may present synergies and/or compromises to traditional, condition-based asset treatments and strategies that are also being proposed.
• Assuring that “risk management” is part of the discussion regarding resource allocation, and that risk reduction efforts are discussed “at the table” along with other asset management priorities
• Quantifying the risk reduction of each candidate solution in terms of annualized dollars.
• Estimating the cost and duration of each candidate solution, management strategy, etc.
• Managing implemented strategies over time by monitoring, continuously improving, etc.
Challenges to Defining Metrics: Risk management methods vary across transportation agencies and if similar they are likely implemented inconsistently. Also important is not only “who” within an organization is responsible for managing a risk management program, but what the bounds of that program may be. As such, risk priorities can vary based on differences in geography, agency size, financial circumstances, politics, topography, climate, agency organization, and many other factors. Finally, the types of threats and uncertainties that affect any one agency may be wide-ranging, from flooding to workforce management issues to funding variability. As a result, the details of an effective risk management approach, including metrics, will need to be sensitive to these differences between agencies. These details include a robust set of applicable frameworks, processes, methods, tools, and sources of information.
Need to understand and demonstrate risk-tolerance associated with decision-making within agencies. This relates to both potential threats and opportunities.
This proposal builds on the draft problem statement outlined in the NCHRP 20-123(04). The background has been acceptably defined. The objectives should be modified to further emphasize risk perception and development of ways to assess and communicate risk tolerance.
Emphasis on developing tools and methodologies to document risk tolerance and acceptance parameters associated with taking risks.
State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies are working to deliver greater resiliency in their transportation systems. Agencies are changing established business processes, technical methodologies, tools, and systems to build resiliency. In order to achieve sustainable change and have lasting improvements in resiliency, agencies need to also address organizational culture in order to bring about greater enthusiasm and focus on resiliency building.
Organizational culture is defined as the underlying beliefs, assumptions, values and ways of interacting that contribute to the unique social and psychological environment of an organization. It focuses on building shared values to achieve the organization's goals and objectives. When transportation agencies have good organizational culture, employees know how agency executives want them to respond to any situation, employees believe that the expected response is the proper one, and employees know that they will be rewarded for demonstrating the organization's values.
Greater understanding of the elements of good organizational culture and how it can be applied to transportation agencies to achieve greater resiliency is needed. This research project would include identification of agencies that have had success in building resiliency and examine what elements of organizational change supported the successful resilience building. Research on sectors outside of transportation where resilience is important would be conducted to understand the organizational culture elements. The ingredients for building organizational culture to achieve greater focus on building resilience will be created for transportation agencies.
The proposed research be composed of the following components:
• Conduct a literature/practice review of the relevant information
• Identify organizational practices and determine how they can be generalized to support guidance
• Develop guidance for agencies
• Demonstrate/evaluate guidance through at least one case study
• Produce a final report including an executive summary
Both federal and recipient agencies have the goal of maximizing the public benefits from investment of the limited transportation funding. Additionally, there is a cost and/or risk to every activity or inaction related to program delivery. Whenever an available dollar is moved from physical or operational improvements on the system to program administration, the public loses the benefit of that dollar. Similarly, every dollar that is lost from the system because of fraud or diverted away from the program goals due to whatever form of mismanagement, the public loses the intended benefit of that dollar. Therefore, the goal of all agencies should be to minimize the negative risks and costs associated with administering the funding programs, even if that means the occasional dollar is lost to fraud or mismanagement when the cost to prevent that loss is greater than the cost of the loss itself. It seems especially important to avoid duplicative administrative costs generated from the various governmental levels. The essential issue is determining the end-user public return on investment (ROI) from adding program requirements for both the federal agency and the recipient agency.
Develop a means of determining the balance between program requirements that minimize the risks of fraud and/or of not meeting program goals with maximizing the benefits to the end users (i.e., the public).
In many cases, states and other local government agencies have performance measures developed through the extensive public outreach in the various federally and internally required strategic planning efforts. Not surprisingly, these “local” performance measures are often related to but different from the federally mandated performance measures.
For example, freight mobility in an urban area often means travel time (i.e., traditional congestion), similar to the federal system performance measures (PM3); however, in a rural area, it means the system’s ability to carry the desired loads (i.e., height, width, and load restrictions not meeting expectations causing loads to be rerouted over longer distances). In either case, the results are wasted time, money, and fuel, and more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Reducing this waste is really the goal of the federal measures above. Therefore, the same goal is being monitored, whether using the federal measures or the state and local (hereinafter, local) performance measures. This is just one example of many similarly developed local performance measures related to a national goal area but with different metrics and definitions than the national measures.
By definition, the local measures are important to the end users of the transportation system by virtue of being developed through public input. Therefore, local policymakers often want or require these measures to be used in the decision processes and to tell the local story of transportation performance, safety, condition, etc. (hereinafter, performance). It would reduce waste and improve public transparency if these local measures could also be used to tell the national system performance story. This would avoid potentially conflicting messages from local and national sources and avoid the duplicate work of collecting, monitoring, and analyzing similar measures related to the same basic goal. Additionally, the collective of local measures could be used to tell a more comprehensive and complete story of the nation’s overall movement toward its shared transportation goals through a “drill down” approach of providing greater and greater detail from the national level through the regional, state, and local community levels.
Keyword searches in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) TRID and Research in Progress (RIP) systems were performed for research related to:
• Performance Measures, Communicating
• Communicating Performance
• “National Performance”
Several projects were found related to but not overlapping this proposed topic, with the newest one being a 2015 document specific to State Department of Transportation (DOT) performance story telling. The most relevant document was a 2011 periodical article titled “Measuring Infrastructure Performance: Development of a National Infrastructure Index.” However, not only is that article dated, but it does not address the underlying research question of if and how local measures, important to the public, can be used to tell a national story about national goals.
Develop a means of consolidating the many related local measures into a set of national measures that describes and monitors how well the national transportation system is meeting (or not meeting) the traveling public’s needs as related to Congress’ strategic goals for the nation’s transportation system.
The current system of detailed nationally-defined measures monitored and reported by States and MPOs, along with locally-mandated and -defined measures, yields state, local, and national messages to the public that are often conflicting or at least are not readily understandable to the public. Additionally, collecting data on related but different measures is a duplicative burden to States DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) that is wasteful of scarce resources. Therefore, if measures that are developed with close input from the transportation system end users could be collectively used to monitor the national system’s ability to meet strategic goals, the messages to the public would be more understandable and would come at a lower cost. On a national scale, that lower cost is likely to be a very substantial savings over the current framework, given the sheer number of reporting entities (i.e., State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, highway safety offices, etc.).
Complete implementation would likely require Congressional action through the transportation bill reauthorization because some federal measures are dictated in the current Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law). However, in most cases, implementation could be accomplished through the federal administrative rulemaking processes.
As funding for resource allocation increase and decrease each year it is critical for agencies to ensure that they are spending the resources the best they can and meeting as many needs as possible. The challenge of meeting condition needs vs operational needs vs quality of life is increasing each year for agencies. Thus, as agencies work each year to make resource allocation decisions for multiple service areas, and analysis the impacts of these decisions are often difficult to captured with performance measures. For example, condition measures for physical asset classes (pavements, bridges, etc.); performance measures for system operations (snow and ice control, traffic operations, emergency response) and quality of life measures (safety, accessibility, equity) are used by agencies to evaluate these resource allocations. State agencies generally have flexibility to adjust the level of investment of these categories, yet evaluation of the tradeoffs or optimization of these decisions are often limited to similar measures (bridge condition vs pavement condition). Is there potential benefit in expanding the scope of these analyses to include performance measures and investment classes of less similar nature. What tools do agencies use for this cross-asset allocation; How are the tools used for asset resource allocations to include services and quality of life investments?
Keyword searches in TRB’s TRID and RIP systems were performed for research related to:
• “Resource Allocation”
• “Cross Resource Allocation”
• “Cross Investment”
A search was also conducted on the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Portal :
• Tools>Featured Tools>MODAT
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 806: Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance developed a cross-asset resource allocation framework, a spreadsheet tool and guidance.
A subsequent project culminated in NCHRP Report 921:Case Studies in Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Decision Analysis , which updated the NCHRP Report 806 spreadsheet tool and developed case studies illustrating multi-object decision analysis (MODA) applications. The Multi-Objective Decision Analysis Tool (MODAT) developed as part of this project helps prioritize candidate projects on a range of different objectives. MODAT can be accessed at: https://multiobjective.org/.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) also developed a web-based training (WBT) training curriculum for performance-based prioritization using Multi-Objective Decision Analysis (MODA). This training is intended to educate and expose practitioners to the use of MODA.
Indiana DOT is scoring all of their projects based upon 7 categories including safety, congestion, environment, regional and state economic contribution, Intermodal connectivity, and total cost of ownership. This synthesis would be an extension of the research started here, specifically providing additional case studies of states implementing cross-investment allocation and considering investment categories other than physical assets.
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Portal. https://www.tpm-portal.com/. Accessed June 2022.
2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2015. NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22177.
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. NCHRP Report 921: Case Studies in Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25684
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. MODAT Tool. https://multiobjective.org. Accessed June 2022
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Performance-Based Prioritization Using Multi-Objective Decision Analysis (MODA). Web-Based Training. AASHTO Store. Washington DC. https://store.transportation.org/Item/TrainingDetail?ID=4506. Accessed June 2022
Investigate, compile, and categorize examples of organizations’ efforts of using performance measures and data supported tools for cross resource allocation and goal-oriented decisions.
As agencies make tough resourcing decisions every year, this synthesis would be useful to capture how the research products and tools described above are being used, along with any other methods state DOTs are using to make multi-objective resource allocation decisions. Research has shown that multi-objective resource allocation can be done. This synthesis could answer “Is it being done?” and if so, “How is it being done?”
The product of this research would be a synthesis of the practice, facilitating knowledge transfer to performance management practitioners.
Transportation agencies traditionally had a very steady workforce. The combination of changes in young people’s work patterns and the economic changes that drive workforce availability requires that agencies need to act more proactively on how to deliver transportation programs. Research is needed to understand the behavioral patterns and mechanisms to both mitigate variability in workforce availability and what can be done proactively to benefit the agency.
With the increased funding states are receiving based on the IIJA and BFP. One agency has identified the fact that they may run into contractor availability to meet the needs of the upcoming projects.
Changes in economy. Changes in young people's work styles. With IIJA money, how are agencies going to be able to spend it, manage it? NMDOT is getting $45M for bridge projects, they have to identify the projects and it will strain the workforce to meet the requirements.
Several states have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. Over 30 of these offices participate in the Transportation Lean Forum (TLF), an informal group that operates in association with the AASHTO Subcommittee on Organization Management. In addition to formal offices, some states make less formal “grass roots” efforts to improve their processes. A synthesis would conduct a side-by-side study of the states’ efforts, including efforts in states that are not participating in the TLF, find what is working and what is not, assist states to identify improvements that they might implement, and set a baseline of the current “state of the art” that could inform future research on the outcomes of these efforts.
Lean Improvement research questions:
Efficiency research questions:
Lean Improvement: Several DOTs have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. These include a t least thirty US States, five Canadian Provinces, England, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Efficiencies: Several state DOTs (e.g., CA, MN, OH) and England are required to submit annual efficiency reports.
(30 states + other agencies have initiatives). What can be learned from these efforts? For instance, in England, the focus is on construction-only. (Nigel)
Transportation and its infrastructure are not ends in themselves but means for accessing places for economic activity, i.e., overcoming the friction between where you are and where you want to be. Transportation agencies, departments of transportation (DOTs), and other infrastructure owner-operators (IOOs) work to create public value in providing safe mobility. This is balanced with a desire to support societal goals and improve the quality of life. Many agencies continue evolving toward community-centered transportation by adopting more comprehensive and outcome-oriented goals for accessibility, affordability, resiliency, sustainability, public health, and security.
Measuring these less conventional outcomes (compared to traffic delay or pavement condition, for example) remains an immature practice and not widely done. There is a legacy of a strong, institutionalized bias toward infrastructure- and auto-oriented performance. Yet many emerging measures are closely tied to diverse societal goals, and practice is advancing in pockets around the country, including efforts to influence investment decision-making through a more comprehensive performance framework.
There is limited published literature on measuring transportation performance related to the more comprehensive – or “non-traditional” – outcomes like equity or resilience, but some examples include:
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-68D Scan 22-03: Leading Practices in Equitable Decision Making to Support Societal Goals within Transportation Agencies
• NCHRP Report 985: Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices
• NCHRP Report 920: Management and Use of Data for Transportation Performance Management: Guide for Practitioners
• NCHRP 08-162: Guidance for Implementing Equitable Transportation Decision-Making
• NCHRP Project: 08-121 Accessibility Measures in Practice: Guidance for Transportation Agencies (research is complete, the final report is under review)
Apart from published guidance, a wealth of information and data are available on these topics from the numerous agencies actively developing and utilizing newer measures. This research project will include a scan of those agencies – e.g., Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and others– to gather evidence and examples.
