Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1   The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines transportation asset management (TAM) as a “strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading, and expanding physical assets effectively throughout their life cycle. TAM focuses on business and engineering practices for resource allocation and utilization, with the objective of better decision-making based on quality information and well-defined objectives.” TAM involves an interconnected set of activities for monitoring the state of the assets; monitoring and managing risks; optimizing life-cycle maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement investments; and allocating resources and prioritizing work to meet both short- and long-term goals. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the subse- quent Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act established and