Comprehensive transportation performance management research should not be confused with social value analysis. Though related and often sharing the same data sources, the purposes and methods are very distinct.
Other ongoing research and development are available from efforts related to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) 2022 Equity Action Plan and Justice40 initiative, the Federal Transit Administration’s work in these areas, Federally supported Geographic Information System (GIS) tools (example), measuring the benefits of access or public transportation, the 2022 greenhouse gas (GHG) rulemaking process, and others.
The research will also draw on best practices in performance management, emerging guidance from organizations such as the National League of Cities, international decision-making frameworks, and other sectors where these measures are not considered “non-traditional.”
From the perspective of getting to a more coherent national practice, the objective of this research is to get our proverbial arms around how to do this better. This begins with documenting the current state of the art, identifying methodological and institutional gaps, and charting a path toward elevating practice nationwide.
This research goal will take lessons learned from the evolution of traditional measures like pavement condition or level of service, each decades in the making and continuing to evolve, be reimagined, or even discarded. Once-novel travel time reliability is also now a “traditional” measure, but not before the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) began 15 years ago. This research will evolve contemporary measures, help expand emerging leading practices for adoption by agencies around the nation, and advance improved measurement, integration, and incorporation of important policy goals into investment decision-making.
The objectives of this research also directly support the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO’s) current formulation of the moonshot to reorient our transportation goals and investments to support communities. More effectively measuring the “non-traditional” strategic goals is fundamental to tracking our moonshot progress.
The public, society at large, is demanding that we consider transportation outcome performance in a wider range of dimensions, requiring measures that more effectively capture the impacts of the system and services delivered by DOTs/IOOs. While charting the needed changes over the next ten years there are many gains to be made much sooner through this research:
• Evaluating the public value of transportation initiatives, e.g., equitable access to education, Utah’s work on measuring quality of life.
• Identifying high quality measures to address arising areas of importance such as accessibility, resilience, and equity.
• Developing new measures and using measures that exist but are less familiar in the transportation domain.
• Representing non-traditional strategic goals and policies in the decision-making process.
• Connecting with the broader societal goals that the public really wants to achieve.
• Measurement areas may include resiliency, equity, maintenance, usage, supply chain, and climate change, security, privacy, safety, public health, affordability, sustainability, or others.
Just as some DOTs are reconsidering legacy measures such as level of service from investment decisions, our transportation agencies nationwide must be on guard against unintended consequences of measures that may be relatively easy (or even mandated) but which risk obscuring negative impacts on communities and the environment. The Federal measures arising from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century/Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (MAP-21/FAST) Acts have been a welcome infusion of energy into the practice of transportation performance management, but they are just one small part of an agency’s responsibilities to its constituents.
The so-called leveling of the playing field amongst competing interests is gaining some momentum, and this research will serve to accelerate adoption of best practices to reach public benefits faster.
Ongoing coordination between AASHTO, NCHRP, USDOT, and Transportation Research Board (TRB) (e.g., Performance Management Committee)
Transportation agencies are required to use asset management systems, including pavement and bridge asset management systems, to comply with Federal requirements for developing asset management plans. These systems are valuable for supporting a number of business functions, including: analyzing the existing asset inventory and its condition; developing effective asset lifecycle strategies; determining resources required to maintain assets in good repair; and recommending priorities for asset treatments. However, a major challenge transportation agencies face is in using their asset management systems is in trying to develop realistic projects that utilize management system recommendations. The systems generally recommend specific treatments, but do not scope realistic projects. Thus, significant manual effort is required to review management system treatment recommendations, often from multiple systems, and combine these into candidate projects. Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate. Such research will help agencies better comply with Federal requirements, save staff time, and result in development of projects that best support agency asset lifecycle strategies and best practices.
Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate.
The proposed research would include the following tasks, at a minimum:
• Review of existing transportation asset management systems and the approaches agencies use for developing projects from management system treatment recommendations.
• Development of a framework for transportation asset project development. The framework should incorporate: asset lifecycle strategies, other investment objectives that may lie outside of existing asset management systems, such as improve equity, accessibility and mobility; major constraints and parameters related to development of projects; and other factors.
• Gap assessment to identify issues in current practice and opportunities for improvement.
• Development of prototype tools that supplement existing management system treatment recommendation to better support project development.
• Piloting the framework and tools with one or more transportation agencies.
• Development of a research report documenting the results of the research effort.
This research will help agencies better comply with Federal requirements, save staff time, and result in development of projects that best support agency asset lifecycle strategies and best practices.
In July 2012 MAP-21 established requirements that each state developed a Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) that, at a minimum to include pavement and bridge assets on the National Highway System (NHS) (23 USC 119). This requirement was further detailed, in October 2016, through the issuance of 23 CFR 515, that encourages but dos not require State DOTs to include all NHS infrastructure assets in their TAMPs, (23 CFR 515.9(c)). This can include major asset classes such as tunnels or “ancillary” asset classes, such as:
• Small Culverts
• Sign Structures
• Retaining Walls
• ITS Equipment
• Traffic Signals
While many states are including these assets in their TAMPs, many others manage these assets outside their federal TAMPs in an effort to right-size the associated workload and costs.
• FHWA’s Handbook for Including Ancillary Assets in Transportation Asset Management Programs (2019)
• FHWA’s Case Study 7 – Managing Assets Beyond Pavements and Bridges (2020)
• HIF-20-067 Case Study 7-Managing Assets Beyond Pavements and Bridges (TAMP Practices on Other Assets) (dot.gov)
Recent research has documented approaches to performing this work and several states have developed programs of differing levels of maturity. A Synthesis project at this time will enable agencies to understand the current state of the practice and identify leading practices that can be adopted to advance their own programs.
Agencies are becoming more reliant on asset inventory and condition data to create a virtual digital twin to the real world assets that exist and change over time. These changes can result from accidents, natural events, maintenance or construction activities. These changes need to be reflected in the digital twin as close to real time as possible to maintain the usefulness and validity of the virtual twin.
The purpose of this proposed research is examine emerging and established technologies used to capture and update changes to these assets in the field and the necessary steps to ensure that these changes are processed and integrated into the authoritative systems in as close to real time as possible to determine the utility of the data, and how to collect, manage, and apply it more effectively.
• NCHRP 23-16: Implementing and Leveraging Machine Learning at State Departments of Transportation: Available here.
• NCHRP 956 “Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Asset Management” Available here.
• NCHRP 800 “Successful Practices in GIS-based Asset Management” Available here.
• NCHRP 508 “Data Management and Governance Practices” Available here
• NCHRP 491 “Use of Mobile IT Devices in the Field for Design, Construction and Asset Management” Available here
Emerging and current technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data col-lection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspec-tions, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and trans-portation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset management can offer an agency as well as how fre-quently that information needs to be captured and optimized.
Research is needed in the following areas:
· Identification of key current and emerging technologies for the capture, extrac-tion, processing and updating of asset inventory and condition data in authori-tative asset management systems
· Examples of current and emerging technologies include: mobile data collection, (iPhone, tablet, laptop), high resolution imagery, mobile LiDAR, machine learn-ing, artificial intelligence, neural networks, internet of things (IoT), nanotechnol-ogy and microelectronics, ground penetrating radar (GPR), and other data col-lection and processing and integrating technologies.
· Address the challenges of the rapid pace of technological advancement and the application of these technologies in a cost effective and practical manner, con-sidering obsolescence, staff expertise, and willingness to adopt new technolo-gies.
· Evaluate the level of extraction detail and frequency interval needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment can be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets.
· Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing and presenting data to all stakeholders in various formats (i.e GIS, systems of engagement) with standardized and consistent formats of presentation and interaction.
· Identify best practices for managing these technologies and systems as they work holistically across the agency as cost effective enterprise solutions, includ-ing but not limited to types of expertise and staff resources.
· The research should include use cases of efficient and effective applications of these technologies, processes and systems.
· The research should consider any refinements that would need to occur in net-work level and project level asset management data collection to make the data useful for compliance (i.e. ADA), safety (i.e. bridge clearances) or engineering purposes (i.e. BIM/CIM).
State and local transportation agencies are rapidly adopting Asset Management prac-tices to optimize infrastructure conditions for the resources available and to meet Fed-eral Transportation Asset Management Planning reporting requirements. To meet these demands there is a profound need to invest in technology and systems to under-stand the fully inventoried condition of various transportation assets and to model the outcomes of various investment strategies.
The potential benefits of this research is to provide insights to decision makers at transportation agencies on how to navigate a world of constantly changing and evolving technology. It will help agencies work better with technology firms. It will provide guidance on how to minimize the impact of technology on staff and make more effec-tive use of taxpayer dollars. It will provide guidance on how to make data in these au-thoritative systems more useful and through visualization make that data more un-derstandable. By making these systems and data collection practices more efficient and effective it will enable transportation officials to make better informed investments in the transportation leading to a more equitable, sustainable and resilient system.
Digital twins of physical roadway assets can model deterioration, forecast needed treatments, archive inspections, and be updated through subsequent field collection. It is like an API that allows multiple applications to interact with the managed data. Implementation of research may still require a need to manipulate with API, understand data interoperability, and account for differentiation between vendors data collection standards. Although vendors have a lot of solutions developed, the research will determine the best approach given the asset type, acceptable LOS, change detection, and general data management regardless of vendor.
New Mexico DOT
Reimagine the DOT Organizational and Decision Making Paradigm from - one that is driven by planning, design and construction – to one driven by the need to maintain and operate an established system based on principles of asset management and transportation system operations
· SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR1 “Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Opera-tions and Management”
· FHWA-HOP-17-017 “Developing and Sustaining a Transportation Systems Man-agement and Operation Mission for Your Organization: A Primer for Program Plan-ning”
· NCHRP 08-138 (Pending) Guide to the Integration of Transportation Systems Management and Operations into Transportation Asset Management
To rethink how a transportation agency should be organized to maintain and operate an existing system in real time. That includes a focus on preservation and maintenance of existing assets, responding quickly and effectively to incidents and emergencies, and operating the system at an optimized level of service given funding constraints. The research will consider what systems and processes need to be in place to monitor conditions and operations, the role of maintenance and asset management in programming and project development, effective use of agency forces, budgeting for maintenance and replacement over the lifecycle, and how to manage risk as a compliment to resource constrained asset management strategies. The research will look at various public and private sector models that look at organizational structure, element driven contracting, funding allocation models, and the role of in house vs contract resources to maximize the cost effectiveness of resource investments.
Project objectives envision developing a synthesis using the following guidance:
1. Identify organizational practices that integrate maintenance and operational needs into capital planning processes.
2. Perform a domestic and international scan of how and what transportation agencies do organizationally to implement effective Asset Management and TSMO practices for holistic decision-making throughout the asset lifecycle.
3. Identify decision-making, communication, and organizational practices to in-clude all stakeholders in the lifecycle of the assets.
4. Identify project criteria and business practices that can be used for realizing improved transportation system performance over time. This includes how or-ganizations take into account maintainability, sustainability, resiliency and functional performance in the development, design and construction of pro-jects.
5. Develop case studies on how capital transportation projects are delivered and the problems that occur across functional areas. Agencies will be interviewed to determine root cause analysis of projects to evaluate both successes and problems with the long term lifecycle management of assets arising from poli-cies, organizational practices, and knowledge transfer and how that impacts an agency’s ability to maintain a state of good repair for new and existing assets.
6. Evaluate how federal funding mechanisms could be employed to fund mainte-nance needs of new and existing asset types arising out of capital project prior-itization.
7. Evaluate how agencies integrate performance targets and measures into their maintenance, operations, program management and asset management pro-cesses to drive decision making.
Asset management and transportation systems management and operations have become cornerstones of how transportation agencies prioritize how they maintain, op-erate and make capital improvements to their transportation systems. These have driven agencies to rethink how to develop their capital programs, how decisions are made and who is involved at various levels of decision making. The goal of this re-search is to share effective practices within agencies for the benefit of the overall in-dustry.
The purpose of this is to research case studies to help agencies improve their own de-cision-making processes with regards to asset management and TSMO.
Financial risks can threaten the strategic objectives of transportation agencies - e.g., the safe and reliable and efficient movement of people and goods. For example, the Highway Trust Fund is tied to taxes on gas and diesel. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic greatly reduced American consumption, thus dramatically reducing revenues. State DOTs have seen their budgets slashed by 30% or more, forcing delays in some projects. Furthermore, external mandates can impose both risks and opportunites. A well-funded mandate could mean state DOTs have additional funding for enhancing resilience, while an unfunded mandate could force a DOT to choose between maintenance and projects. The objective of this project is to help transportation leaders with decision-making tools for allocating limited resources when subjected to unpredicatable financial conditions.
This research need was recommended and prioritized through multiple stakeholder engagements during the 20-123 project. No related literature was found that incorporated financial risk at the enterprise and program levels. In addition, the recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the consequences of income and financial instability in transportation agencies.
The importance of incorporating risk at the enterprise and program levels has been recognized, and AASHTO published a guide summarizing how DOTs can establish and benefit from an enterprise risk management (ERM) program (AASHTO Guide for Enterprise Risk Management, 2016). This guide divides risk into four levels: enterprise, program, project, and activity. Risks to the enterprise are identified as the risks that affect the organization and its strategic objectives; while risk to the program includes risks that are “common to group of projects that achieve strategic goals” or those that “could affect the performance of major programs such as safety, pavements, bridges, maintenance, information technology, local programs, project delivery, finance, and human resources”. The guide provides an overview on what enterprise risk management is, highlights the benefits, and also includes information of how to identify, assess and manage those risks. However, further guidance and methodologies on how to assess and manage financial risks at the enterprise and program levels are still needed.
The purpose of the proposed research project is to provide state DOTs with the necessary tools to assess and manage financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.
The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:
• Task 1 – Conduct an in-depth literature review of all studies related to assessment and management of financial risks in transportation agencies, especially at the enterprise and program levels, including national and international examples as available.
• Task 2 – Conduct a gap assessment of the state of practice to determine what is still needed to incorporate financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 3 – Develop a methodology for identifying and quantifying financial risks at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 4 – Develop metrics and performance indicators for evaluating effectiveness of financial risk countermeasures.
• Task 5 – Develop decision-making tools for resource allocation under conditions of financial uncertainty.
• Task 6 – Develop methodology and guidance on consideration of program and potentially project-level financial risk within the enterprise.
• Task 7 – Pilot test the developed processes with multiple state DOTs and revised methodology as needed.
• Task 8 – Develop an implementation guide to help state DOTs to incorporate these processes into existing agency programs and projects.
The recent COVID-19 pandemic greatly reduced American consumption, thus dramatically reducing revenues. State DOTs have seen their budgets slashed by 30% or more, forcing delays in some projects and reductions in workforce. A well-funded mandate could mean state DOTs have additional funding for enhancing resilience, while an unfunded mandate could force a DOT to choose between maintenance and projects. Not having the necessary funding for certain programs or projects may have a short or long term negative impacts on agency mission (e.g., lack of funding to continue or improve safety programs).
This project aims to provide transportation leaders with the necessary decision-making tools for allocating resources when subjected to unpredicatable financial conditions in order to reduce risks and increase the return on investment (ROI).
In order to implement financial risk assessments at the enterprise level, senior executives and policy makers need to take the lead and champion these initiatives.
Similarly, program managers need to take the major role on encouraging the implementation of financial risk assessments into program level.
It is key that senior executives, policy makers and program managers need to have a communication plan to communicate with peers on their areas in order to assess the financial risks to multiple programs and/or projects that may affect each other. In addition, providing staff training on the subject of financial risk, especially at the enterprise and program levels, is a key factor on successful implementation. Training material (including guidance, workshops, peer exchanges, etc.) to help implementation champions should be developed and used to create awareness and facilitate assessments.
Rank 5 in 2021
FHWA Directive 5520 encourages state DOTs to develop risk-based, cost effective strategies to minimize the impacts of climate change. Environmental stressors, such as extreme heat and extreme cold, and changes in the frequency and magnitude of extreme events, is changing the lifecycle of transportation assets; i.e, reducing service life, shortening replacement cycles, and increasing maintenance costs. Maintenance personnel offer valuable insight as to the costs associated with achieving performance goals. At the same time, maintenance personnel will require guidance as to how to incorporate risk models into maintenance, inspection, replacement, and repair cycles so that scheduled and routine maintenance continue to mitigate the risk from asset deterioration.
This research differs from the existing body of research found in a review of relevant literature due to its focus on the integration of risk management with existing processes. During the review, there was no body of work that mentions incorporating risk management into the existing maintenance practices. In addition, transportation practitioners during multiple stakeholder engagements during the development of the NCHRP 20-123 project initiated the conversation and advocated for the need of this potential research topic.
To fulfill the requirements of MAP-21 and FAST Act, state DOTs started to establish enterprise risk management (ERM) programs and develop risk-based assets management plan. FHWA Directive 5520 further encourages state DOTs to develop risk-based, cost-effective strategies to minimize the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. Environmental stressors, such as natural disasters (e.g. earthquake, flood, high wind, wildfire etc.), higher average temperature etc. are changing the lifecycle of transportation assets, which also change the maintenance needs of infrastructure assets. Incorporating climate change into risk modeling and risk-based maintenance planning is important for an informative, forward-looking, and sustainable decision making and funding allocation strategy. Guidance and tools are not currently available to support the practice.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a guidance and prototype tool to help state DOTs assess and manage risk in maintenance practice. The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:
Task 1 – Conduct a State DOT survey and in-depth interview with selected DOTs to determine the state-of-practice for
• the methodologies and tools used for risk assessment and management, and how they are integrated into asset management and maintenance practice (at enterprise level, program level, and project level).
• the methodologies for quantifying risks caused by climate change and extreme weather events
---- determine extreme weather events and climate factors need to be considered
---- determine performance matrices to measure the effects of extreme weather events and climate changes
---- quantify the risks associated with the performance effects
• maintenance actions and associated risk mitigation requirements; and effectiveness and cost of the actions.
Task 2 – Analysis the survey and interview results to find gaps that require more studies. Develop an interim report to document the survey, interview, and the results of the gap study.
Task 4 – Develop solutions for the gaps identified in Task 3.
Task 5 – Develop a draft guideline for incorporating risk management (including risks caused by climate change) in maintenance practice. Develop a prototype tool that implements the framework suggested in the draft guideline to facilitate trad-off decisions for better management limited resources and prioritize work.
Task 6 – Work with volunteer states to conduct at least two pilot projects to validate/test the developed guideline and tool. Feedbacks from the pilot states will be discussed and addressed to finalize the deliverables.
Risk based asset management is still at its early stage in practice. Risk assessment and management framework that takes climate change and maintenance practice into consideration is rarely studied. This is an important topic for owners to make informed decision and allocate funding more effectively at enterprise, program, and project levels. Guidelines and tools are immediately needed to facilitate this practice.
Workshops/Webinars will be developed and delivered to help state DOT personnel understand the developed guideline and prototype tool. The prototype tool will be tested and further developed into a product tool following the developed guideline and considering state specific risk factors. State DOTs will be responsible for engaging the necessary staff and conducting a risk assessment for their ongoing maintenance practices and implementing updated maintenance practices when possible.
It is a key that senior executives, policy makers and program managers need to have a communication plan to communicate with peers to effectively integrate risk management in maintenance decision making. Additional products and activities like training workshops to increase the integration of risk management into maintenances practices, as well as peer exchanges and informative presentations can help state DOTs adopt the concept in their practice with positive impacts.
Ranked 3 in 2021
Started from War Games topics, planning to submit to the Domestic Scan Program
• Focused on how do we integrate accepted best practice learnings and revisit our organizational mission across sectors to create a more safe, equitable society?
• Currently researching organizational missions, emerging performance areas, and equity plans within organizations before next meeting
Areas we may want to include:
- Organizational components that have been successful (for example)
- Organizational factors
- Risk management approaches
- Innovative strategies
- Stakeholder partnership (more than engagement)
- Successful support systems
- Strategic frameworks - organizational missions
- Performance management systems
- Equity plans, etc.
- Types of leadership exhibited in high-performing agencies
- I.D. promising practices
- Assess likelihood of reproducing these results
- Investigate issues, assess tech transfer opportunities and methods
- Document results
Also consider barriers to addressing societal needs, how leading agencies have overcome these challenges (for example):
- Rapid pace of change
- Complex, sometimes conflicting social pressures
- I.D. promising practices
- Assess likelihood of reproducing these results
- Investigate issues, assess tech transfer opportunities and methods
- Document results
Emerging technologies, such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, and continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data (among others), hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management. As this technology has been evolving and improving, federal regulation, specifically, MAP-21 and the FAST Act, has pushed many agencies to collect and utilize a detailed inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. With the collection of high-volume asset inventory and condition data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, the accessibility and affordability of data collection has become a clear issue for agencies, particularly as they aim to manage and visualize collected data for both strategic and operational transportation asset management planning purposes. Therefore, research and guidance on the benefits and applications of these emerging technologies as well as how frequently that inventory and condition data need to be collected or assessed is necessary.
The focus of this research would be on the following:
• Address the adoption and practical application of these emerging collection technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
• Provide guidance on the level of detail and frequency interval necessary for data collection to support TAM at both the state and local levels.
• Determine how condition assessment can be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets.
• Further investigate and recommend tools capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting data to stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.
• The research should consider any refinements that would need to occur in network level asset management data collection to make the data useful for compliance (i.e. ADA), safety (i.e. bridge clearances) or engineering (design or construction) purposes.
• PROJECT: Best Practices on Collecting Asset Information from the Construction Stage, South Carolina Department of Transportation, 2021, Proposed 2021-10-01
• PROJECT: Automated Guardrail Inventory and Condition Evaluation, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 2021, Active 2021-01-18
• Highway Asset and Pavement Condition Management using Mobile Photogrammetry, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2021
• Automated Real-Time Roadway Asset Inventory using Artificial Intelligence, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 2674, Issue 11, 2020, pp 220-234, 2020-11
• Computer Vision for Rapid Updating of the Highway Asset Inventory, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 2674, Issue 9, 2020, pp 245-255, 2020-09
• GIS Tools and Apps—Integration with Asset Management, 2020, 155p, 2020-02
• PROJECT: A Method for Pavement Marking Inventory and Retroreflectivity Condition Assessment Using Mobile LiDAR, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, $200,000, 2019, Active, 2019-10-21
• SCDOT Asset Data Collection Assessment, 2019, 99, 2019-08
• PROJECT: GIS Tools and Applications: Integration with Asset Management, Minnesota Department of Transportation, $59,021.12, 2019, Completed, 2019-04-19
• Novel Cloud and Mobile Technology for Road Asset Management in Saint Lucia, 26th World Road Congress, 2019, 9, 2019
• Implementation of Road Asset Management System in Saint Lucia, 26th World Road Congress, 2019, 16, 2019
• Innovative Approaches to Asset Management, 2019, 110, 2019
• Machine Learning Powered Roadside Asset Extraction using LiDAR, TAC 2018: Innovation and Technology: Evolving Transportation - 2018 Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada, 2018
• Life-Cycle Approach to Collecting, Managing, and Sharing Transportation Infrastructure Asset Data, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Volume 143, Issue 6, 2017-06
• Highway Asset Inventory Data Collection Using Airborne LiDAR, Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting, 2017, 15
• Evaluation of High-Speed Mobile Technologies for Sign Inventory and Maintenance, Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting, 2017, 13, 2017
• Implementation of Aerial LiDAR Technology to Update Highway Feature Inventory, 2016, 133, 2016-12
• Guide for Efficient Geospatial Data Acquisition using LiDAR Surveying Technology, 2016, 12, 2016
• LEVERAGING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND DOCUMENTATION FOR ASSET INVENTORY AND LIFE CYCLE ASSET MANAGEMENT Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, 2016, 20, 2016
• Handbook For Including Ancillary Assets in Transportation Asset Management Programs, Federal Highway Administration, 2018
Working backward from the key decisions that need to be made across stakeholder groups over an asset’s lifecycle, this project seeks to identify current practices and recommend ongoing improvements in relation to collecting, storing, sharing, and maintaining asset inventory and condition data (“data management”). With a focus on implementation, the project will build on existing research by identifying the pros and cons of different data management methods and technologies, so that decision makers across departments can collaborate more effectively when planning and investing in data management approaches. The practice of data management is evolving at a rapid pace, given the proliferation of new technologies that are being used increasingly alongside traditional approaches. In parallel, agencies are recognizing the multi-stakeholder nature of asset management, as departments such as compliance, safety, engineering, operations and environmental begin to see the benefits of access to reliable, accurate asset information. This project will answer key data management questions such as: What data should be collected to address all stakeholder needs? How, when, and how often? Using which technologies and platforms? At what cost? And why?
It will also provide guidance to agencies on the most appropriate approaches to collecting, storing, sharing and maintaining asset data, based on the needs of the various stakeholders involved in data-based decision-making.
Inventory and condition data collection and data management are continuously changing in response to changing demands of state and local agencies. However, despite these changing demands, inventory data is constantly being used by multiple stakeholders to make decisions (planning, operations, safety, contractors). While the inventory data may not necessarily be accurate or timely due to these agency constraints or because the agency’s collection processes lack maturity (i.e. ancillary assets), this data is still being used to make decisions at all levels within an agency, yet there is little consensus on how to manage data related to those assets.
The benefits of this research are that it will provide a complete view of inventory and condition issues across asset classes; support agencies with lessons learned from others (from data collection to post-processing/extraction and related decision making) and enable collaboration on new approaches, particularly for secondary asset data management; support implementation of TAMPs by helping to ensure data is reliable and accurate; support preparation for emerging technologies such as CAVES, which will be dependent on secondary assets, such as striping, roadside units (RSUs) and signals.
Methods to incorporate products into practice:
- Web-based training for agency staff
- Case studies from peer agencies
- Assessment of existing technologies including functionalities, pros/cons, and costs
- Decision makers at all organizational levels and across departments/disciplines
- Contractor and consultant community
There is a rich body of research in NCHRP 226, Vizguide, and NCHRP Project 20-24(93)B(02), Communicating Performance Management, and NCHRP Synthesis 52-16, Visualization of Highway Performance Measures, documented the range of practices state DOTs are currently using regarding their visualization of performance measures. The goal of this research would be to evaluate the noteworthy practices currently being pioneered by state DOTs using the foundation of these previous NCHRP projects and then develop an easy-to-use guide to creating effective visualizations.
NCHRP Synthesis 52-16, Visualization of Highway Performance Measures, found that there is little guidance or widely shared practices on how to evaluate a visualization’s effectiveness using a systematic process. This finding illuminated a need to implement a clear set of principles that can be used to evaluate visualizations that are used internally and externally. This evaluation guide would cover two distinct objectives – the effectiveness of the visualization is communicating information and the effectiveness of the visualization is changing behavior.
Even though the depth of information presented in many of the visualizations provided to the general public presents a sophisticated view of vast amounts of information, it does not yet provide a complete solution. Even with clear visualizations providing insight to solutions that could solve vexing problems (e.g., the effectiveness of wearing seat belts or not texting), there are still a significant number of people who don’t respond to the data and are killed in crashes they may have survived if they chose to buckle up or not text while they drive. Determining the means to evaluate the effectiveness of visualizations, not only to provide information, but to influence behavior would significantly enhance the value and the time and effort spent creating the visualizations.
NCHRP Synthesis 52-16, Visualization of Highway Performance Measures, identified the problem stated above, that there is little guidance or widely shared practices on how to evaluate a visualization’s effectiveness using a systematic process. This research will build and expand upon that research, as well as NCHRP 226, Vizguide, NCHRP Project 20-24(93)B(02), Communicating Performance Management, and NCHRP Synthesis 20-05/Topic 52-16 Visualizing of Highway Performance Measures.
The object of this research is to develop an easy-to-use guide for evaluating the effectiveness of transportation visualizations that state DOTs can use to improve communication and decision-making. With this guide, state DOTs will have the tools to hone their message, manage the data overload that occurs in visualizations and impact travel behavior with effective visual data increasing safety, security and mobility.
The suggested tasks for this research are:
1) Research the essential components of what makes a visualization effective. Build off NCHRP 226 and 20-24(93)B(02). Evaluate the visualization techniques and practices documented in NCHRP Synthesis 52-16.
2) Create a guidebook that clearly communicates how to approach a new visualization and guide its creation.
3) Evaluate how to gain feedback on the effectiveness of a visualization in communicating information and influencing behavior, and also facilitates decision making. This could build off practices currently used for public service announcements (PSA).
4) Identify or develop noteworthy practices for evaluating the effectiveness of a visualization.
5) Create a Guidebook that provides state DOTs with options for evaluating the effectiveness of a visualization.
6) Integrate the two elements – creation and evaluation – into a guide that demonstrates the feedback loop of continuous improvement enabled by joining these two functions.
7) Establish an online case study website that showcases exceptional and innovative visualizations. This could include a category for the use of emerging data and emerging analytic capacity so state DOTs could maintain currency in innovative practices. The website would be updated by the TRB AED80 Visualization in Transportation Committee yearly by acknowledging award winning entries.
Effective data visualization has the power to dramatically improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Previous research demonstrates that state DOTs have invested considerable time and expertise in developing visualizations for performance measures and need to communicate results effectively.
This guide would build on and evolve prior work by developing clear guidance on how to create effective visualizations and how to evaluate their effectiveness. It will enable states to focus and capitalize upon the investment, time and expertise they are currently deploying. It will provide a roadmap to the states who are in the early development of their visualization efforts and will provide an opportunity for well-established programs to expand their efforts by evaluating the effectiveness of their visualizations.
Addressing the creation and evaluation of effective visualizations together creates a feedback loop that enables and promotes continuous improvement.
Transportation planners and practitioners responsible for analyzing and communicating data through visualization have a great need for this research. This guide has a built-in audience of the users of both previous research efforts and the Transportation Asset Management (TAM) portal. Additionally, the guide would lend itself to promotion through the committees of the TRB data section, particularly AED80; and the AASHTO Committee structure, particularly CDMA (Data), COP (Planning), CPBM (Performance), and TAM (Asset management).
Emerging technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset analysis can offer an agency as well as how frequently that information needs generated.
Research is needed in the following areas:
• Address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
• What level of extraction detail and frequency interval is needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets?
• Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting such data to all stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.
Among the many difficulties raised by COVID-19, the pandemic does have the potential of affecting asset management practices in diverse ways. On the one hand, reduced traffic might reduce road maintenance costs; on the other hand, ordering more goods might increase truck traffic and thus increase deterioration. Even if deterioration were the same, the road agency would always have the option of utilizing a less expensive treatment alternative and thus reduce the capital needs and maintenance budget.
● FHWA case study on fiscal management during pandemic (focus on accomplishing work opportunistically vs. narrow risk-management focus)
● 2020 State DOT COVID-19 Response Survey: Use of Transportation Data and Information for Decision Makers https://www.tam-portal.com/document/dot-covid19-data-survey/
● Survey and interview State DOTs and others as to their practices during COVID. For example: observe their budget outlays, activities performed and data collection.
● Focus on uncertainty in general - such as funding uncertainty; the results could be utilized for good practices not just in times of widespread disease, but also for times of economic austerity such as a recession. Note: The visualization committee (AED80) has been kicking around a research idea related to how to VISUALIZE uncertainty. Could be a good opportunity to collaborate with that TRB committee. Anne-Marie McDonell and Matt Haubrich are both on AED80 so feel free to reach out.
● Potential to focus on risk management with respect to federal TPM target-setting (rather than risk management with respect to funding uncertainty).
Question of understanding impacts vs. position for post-pandemic
Several economic optimization methods are linked with TAM project selections. One of the economic indicators in measuring them is the ROI (which can be defined in various ways), but there are others such as NPV, IBC, FYRR and more. This research needs statement refers to the need of connecting prioritization / different approaches to asset management (such as optimization) and TAM project selections and economic indicators.
There are several known methods of estimating the maintenance backlog – via budget (raising the network to a given level within a given number of years), length or percentage of the network under a given maintenance standard (such as PCI, PSI, IRI or other indicator),
This question is usually dealt with in road assets but can be expanded to bridges and other assets as well. It is part of a life cycle cost analysis when the evaluation is performed on different treatments which are differentiated by their frequency (usually every X years) and thus influencing their cost. Many Asset Management Systems incorporate this kind of analysis.
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2021. State DOT CEOs Talk Transportation Equity at EPW Hearing. Online article published May 12, 2021. AASHTO, Washington D.C.
• Archer, D. (2021). Transportation Policy and the Underdevelopment of Black Communities, New York University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 21-12, New York, NY.
• Colorado Senate Bill 21-260, Sustainability of the Transportation System. Signed June 17, 2021. Https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-260.
• Connect Oakland, TRB Webinar: Addressing Justice in Transportation, June 28, 2021
• ICF Incorporated, LLC. (2020). Summary of Critical Issues for Transportation and Equity. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.
• Larson, S. (2021) How Chicago Could Build Equity into Transportation. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, IL
• Litman, T. (2021). Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Panning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
• Minnesota DOT (MnDOT). (2019). Advancing Transportation Equity: Strategies for Reducing Transportation Disparities, CTS Research Brief 2019-01, St. Paul, MN.
• National Public Radio (NPR). (2021). A Brief History of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways, NPR Online News Article published April 7, 2021
• North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). 2021. Environmental Justice (EJ) Plan. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Fort Collins, CO.
• Singer, J. (2018). Inside the Nation’s First Transportation Equity Program. Vision Zero Cities Journal, Transportation Alternatives, Published Online November 13, 2018.
• Twaddell, H. and B. Zgoda. (2020). Equity Analysis in Regional Transportation Planning Processes – Volume 1: Guide. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Research Report 214. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.
• Van Dort, L. A. Guthrie, Y. Fan, G. Baas. (2019). Advancing Transportation Equity: Research and Practice – Final Report. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
• Van Orden, D., and C. Grauberger. (2002). Environmental Justice Report. CDOT-DTD-R-2002-7. Colorado Department of Transportation, Research Branch. Denver, CO.
The objective of this research is to produce guidance on how DOTs can improve the use of DEI and other related indicators in TAM investment decision making processes.
Tasks will include:
• Compile DEI and other related indicators for use in TAM decision-making
• Develop a framework for applying DEI and other related indicators in TAM decision-making processes, including:
o analysis activities to forecast impact
o scenario planning including identifying alternate investment options with an equity lens
o investment tradeoff decision-making
o community engagement activities including increasing the involvement of underserved communities.
• Develop additional quantitative and qualitative performance measures for asset management and planning that consider DEI and other factors in transportation investment decisions
• Produce a summary of challenges, inherent inequities, and obstacles in asset management and planning activities in order to help transportation add value to underserved communities
• Develop guidance for transportation agencies to use the DEI and other related indicators to balance competing strategic objectives related to asset performance, safety, mobility, and DEI.
Most of the recent research related to environmental justice process have been focused on new transportation development. As state focus more of their budgets on maintaining their systems through TAM, better guidance is needed to ensure DEI and related considerations can be applied in a holistic view of investment decisions in transportation agencies.
The Biden administration and Secretary of Transportation Buttigieg stated that the administration’s priority encompasses efforts to “finally address major inequities – including those caused by highways that were built through Black and Brown communities, decades of disinvestment that left small towns and rural main streets stranded, and the disproportionate pollution burden from trucks, ports, and other facilities (AASHTO Daily Brief 03/29/21).” On May 25, 2021, the U.S. DOT published a Request for Information (ROI) on Transportation Equity Data in response to the Executive Order signed January 20, 2021, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Equity E.O.).” The information obtained through the ROI is intended to support the U.S. DOT’s determination of “whether, and to what extent, programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved groups (Federal Register V. 86, No. 99, May 25, 2021).” The ROI specifically seeks input regarding the availability of potential data and assessment tools in the transportation sector that can support the U.S. DOT’s evaluation.
• Transportation agency chief engineers, planning directors, asset managers, and transportation performance management leads will use the research products to improve their decision impact.
• The research will provide guidance on specific application and/or calculable modifications to existing tools and methods that transportation agencies can follow to make the changes needed for research implementation.
• The AASHTO Committee on Performance-Based Planning, the AASHTO TAM Portal, TRB Standing Committee on Transportation Asset Management (AJE30), TRB Standing Committee on Performance Management (AJE20) will support the research implementation.
• TRB presentations and webinars are will be required for research implementation.
• Workshops, peer exchanges, pilot testing, verification and validation of research results are possible implementation actions.
Note: Title formerly "Socio-Economic Indicators in TAM Processes"
See: FHWA TAM Expert Task Group summary of this topic and potential R&I-sponsored research effort addressing equity
Note: Some TAM processes do include related socio-economic indicators, including NPV, ROI, IRR, FYRR and also social indicators such as population influenced, percentage of tax revenue utilized, revenue sources and the implied equity considerations (including racial and social equity). It is suggested to examine the indicators utilized in different states, and whether the socio-economic indicators are part of the decision making process.
• NCHRP 08-113 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices
• NCHRP 02-27: Making Targets Matter….engagement for meaningful performance management
• A Guide for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan
• Incorporating Resilience Considerations in Transportation Planning, TSMO and Asset Management
• Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets
• Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 51-05. Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs
• FHWA review of 2019 State DOT Transportation Asset Management Plans (internal)
The objective of this synthesis is to identify best practices from State DOTs of how to improve processes through required performance-based planning and programming document development and implementation through exploring:
• How State DOTs and MPOs are linking and including asset management decisions in their traditional planning processes;
• How agency’s integrate asset management project identification and prioritization into required planning processes;
• Gap analyses of where State DOTs and MPOs identify a need for more guidance on how to connect required performance-based documents to programming decisions;
• What management systems are in use to help agencies implement risk-based asset management with performance objectives and targets.
• Examples of where MPOs work in partnership with State DOTs to mobilize National Highway System partner owners (local agencies) to plan/program to performance targets.
Benefits of this research include improved coordination between state DOTs, MPOs, and local transportation agencies through the development of performance-based planning and programming documents and implementation of PBPP project prioritization. Benefits may include improved sharing of data, efficient use of existing systems and identification of needed systems, and risk-based asset management of the system.
Question whether this topic should wait until the results of NCHRP Project 08-113 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices are released. They are covering similar topics, though the current research statement seems to be more focused on the federal TAMP/ TPM while 08-113 is about AM/ Perf Mgmt more generally
Research is needed on the importance of data governance from the conception of a project’s data dictionary, through the inventory and condition assessment and continuing with the data management and integration into transportation asset management systems. A question worth pursuing is whether all aspects of language, wording, numbering, and measurement units should be standardized or if template guides could be developed for each agency to standardize their unique asset type requirements, but in a nationally recognized format for easy translation.
After establishing governance routines for asset data collection and management, the next phase of research would involve the security aspects of an agency’s data as well as the quality assurance measures applicable to grow confidence in the data’s quality. A full review of best practices for data security procedures could break the barrier of IT to asset manager. Additionally, once definitions and governance procedures are established, the quality assurance process becomes more stream-lined and gives better confidence to the decision makers.
Asset managers know the data they need, and the data collection methods have been identified. What is needed is guidance on how to use the available data collection methods to meet the needs of asset managers.
BIM standards need to account for the fact that we have less data on existing assets than newer assets. However, it is existing infrastructure that has the most needs.
● FHWA - Identifying Data Frameworks & Governance for Establishing Future BIM Standards
● AED80 has a subcommittee on BIM, who has a sub-sub committee on BIM & AM
● PIARC TC 3.3 has a group working on TAM/BIM integration.
● NCHRP Report 831: Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for DOTs.
● Guidance on establishing BIM data governance and quality standards to support asset management.
● Recommend standards for data transfer between data collection and asset management systems.
● Develop maturity scales for BIM implementation and establish appropriate maturity level for integration of TAM
● Research on BIM applications to support DOTs' data governance specific to the collection of data by one part of the agency can be used directly by other parts of the agency
● Evaluate cost effectiveness of collecting and managing data through BIM at a sufficient level of quality.
● Aligning the focused but detailed project-level data with network-wide but less detailed TAM data.
TRB Research Ideas – Data Quality/Standardization
• Data quality and confidence
• standardize terminology between different systems so singles source can inform GIS/500 reports/DELPHI/FMIS etc. so reports all use the same words or numbers the same way
• Updated asset type definitions and extraction methodologies.
• Performance Metrics for Assets other than pavement and bridge, i.e.. signals, signs, barriers, culverts
• Asset ratings biases, potential to rate lower to obtain funding
TRB Research Ideas – Data Governance
• Our largest challenge is data governance, feature collection and maintaining asset/inventory data
• Data governance is still looming large from an implementation perspective
• Data history, implementation and its security (both cyber and other forms of security)
Due to external stakeholder requirements and expectations (e.g., MAP 21 and FAST Acts) as well as internal DOT uses, DOTs typically collect pavement condition data (i.e., roughness, cracking and rutting or faulting depending on the pavement surfaces) on an annual cycle. However, disruptions of typical agency activities related to COVID-19 have resulted in data collection challenges, focusing attention on potential impacts of missing a data collection cycle. DOT may also face unforeseen workforce, contracting, data collection or processing challenges or other issues which could result in missed pavement data collection. In these cases, DOTs would benefit from understanding the range of potential impacts as well as potential mitigation strategies available to address these issues. Furthermore, in times of reduced budget, DOTs may desire to reduce the frequency of data collection, however should be informed of the potential impacts of that decision.
In the recent past, the FHWA sponsored a project which resulted in publications analyzing the impact of pavement monitoring frequency on pavement performance prediction and management system decisions (Haider et al. 2010, 2011). This study analyzed pavement sections from the Long Term Pavement Performance database and recommended monitoring cracking at a 1-year interval and roughness every 1 to 2 years. The proposed study will further investigate this issue and expand the analysis on the implications of missing a data collection cycle in their transportation management plans. Given that the FHWA reporting requirements are fairly recent, there is not much in the transportation literature about the impact of missing a data collection cycle. Furthermore, little information is available on potential strategies available to mitigate the impact of incomplete condition data.
1. Evaluate the impacts of incomplete/missing annual pavement data collection to various aspects of agency asset and performance management, including technical considerations, such as network-level condition summary and performance forecast, maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction decision-making, and condition deterioration and treatment improvement modeling.
2. Consider the effect of incomplete/missing data on the organization and processes, such as federal performance reporting and transportation asset management planning requirements, as well as impacts to other internal and external stakeholders and decision-making processes.
3. Analyze and derive recommendations on mitigation strategies that DOT could implement to minimize the impact of incomplete condition data.
Proposed research activities include:
1. Conduct a literature review to document:
○ DOT motivations and/or requirements for annual data collection.
○ Potential technical and organizational impacts or issues associated with missing an annual data collection.
○ Techniques available to mitigate the impacts of missing the collection.
○ DOTs known to currently (or in the recent past) complete pavement data collection on a 2 or more year data collection cycle.
2. Building from the literature review, survey State DOTs to capture:
○ DOT motivations and/or requirements for annual data collection
○ Potential technical and organizational impacts or issues associated with missing an annual data collection
○ Techniques available to mitigate the impacts of missing the collection.
○ DOTs that currently (or recently) collected pavement data on a 2 or more year data collection cycle
○ DOTs which have previously missed their established collection cycle
3. Conduct follow up interviews/surveys with DOTs that have longer collection cycles or which had previously missed an annual pavement data collection to understand perceived vs. actual impacts (both technical and organizational) and any mitigation strategies they employ.
4. Summarize literature review, survey results and follow up interviews to guide ongoing research activities
5. From a representative set of DOTs, collect available pavement condition and work history data, pavement deterioration and improvement benefit models
6. Utilize collected data to complete a statistical evaluation of the impact missing a year of data collection with respect to forecasted vs. actual performance results, and ability to identify priority investment areas based on previous year’s data collection, as well as other issues identified through the survey
7. Identify potential strategies to mitigate the impacts of incomplete condition data
8. Document survey results and evaluation outcomes
9. Produce a technical report summarizing impacts of, and potential mitigations for, missing an annual pavement collection cycle
Desired products include:
● Detailed listing of current requirements and/or motivations for annual pavement data collection
● Summary of perceived and actual impacts of missing an annual data collection against the listed motivations, supported with a statistical evaluation of actual DOT datasets where applicable
● A summary of potential mitigation strategies that can be employed to reduce the identified impacts
State DOTs perform data collection with a certain frequency based on the data condition type. Due to the unpredicted situation we are facing in 2020 many DOTs have missed their data collection schedule and this would directly affect the uncertainties and potential emerging risks in asset management. State DOTs need effective ways to address this incompletion in data to improve their ability in decision-making and ultimately continue their asset management plans. Studies have shown that monitoring intervals and data collection frequency have an effect on performance predictions. A part of the uncertainty in performance prediction is due to the frequency of distress data collection.
Data curing methods could significantly help state DOTs use their previous data to forecast the missing ones. Private industries can help state DOTs perform data curing and data mining strategies. COVID-19 has caused a pause in asset management procedures, however the gap in data collection can be filled with the improvement in machine-learning products. It is therefore increasingly important for state DOTs to benefit from the technology-based services private industries offer and decrease the risk of incomplete data.
The target audience for the research results is state DOT asset management and data quality management champions, whether self-designated or officially appointed. These individuals are likely already on board with the need for data curing and are aware of its benefits, but have been unable to convince executives or other senior decision-makers to sustainably implement data curing. There is a need for AASHTO and TRB committees to embrace the need for data curing. There is a possibility that TRB’s Pavement Management System committee will be interested in this subject, it is worth contacting them and explaining the objectives.
Recommended funding of $250,000 includes $225,000 for a half-time investigator for 18 months.
AASHTO TC3 Program
Better define the needs for education, training and workforce development related to transportation asset management and transportation performance management. Develop resources as needed for the following sub-areas:
Education—Writing curriculum for undergraduate and graduate courses
Training—For DOT and MPO staff in-depth career training, NHI, etc.
Workforce Development—e.g., TC3
No more than 15 months to complete the scoping study.
Additional time needed to establish the project with NCHRP.
Implementation of NCHRP 08-118: Risk Assessment Techniques for Transportation Asset Management
Implementation of NCHRP 08-129: Incorporating Resilience Concepts and Strategies in Transportation Planning
The NCHRP 23-06 research project that produced the asset valuation guide included an extensive review of the available literature related to asset valuation. Key references include:
• Accounting guidance and standards, including General Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34, standards of the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) and the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) guide Measuring Capital.
• Asset management guidance, including the AASHTO TAM Guide, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) TAM guidance, and Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) Infrastructure Management Manual and Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Manual.
• Additional documents describing approaches used or proposed for asset valuation, such as State DOT TAMPs and other references.
Other research projects (recently completed, active, or pending) in this area include:
• NCHRP Project 08-109: Updating the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide—A Focus on Implementation, Phase 1
• NCHRP Project 08-137: Digital Enhancements and Content for the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide
• NCHRP Project 19-12: Guide for Financial Planning and Management in Support of Transportation Asset Management
• NCHRP Project 02-26: Implementation of Life-Cycle Planning Analysis in a Transportation Asset Management Framework.
This proposed study will build on these recent efforts and serve to provide updated asset valuation guidance.
The objective of this implementation project support further testing and use of Asset Valuation Guide developed through NCHRP Project 23-06. This project will aid a set of transportation agencies in implementing the asset valuation guidance. A set of case studies will be developed based on the agency implementation efforts. Details on the case studies will be added to the web-based version of the asset valuation guidance and subsequent versions of the Asset Valuation Guide. Further, the web and printed versions of the Guide will be revised to reflect the additional experience gained from the case studies.
To support accomplishing the research objectives the effort will incorporate the following activities at a minimum:
• Delivery of a set of workshops to review and summarize the Asset Valuation Guide.
• Identification of a set of six transportation agencies to participate in implementation of the asset valuation guidance.
• Application of the asset valuation guidance for the selected set of agencies, resulting in calculation of asset value by asset class, the cost to maintain asset value and related measures such as the Asset Consumption Ratio, Asset Sustainability Ratio and Asset Funding Ratio.
• Illustration of how information on asset value can support improved TAM decisions.
• Refinement of the Asset Valuation Guide (printed and web versions) based on the results of the case studies.
• Development of supplemental tools and worksheets to assist in calculating asset value to support TAM utilize the Asset Valuation Guide.
The proposed research is needed to help transportation agencies meet Federal requirements for developing their TAMPs. It will help build on recently completed NCHRP research and maximize the value of the research to the transportation community. Benefits of the research will include:
• Dissemination of the research completed previously through NCHRP Project 23-06.
• Assistance with a selected set of transportation agencies in valuing their assets to support TAM using the previously developed asset valuation guidance.
• Refinement of the Asset Valuation Guide to reflect experience gained from implementation
• Strengthening transportation agency TAM practice to include improved calculations of asset value and additional measures related to asset value that will help support TAM decisions.
The target audience for this research includes executives, managers, and practitioners at state DOTs and at other agencies working to implement TAM and/or prepare financial plans and reports. It will be of value for asset managers, planners, and financial analysts. The guidance will be useful for helping establish asset value and related measures for asset classes including pavement, bridges, other structures, buildings, vehicles (including service vehicles, transit vehicles and ferries), rail track, traffic and safety assets, and other assets.
The results of this research will be highly applicable to the efforts of DOTs and national organizations such as AASHTO and FHWA in furthering the maturity of TAM and improving their approaches for TAMP development and financial reporting. It will help provide practical advice and overall guidance to agencies on how to value their assets regardless of their individual asset contexts, conditions, or budgetary situation.
Several studies on the topic of risk and resilience have been conducted through the NCHRP Process as well as FHWA and a few state DOTs. Below is a short list of some of the more relevant NCHRP projects that speak to quantitative methods of analysis for threats to asset condition and performance as well as those that worked to provide guidance on how to incorporate such analyses into decision making processes:
• NCHRP 23-09 [Active] Scoping Study to Develop the Basis for a Highway Standard to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis
NCHRP 20-123(04) Development of a Risk Management Strategic Plan and Research Roadmap
• NCHRP 08-113 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practice
• NCHRP 23-08 A Guide for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan
• NCHRP 08-36 Task 146 Incorporating Resilience Considerations in Transportation Planning, TSMO and Asset Management
• NCHRP 20-127 – Business Case and Communication Strategies for State DOT Resilience Efforts
• FHWA – Integrating Resilience into the Planning Process
• Colorado DOT - Risk and Resilience Analysis Procedure A Manual for Calculating Risk to CDOT Assets from Flooding, Rockfall, and Fire Debris Flow
The proposed program of projects would work to integrate this research and extend quantitative methods of analysis into a single manual or standard analysis procedure to ease the burden of the profession when seeking information from disparate sources.
Transportation owners and operators are responsible for the transportation system and the delivery of a range of services and functions through the management of that system. There are inherent risks involved with the management of these systems, notwithstanding aging infrastructure, and fiscally constrained resources. Many agencies are moving toward performance-based resource allocation while simultaneously recognizing risks that may undermine their strategic goals. As these risks affect every component of a highway system to a greater or lesser extent, accurately accounting for and addressing these risks within a highway agency’s enterprise-wide management program is the goal which currently lacks analysis tools.
Investing in risk and resilience strategies and enhanced recovery to reduce or eliminate the impact of external events is also paramount to ensure a thriving, viable transportation system. Risk management requires the identification and assessment of potential threats and hazards, asset vulnerabilities from applicable threats, an evaluation of potential mitigation actions to reduce risk, a clear and easy to implement process to prioritize mitigation activities, and investment that aligns with agency strategic and performance goals. Asset management and more recently performance management, has been an ongoing focus of many research efforts. However, guidance for analytical risk assessment methods to support risk-based asset management processes is lagging. Risk assessment processes, methods, and tools are needed to integrate risk management into asset and performance management systems. In addition, an understanding of the relationship between risks and system resilience is lacking.
• Adopted definitions
• Standard framework for quantitative risk based on expected financial losses to agency and traveling public
• Establishment of performance metrics for risk and resilience
• Suggested risk tolerance and resilience performance targets that agencies can customize
• Methods to incorporate climate projections into decision making
• Methods to analyze both deterministic and probabilistic input data (500-yr flood versus climate scenarios)
Future research can expand threats analyzed; assets analyzed; climate projections; life cycle cost; remaining life consideration of assets; environmental impacts, etc.
Agencies are working to incorporate risk and resilience assessments from climate and extreme weather into their decision-making processes including design and maintenance within their overall asset management programs. However, the industry lacks a consistent, adopted method to support quantitative trade off analysis including benefit-cost assessments. As the recent TRB Resilience Metrics Consensus Study noted – the industry also lacks metrics to understand what acceptable risk is or how to measure resilience of highway systems. Without these methods or metrics, limited research dollars may be expended developing multiple methods without industry consensus as to what the target performance of system resilience should be.
The benefits of an industry adopted quantitative method of assessment of risk to highway assets and overall system resilience is the ability to understand and justify investments to maintain overall system operations and performance to withstand or rebound from climate related events when they occur. This type of proactive approach demonstrates the industry’s commitment to reducing losses to public infrastructure and the traveling public from climate related threats.
Threat Identification and Modeling
Asset Vulnerability from Identified Relevant Threats
Establishing Risk and Resilience Performance Metrics and Levels of Performance
Intersection between Risk/Resilience Assessment and Performance Management
Intersection between Risk/Resilience Assessment and Asset Management
Education and Outreach
Integrating Risk and Resilience into the Performance Management Decision-Making Process
Evaluate current federal PM3 measures
NCHRP 20-24(20), (37), (97), (127)
NCHRP 20-24(37): This project, Measuring Performance among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices, put in place a foundation on which the first set of national performance measures were created. A similar program needs to established on which to further develop relevant national-level performance measures.
• National Bridge Inventory (NBI): https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm
• 17 National Performance Measure Reporting System: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/reporting/state/
• National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS): https://npmrds.ritis.org/analytics/
• Highway Statistic Series: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm
• FHWA Performance Management Data including: Results from the current reporting period (January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021), AASHTO Analysis of the National PM Safety Data (May 2020), Target Data Analysis of the Federal Performance Measures (July 2021)
The objective of this research is to prepare an authoritative analysis and assessment of the national performance management data and, based upon the analysis and assessment, to provide recommendations on future capacity building activities and possible new performance measures. There are three sub-objectives focused on:
The results of this research are important and significant. This will be the first time that researchers will be able to use a complete set of the national-level performance management data to conduct a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the performance management program. This will research will serve as an authoritative and independent assessment of the data that can be used to tell the story of the state DOT and be used to inform transportation policy decisions in the future.
Funding: $550,000 (estimated)
Phase 1: $255,000
- Safety (5 performance measures): $75,000
- Asset Management (4 performance measures): $60,000
- System Performance (8 performance measures): $120,000
Phase 2: $100,000
Phase 3: $150,000
Final Report: $45,000
Matthew Hardy, Ph.D.
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Greg Slater, Chair
Committee on Data Management and Analytics
Patrick McKenna, Chair
Committee on Safety
Scott Marler, Chair
Committee on Transportation System Operations
Tim Henkel, Chair
Committee on Performance-Based Management
1. Evaluate current federal PM2 measures, both pavement condition measures and bridge measures, for performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to: Consistency, Usefulness, and Alignment.
2. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure for consistency, including thresholds. For example, determine if wheel path cracking considerations could be revised to provide more consistent results across pavement types (e.g. composite, concrete) and pavement widths (e.g. <12 ft.) 3. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect conditions enhance decision-making taking into account not only the assessment of current and future condition but also their implications in economic analyses of long-term maintenance and rehabilitation.
NCHRP 20-24(20), 20-24 (97), 20-24 (127)
NCHRP 20-24(37): This project, Measuring Performance among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices, put in place a foundation on which the first set of national performance measures were created. A similar program needs to established on which to further develop relevant national-level performance measures.
State departments of transportation (DOT) and other transportation agencies face a range of challenges in determining how best to invest in their existing pavements, bridges, and other physical assets, and in projecting what the impact of those investments will be over time. Addressing these challenges requires considering both specific planned or potential investments at a project or asset level, as well as overall expenditures and conditions for systems of assets – that is, at a network level. Evaluating assets at both the project and network levels is consistent with best practice in Transportation Asset Management (TAM), and is required by recent Federal regulations in performance and asset management. For instance, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 490 requires state DOTs to set network-level performance targets for future pavement and bridge conditions for the National Highway System (NHS) based on expected funding. Also, 23 CFR Part 515 requires state DOTs to develop TAM plans for their NHS pavements and bridges including financial plans and investment strategies, implying further project-level analysis.
As transportation agencies are using their existing pavement and bridge management systems, they are finding that no one management system supports the full range of network and project-level analyses required to meet the demands of TAM practice and Federal regulations. Thus, to support TAM and meet Federal requirements agencies typically rely on multiple systems and approaches with different data requirements, analytical approaches and underlying assumptions. A common approach is to use pavement and bridge management systems to predict network-level conditions, typically projecting conditions out 10 or more years in the future, while making near-term project level decisions in a more decentralized manner using mix of expert judgment and heuristic approaches. In concept the network-level analysis can be used to guide project-level decisions, and specific project plans can often be incorporated in a network level analysis. However, in practice the network and project-level analyses are often performed largely independently from one another incorporating different data, factors and constraints.
The approach of using multiple approaches for network and project level asset analyses has numerous pitfalls. These include, but are not limited to: generating unrealistic predictions of network level conditions; developing projects that do not reflect optimal asset lifecycle plans developed at a network level; waste of staff time through inefficient business processes or duplication of effort; and omission of critical assets from one or more analyses (e.g., for lack of data or a dedicated management system). Guidance is needed to assist agencies in making better use of existing systems to integrate network and project-level analysis, as well as to define a framework for future asset management tools that will enable integrated network and project-level analyses across multiple asset classes, potentially using multi-objective approaches.
The goal of this research is two-fold: to provide guidance on how transportation agencies can best use existing management systems and tools to integrate network and project-level analysis and provide a framework for an improve asset modeling approach that better integrates the project and network levels incorporating multiple asset types and consideration of multiple objectives. The research is intended to be of immediate value in helping transportation agencies better comply with Federal requirements to set performance targets and develop asset management plans. Also, it will help agencies to extend asset management approaches to additional systems and assets, besides the NHS pavement and bridge assets addressed through the Federal regulations. In addition, the research will help define improved approaches for asset management models for public agencies, researchers and system developers to use in developing the next generation of asset management systems.
Research is needed addressing risk analysis/vulnerability quantification and application to multiple transportation modes for purposes of scenario planning at MPO and DOT levels. There is significant variability across agencies with regards to how the agencies analyze risk and their practices for assessing vulnerability. Even basic elements such as methods that agencies use to collect data are not consistent across agencies, further complicating any potential analysis.
This research should:
• Identify pertinent data sources, data types, as well as relevant collection and analysis methods employed by transit agencies.
• Provide a synthesis of examples or State of the Practice applications for MPOs/DOTs.
• Outline communication strategies to the relevant decision-makers.
There are standard practices used internationally for incorporating asset valuation into an organization’s financial statements that have not been adopted in the US. These are important to asset management to support long-term financial planning, leading to improved financial sustainability. Improved practices in asset valuation will allow agencies to use financial valuation and acknowledge that sustainability is not only about maintaining financial capacity (cash) and infrastructure capital (condition).
The objectives of this research are to examine methods for evaluation of system assets. Thorough research should:
• Identify international practices and determine how they can be applied in the US
• Better marry engineering and accounting in financial planning
• Demonstrate benefits through a case study (may be fictional)
Enterprise-wide asset management is a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional, inter-departmental and partner-dependent undertaking that forms the basis of how an organization does business. How does an asset owner ensure that all of those involved in successful asset management are aligned, taking responsibility, and contributing to the effort?
The focus of this research is to support a scan tour or peer exchange addressing organizational alignment for TAM. This falls into three distinct but equally necessary categories: a review of previous knowledge, a inter-agency gathering to assess differing organizational models and policies to TAM, and finally a report or summary of the findings.
State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies are challenged to deliver greater transportation asset management (TAM) performance – even as available resources are increasingly constrained. Agencies recognize that established business processes, organizational structures, technical methodologies, tools, and systems must adapt to meet these challenges. Agencies must increasingly pursue tailored solutions that consider a variety of perspectives and factors – and work in a more collaborative fashion. At the same time, decision processes are more open and desired outcomes are more likely to be measured and reported. Taken together, these dynamics elevate the challenge of effectively implementing TAM for DOTs and other government transportation agencies. As a result, the state of the practice is uneven: TAM is adopted in some organizations but not others, and in some organizations to a greater degree than others.
Research is needed addressing the question: “What are the organizational/cultural factors that were in place before and/or during implementation that created a successful TAM program?” Develop a guidebook to convey lessons learned. Key point: must use an organizational development or similar consulting firm. Not the usual suspects!
The relationships between TAM and economic development, safety, mobility, etc. need to be better understood. This will help activities such and the connectivity between long range plans, transportation improvement programs, and transportation asset management plans. Research and evaluation of agency practice and results is required to consider how these agency activities and expenditures relate back to an agency’s goals and objectives. For example, how do system-wide goals for level of service and condition translate into individual project selection and asset management application? This research will focus on understanding the TAM relationships to broader transportation goals and how best to make the connections stronger from planning, programming, project delivery, to maintenance/operations.
This research will focus on understanding TAM’s relationship to other transportation goals such as economic development, safety, environmental sustainability, mobility, and livability. Two products are sought through this research: 1) Framework for understanding the relationships between TAM and broad transportation goals. 2) Guidance on how to ensure TAM connectivity to broad transportation goals throughout the transportation decision-making cycle.
As TAM tools and techniques advance, organizational capabilities in transportation agencies have to advance also to realize the benefits of asset management. Many organizational models and role types exist for TAM programs. People are an integral ingredient for realizing the positive outcomes that are possible with asset management. Transportation agencies today could use assistance in improving organizational capacity to adopt asset management benefits.
This research will focus on understanding successful organizational models for TAM program so that guidance can be provided on how to improve organizational capacities. Two products are sought through this research: 1) Understanding of current organizational models for TAM programs 2) Catalog of possible organizational models for TAM programs that transportation agencies could consider for improving TAM capabilities.
With the current financial state and shrinkage of resources, there is an urgent need to know what is the value and future cost of maintaining assets. Maintaining assets have an obvious value, but there is a cost associated with both choosing to maintain assets, as well as a cost associated with choosing not to do so. Attempting to determine the expected long-term costs of maintaining an asset, as well as the predicted value of having a well-maintained asset, is a considerable challenge for a transportation agency.
The objective for this research is to examine the costs and value associated with maintaining assets, and then to develop a usable model for forecasting the cost and value. Such a model must include, but not be limited to:
• A framework for quantitatively assessing the value of an asset that has been properly maintained.
• A tool for calculating the long-term costs of maintaining an asset, in line with industry standards for safety and reliability.
In addition to developing the model, the research should also establish guidance targeted at helping practitioners conduct forecasting analyses and communicate the results.
Well set up asset inventory is essential to reduce long-term costs in any agency. By tracking assets, lifecycle costs should be able to be reduced. An accurate asset inventory is a key element in meeting MAP-21 requirements. With the emergence of asset tagging and tracking technologies it is imperative to have a common standard in how these technologies should be developed and applied to support asset lifecycle management. Which of these technologies is the most efficient at reducing costs is still an open question.
The proposed research will:
• Evaluate various technologies for tagging and tracking assets and capturing asset history. Each proposed tracking technology should be evaluated for various factors, such as cost, ease of use, efficacy, and time required to implement.
• Create a standard for transportation asset tagging and tracking that can be used intermodally and across agencies.
• Develop a business case to demonstrate the lifecycle savings that can be achieved by transportation entities. This case study may be fictional if a suitable real-world example cannot be identified due to the new nature of the technologies.
Due to legislative mandates and advances in organizational practices, transportation planning agencies have engaged in intensive data collection activities. The resulting data has been used, to some extent, by these agencies to guide their resource allocation decisions for their infrastructure assets. However, there still remains vast amounts of underutilized data that, if leveraged appropriately, could be used by planning agencies to improve the cost-effectiveness of their infrastructure maintenance and preservation activities. As a result, it is important that planning agencies gain better insights regarding the types of data frequently available within infrastructure management systems that can be used to reduce the life-cycle costs of an agency’s assets.
The proposed research will:
Treatment selection is related to treatment timing. An asset that is identified to have a particular treatment but the treatment, but the treatment is delayed can be improperly treated if the treatment is not reevaluated. If a more dynamic method for selection could be applied at the right time, the end results could be greatly improved, but a concrete methodology to accomplish this is lacking.
The proposed research will first develop a methodology that will allow dynamic changes to treatment plans. Then, the research must test the methodology, as well as identify and quantify cost savings benefits of using the methodology or tool.
Existing standards have been developed by ISO and are being used by various groups. Now there is federal legislature with requirements for asset management plans. The goal of this research is to establish relationships between these existing standards and the legislature requirements.
Identify linkage between ISO standards and MAP-21 TAMP requirements. Identify gaps or inconsistencies and propose solutions. The proposed solutions may include guidelines for agencies, research needs, modification to the standards, or agency specific standards that address agency specific needs.
Agencies have a need to tell a better story. The utility of a well-thought out story, called a marketing plan, is to convert the non-believing decision makers and public. A well-conceived plan must translate the technical issues to something that resonates with public. For example, Ohio has marketing toolbox for continuous improvement with tools designed specifically for internal and external users. Although Asset Management is the right thing to do, the public still does not rally behind the cause. A possible solution is heavy branding and thorough communications plans.
The focus of this research can be divided into three main categories. Firstly, prior information must be collected and organized. This is accomplished through:
• Case studies and examples of best practice
• Creating a synthesis of state’s best practices
The next step is to build tools that allow for better asset management marketing, such as:
• Communication, sales, and/or a media science application to help craft a way to tell the story
• Creating a marketing plan that can be used to educate and train
• Training to Speak a language that all can understand
• Communicating the secondary benefits of TAM
Finally, follow-ups of the methods must be conducted to measure efficacy. This could include examining:
• How effective are the marketing and communication? Is the message being received?
• How has public perception changed?
Autonomous vehicles, colloquially referred to as self-driving cars, have a large potential to impact transportation networks in the near future. Semi-autonomous vehicles with various degrees of autonomy are already a reality. The industry is still a relatively nascent one, and therefore several large questions still exist. The expected capabilities and limitations of these vehicles are not yet established, nor is a timeline for implementation. The capacities and speed of implementation of autonomous vehicles are also greatly affected by the infrastructure on which they operate.
The objectives of this research are to quantify the expected abilities of autonomous vehicles, to establish an expected timeline of integration within the greater transportation networks, and to examine what infrastructure changes are most beneficial for autonomous vehicles.
The capacities of autonomous vehicles are not yet quantified. The research should:
• Determine what types of roads are suitable for such vehicles.
• Examine safety for both drivers/passengers, and other users of the roadways, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
• Explore limitations, such as fog or extreme conditions.
• Establish a timeline for adoption. Since the technology is expected to change rapidly, current capabilities will change.
The infrastructure requirements for autonomous vehicles are greatly dependent on the capabilities of the vehicles. Nevertheless, certain changes can be expected to improve the safety and usefulness of the vehicles, such as:
• Repainting roadways to help the vehicles operate.
• Installing RFID that could communicate with the vehicles directly.
• Determining what challenges would face a mixed-stream road of autonomous vehicles and vehicles under driver operation.
Transportation Asset Management (TAM) brings with it new fields and emerging technologies. These innovations require employees to have a different skill set then what was previously necessary. Co-ordination cross departments and silos is mandatory. Effective data management and effective use of systems and analytics is essential. With all of these new employee skills being critical to effective operations, transit agencies face the difficulty of recruiting, training, and maintaining a TAM staff.
The primary focus of this research is, at a most basic level, to help agencies strengthen their work force. This should be accomplished by researching areas where:
• Agencies lack a comprehensive list of necessary skills for a given position
• Agencies lack a comprehensive list of which positions are most critical to keep fully staffed. In an era of shrinking budgets, effectively prioritizing hiring decisions is crucial.
• There is a gap in knowledge regarding existing certifications.
Data-driven analytics are increasing critical to the success of any transportation agency. The recent NHS expansion impact on data collection, collaboration, and by extension, the entire decision making process. This leaves a fundamental question: How do we help agencies comply with FHWA requirements to manage across jurisdictions.
The research should focus of two primary areas of focus. The researchers must develop a guidebook for data integration across jurisdictional lines, as well as review the existing standards for civil data. This could include projects such as Civil Integrated Management (CIM) and the researchers must document the positive and negative ramifications of the various standards.
Emerging technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management. Applications of these technologies include the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. Research is needed to address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
Emerging technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset analysis can offer an agency as well as how frequently that information needs to be generated.
Cell phones / Collector Apps
Vehicle, AAV, or drone
More specific to TAM and data collection than synthesis 508
Includes an aspect of data management to prepare data for use in appropriate TAM systems.
Synthesis 508 - Data Governance
Research is needed in the following areas:
● Address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
● What level of extraction detail and frequency interval is needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets?
● Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting such data to all stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.
AI is coming – are we ready? With the MAP-21/FAST Act legislation, and the renewed emphasis on Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs), projections made by management systems will come under increasing scrutiny as agency executive leadership is asked to make large scale funding decisions based on these projections. This scrutiny as well as the inherent complications in predictive modeling of asset deterioration, presents an opportunity for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this type of analysis.
AI is becoming ubiquitous in the realm of automation and pattern recognition and shows promise in improving predictive modeling for infrastructure managed by highway agencies. Because data collected over time is especially valuable for deterioration modeling, it is very important for agencies to start collecting the right data, and putting in place the right quality control, as early as possible so that this data is ready for immediate use as more research into AI techniques for predictive modeling is conducted.
This research project would aim to develop a Primer or Guidance document to help agencies tasked with managing infrastructure (including pavement and bridges) to assess their current data, data collection processes, and data needs to best position them to be able to take advantage of burgeoning artificial intelligence techniques to develop increasingly accurate predictive models regarding their infrastructure.
A number of approaches are commonly used to manage risk, including conducting visual inspections of existing infrastructure, using design standards with conservative safety factors for new infrastructure, and applying best practices for minimizing risks of project cost and schedule overruns. Research is needed to determine how to build on existing practices to better assess the risks to transportation assets, better quantify consequences of different risks, and better prioritize investments explicitly acknowledging uncertainty in future events.
Risk (R) is generally quantified with the equation above. It is essentially a value for the expected outcome returns of a decision weighted by the probability (p) of each consequence (C) of event i. How do we calculate R if neither p nor C is certain? Do current methods address this effectively?
Investment decisions are widely made using discounted cash flows (DCF). It is assumed, that given a certain decision made in Year 0, Costs and Benefits can be assumed for a number of years to come, i.e. C is known and p is assumed 1 for all i. If the project is considered risky, the discount rate is increased accordingly. However, defining the future in- and outflow of cash with such deterministic certainty is unrealistic. Not only is the consequence (C) uncertain, but also their occurrence. This is because infrastructure is often affected by stochastically occurring events.
We can ignore the uncertainty by using expected values. Imposing an assumed expected value will nevertheless almost certainly lead to arriving at a wrong risk estimation (see figure X). This is called the “flaw of averages” (Savage, 2012). The error due to the “flaw of averages” exponentiates when systems are non-linear because outputs using expected inputs do not equal expected outputs. Ultimately, it can be said that ignoring the uncertainty and the consequent existence of a distribution instead of a deterministic expected value, is a fallacy.
Another approach to compensate for increased risk is overdesigning infrastructure. This reduces the probability of failure to negligent values, but may lead to infrastructure being overly expensive or redundant. This also ignores the fact that infrastructure owners are not passive, but actively observe their condition and relevant external factors and trends that affect the condition level of the infrastructure. Based on this, the fundamental assumptions of DCF do not seem appropriate.
The ultimate objective is to provide the decision-maker with tools that add value to the decision-making process and improve the robustness of the infrastructure network as a whole. In that sense, novel approaches for the evaluation of risk will be sought to capture the stochastic nature of interdependent infrastructure. A graph theory approach to evaluate criticality of network node failure as shown by Buldyrev and colleagues (2010) may prove interesting for the evaluation of consequences, and thus the real option value for the infrastructure, simulated by network programming methods.
Continue to deliver TAM peer exchanges at the regional and national levels.
Synthesize best practices for workforce development and training in order to enhance the capabilities of a TAM team/staff or attract internal staff to become involved in TAM program/implementation.
Document and provide examples of condition assessments for all types of assets.
Document and provide examples of condition assessments for all types of assets.
Create case studies addressing noteworthy applications of big data analytics to TAM.
This is a note test.
Research effective corridor planning strategies that promote sustainable capital asset improvements that impact asset class performance and other performance areas.
Develop a framework, recommended actions, and synthesis of noteworthy practices for agencies to use in incorporating change management strategies in TAM practice.
• Asset conditions are typically determined currently in separate silos - leading to asset treatments that are applied on varied schedules by asset (pavement, bridges, culverts) even over the same corridor.
• Significant resources may be misallocated on treatments applied at the wrong time due to lack of coordinated corridor planning.
• Corridor planning can organize the asset treatments — while also looking at environmental issues, congestion, and safety
• There may be other issues such as operation needs in a corridor as well.
o “Project delivery” can be achieved more efficiently because projects are organized into a corridor delivery strategy. Projects can be peeled off as funding is available
o Public can be engaged all at once instead of multiple times for multiple projects.
o Minimize contractor costs
• Boadi, Richard S; Amekudzi, Adjo A. Risk-Based Corridor Asset Management: Applying Multiattribute Utility Theory to Manage Multiple Assets. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Issue 2354, 2013, pp 99–106 https://trid.trb.org/view/1241970
• Anderson, Scott A; Rivers, Benjamin S. Corridor Management: A Means to Elevate Understanding of Geotechnical Impacts on System Performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Issue 2349, 2013, pp 9-15 https://trid.trb.org/view/1241789
Develop guidance on an asset management corridor planning process to prioritize and schedule project delivery for cost effectiveness while also considering mobility/accessibility issues, drainage, and more.
Agencies have made progress in implementing TAM within their agencies. The impact of TAM will be much greater if stakeholders are engaged as a part of the decision-making and TAM approaches were collaborative for given geographic areas.
Develop communication tools and methodologies for engaging stakeholders in TAM program activities such as strategies development, performance management implementation, and budget development.
• Recent NCHRP research products have documented data governance techniques and provided tools for agencies to assess their current data governance practices and identify strategies for improvement.
• NCHRP 08-115 (publication pending) included data governance as one of several foundational activities for improving use of data and information for transportation asset management. An NCHRP 20-44 proposal is in process to conduct pilot implementations of the guidance and assessment tool developed through that project, and produce supplemental guidance materials based on the pilots.
• Many DOTs are implementing data governance – through establishing governance bodies, defining data stewardship roles and putting standard processes in place. The AASHTO Data Management and Analytics Committee has established a Chief Data Officer (CDO) peer group to enable ongoing sharing of data governance practices.
• This project would build on the established base of prior and ongoing work on data governance. It would focus specifically on providing specific examples or models that can be applied to help advance asset management practice through data governance.
• Synthesis 508 Data Management and Governance Practices
• NCHRP Report 920 Management and Use of Data for Transportation Performance Management: Guide for Practitioners
• NCHRP Report 814 Data to Support Transportation Agency Business Needs
• NCHRP 20-44 (12) Building Capacity for Self-Assessment of Data Effectiveness for Agency Business Needs (new project)
• NCHRP 08-115 Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management
Provide support to implement the data governance practices and processes recommended through NCHRP 08-115, Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management.
• It’s difficult to communicate the value of an asset management approach to the public.
• In many cases agency leaders and stakeholders, including the public, may not see discernable benefits from TAM, reducing support for a preservation-focused investment strategy and/or improved systems and data required to support a TAM approach.
• Research has been performed in the past regarding how to calculate the return on investment (ROI) of TAM systems and how to communicate the value of preservation. Also, private sector entities use a separate set of approaches for evaluating the benefits of providing transportation as a concession.
• Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits of TAM generally, and incorporate consideration of other factors such as sustainability, equity, resilience, etc.
• NCHRP Synthesis 330, Public Benefits of Highway System Preservation and Maintenance
• NCHRP Report 742, Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook
• NCHRP Report 866, Return on Investment in Transportation Asset Management Systems and Practices
• TCRP Report 206, Guidance for Calculating the Return on Investment in Transit State of Good Repair
Develop a framework and guidance for calculating and communicating the overall benefit of improved asset management approaches to transportation agencies, transportation system users, and society of improved asset management approaches. The framework should address monetized benefits, as well as issues such as equity, sustainability, and resilience. Illustrate use of the framework and examples through a set of pilot studies of U.S. agencies.
Managing risk is a critical component of asset management. On a day-to-day basis transportation asset managers spend much of their time responding to or mitigating a large number of risks, which may range from external events that damage transportation infrastructure to unplanned changes to budget or workloads resulting from unexpected events. Various recent and on-going research efforts aim to improve approaches for risk management for transportation agencies. However, most of these efforts treat risk management as a high-level activity. Further research is needed to develop quantitative, repeatable approaches at the appropriate staff level, to assessing and identifying the highest priority risks transportation agencies face in managing physical assets. This project aims to develop such approaches to assess risks (e.g., financial, strategic, operational, political, environmental, technological, social justice risks) and incorporate them into life cycle analysis and planning efforts.
Risk management has been studied quite extensively in the transportation sector. Risk management encompasses four major steps: Risk identification, risk assessment, risk mitigation, and continuous updating of results. Risk assessment focuses on determining the magnitude of risk, which is directly proportional to the likelihood and consequences of an event to occur. Risk assessment has been a major area of study in pavement and bridge management efforts. In recent decades, the focus has shifted from assessing risk in single networks towards more holistic risk assessment approaches.
Between 2012 and 2013, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a five-part report series on Risk Based Asset Management. These reports focus on: (1) Overview of risk management, (2) Managing risk at different levels, (3) Strategic risk management (risks to agency objectives), (4) Managing risk to critical assets, and (5) Managing external threats such as climate change and extreme weather risks. These reports played an important role in introducing risk management concepts into asset management efforts. In 2016, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published the Guide for Enterprise Risk Management. In this Guide, risk management is defined as “the systematic application of policies, procedures, and practices to the identification and management of uncertainty or variability on achievement of agency objectives.” In addition, the Guide introduces four levels at which risks need to be managed: Strategic, Program, Project, and Activity levels. Enterprise Risk Management is defined as management of risks at all levels. Other research projects (recently completed, active, or pending) in this area include:
• NCHRP 08-113: Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices
• NCHRP 08-118: Risk Assessment Techniques for Transportation Asset Management
• NCHRP 20-44(02): Implementation of the AASHTO Guide for Enterprise Risk Management
• NCHRP 20-123(04): Development of a Risk Management Strategic Plan and a Research Roadmap
• NCHRP 08-129: Incorporating Resilience Concepts and Strategies in Transportation Planning
• NCHRP 23-09: Scoping Study to Develop the Basis for a Highway Standard to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis.
Managing risk at program (or network) and project levels is particularly important to achieve desired performance levels and to improve resilience of a transportation system. While existing research efforts in this area are highly significant, there is a need for developing more practical and repeatable risk assessment calculation methods for project and network level risks. This proposed study will build on these recent efforts, particularly NCHRP 23-09, and serve as the next phase in risk assessment and management.
The objectives of this research are to:
• Generate risk identification techniques to determine high risk threats at project and network levels,
• Develop quantitative, repeatable approaches for assessing likelihood and consequences for these threats,
• Develop visual, interactive characterization methods (e.g., dashboards) to reflect an agency’s level of risk and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions,
• Allow risk and resilience to be on par with traditional performance measures.
High risk threats to be studied include, but are not limited to, extreme events (e.g., earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes), asset failure (structural and operational), financial, strategic, political, environmental (e.g., sea level rise, flooding), technological, and social justice risks.
The final deliverables could include guidebook with a spreadsheet or a framework for assessing high risk threats and incorporating the results into TAM efforts. The guidebook should feature a comprehensive review of existing literature and current practice. It should present a standard definition of resilience as well as step-by-step instructions to develop models, methods, and metrics for estimating resilience of highway systems to high risk threats. Pilot studies should be conducted with select agencies to test the guidance and calculation procedures.
While existing reporting mechanisms allow agencies to see the parts of their network that are in good and poor condition, risks associated with different threats and the impact of failure are not reported as an explicit performance measure. Competing design documents, financial implications, legal concerns, maintenance practices, focus on building new capacity rather than managing existing infrastructure, and other factors that affect decision making procedures may counter-act risk-based TAM practices. Issues related to social justice and equity, and consequences of failures make risk-based TAM even more important. Creating harmony in the TAM decision making space in consideration of risk and resilience represents an urgent need. A practical, quantitative, and repeatable risk assessment process could play a major role in addressing this need.
The target audience for the research results is asset management and risk-management champions at state and local government transportation agencies. The results of this project will potentially empower these individuals in convincing other decision makers in these agencies to take actions that not only align with traditional performance management objectives but also that result in lower risk and higher resilience for the whole transportation system. The results of this project can also be effective in communicating the rationale behind risk-based decisions to the general public. Due to legal implications of identifying and documenting risks, the research and final product should include advice on how to protect the agency from litigation if they cannot implement a recommended action.
Risk assessment is at the core of implementing a risk-based asset management approach. Therefore, FHWA and AASHTO view this as a subject of great importance. In addition, risk management cuts across all areas of a state DOT’s business and just about any AASHTO Committee and any state DOT and local agency could realize benefits from these research results.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) transportation bill established federal regulations that require each State Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), and implement Performance Management. These regulations require all DOTs to utilize nationally defined performance measures for pavements on the National Highway System (NHS). These nationally defined performance measures (referred as PM2 hereafter) are aimed at providing nationally consistent metrics for DOTs to measure condition, establish targets, assess progress toward targets, and report on condition and performance. Furthermore, Federal measures provide the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding investments.
State DOTs are expected to use the information and data generated from these Federal measures to inform their transportation planning and programming decisions. However, State DOTs are finding discrepancies between pavement conditions from PM2 measures as compared to their internal, state-developed measures. This discrepancy hampers the adoption of the PM2 pavement measures as the primary input into condition summary reporting and pavement investment prioritization and decision-making. In other words, State DOTs do not have confidence in the Federal measures, primarily because these measures cannot be used to inform decision-making processes such as investment decisions. Furthermore, the resulting differences between state metric-determined and federal metric-determined network conditions creates confusion among the public, senior executive staff, and legislative bodies, along with non-DOT owners of NHS assets.
As mentioned before, FHWA needs to collect consistent Federal measures across all State DOTs to assess the impact of Federal funding investment at the national level. However, State DOTs have been collecting pavement performance data for decades and used this data to inform their pavement management systems and processes to address specific needs. Typically, the data collection processes cover state-owned pavements and not only NHS pavements, which brings another layer of inconsistency. For this reason, there is a need for more flexible metrics that can be aligned to performance measures currently used by State DOTs and support decision-making processes such as investment decisions.
The objective of this research is to:
1. Evaluate current federal pavement condition measures (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking), performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to:
a. Consistency – across various pavement types, network designations, and lane configurations
b. Usefulness – in network-level pavement condition summary and asset management decision-making, prioritization, and forecasts; and
c. Alignment – with state established pavement condition metrics
2. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect pavement failure mechanisms and enhance decision-making taking into account not
only the assessment of current and future condition but also their implications in economic analyses of long-term maintenance and rehabilitation. Evaluate pavement leading indicators as an alternative to the current version of the PM2.
3. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking) for consistency, including thresholds. For example, determine if wheel path cracking considerations could be revised to provide more consistent results across pavement types (e.g. composite, concrete) and pavement widths (e.g. <12 ft.) 4. Evaluate structural capacity indicators for potential consideration as a Federal measure.
Because DOTs are only two years into implementing the pavement performance measures and metrics, the urgency is great to make sure the measures in use are as meaningful, consistent and implementable as possible. Currently, the performance measures have not achieved widespread use as the primary performance criteria for decision-making, leading to two sets of metrics being used by many agencies. In addition, DOTs must make performance predictions and justifications based on the federal performance measures. Making any changes to the measures as soon as possible will allow DOTs to build up datasets on which to base predictions of future performance.
Potential benefits to improving the federal pavement performance measures and metrics include:
• Metrics that better define pavement failure mechanisms and therefore condition
• Metrics that result in more consistent results across pavement types and pavement widths
• Broader adoption of the measures by DOTs as part of decision-making criteria
• Less confusion among the public, senior executive staff, and legislative bodies, along with non-DOT owners of NHS assets by having one set of metrics instead of two (federal and state-specific)
This topic is of significant interest to AASHTO, TRB, and the DOTs, having ranked third amongst potential NCHRP topics in the recent TAM Research Prioritization conducted as part of the 2020 Mega Meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management, in cooperation with the TRB Asset Management Committee (AJE30).
The following are organizations and contacts who may be interested in using the results of the research and supporting its dissemination:
• AASHTO Committee on Performance-based Management: Tim Henkel, Chair (Minnesota DOT, (651) 366-4829, [email protected]), Matt Hardy (AASHTO, (202) 624-3625, [email protected])
• AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management: Matt Haubrich, Chair (Iowa DOT, (515) 233-7902, [email protected])
• FHWA Office of Asset Management: Steve Gaj (FHWA, (202) 366-1336, [email protected]) Tim Henkel, TAM Expert Task Group Chair (see contact above)
• TRB Asset Management Committee (ABC40): Tim Henkel, Chair (see contact above)
• State departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) across the United States are required to establish performance targets as part of their asset management efforts. The target- setting requirements for transportation performance management (PM2) of pavement and bridge condition generally require agencies to consider three factors; the measured condition of the assets, expected deterioration over time and project level accomplishments. The measured condition of the asset is the ultimate measure of progress and an effective way for agencies to demonstrate that they are making progress as required by federal regulations.
• Research assessing the consistency of National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition metrics has found variability between individual inspectors when inspecting “control bridges” for study. In other words, there is the potential for any given bridge inspector to assess the current condition of same bridge differently. This variability means that the conditions of bridge could improve in the absence of a project just by having a different inspector interpret the field condition differently. A similar potential exists for pavement condition assessments. This demonstrates the potential inconsistencies due to human interaction, but the same could be true of technologies if applied or calibrated differently across agencies.
• Pavement and bridge conditions rely on assessment methods that are subject to variability from one assessment to the next and from one assessor or one technology utilization to the next. This variability may occur in the absence of projects or significant field deterioration. This research project would attempt to evaluate the impact of condition assessment variability on agency wide target setting required for asset management.
The outcome from this effort will benefit quality assurance (QA) methods for data collection and inspection efforts, quantify the variability and sensitivity in target setting for DOTs, and help budget planning for asset inconsistencies.
• To be completed at 9/9 research workshop
• Since the performance measures are consistently tied to specific data inputs, each state could use this research to understand the potential volatility in target setting and performance measures. The summary of best practices and pitfalls will also allow transportation agencies and vendors to improve inspection protocol. Testing of the data should be a part of the research, with a few select agencies comparing potentially the same data in a single year across multiple sources or reviewing the historic trends of individual data pints to highlight inconsistencies and the impact of those inconsistencies to overall measures and targets.
• This research would best be shared in an open forum or webinar so all agencies and consultants tasked with data management can obtain the information. The AASHTO Performance Management Committee should be interested in supporting this research to ensure that the performance measures produced by transportation agencies are of the highest quality.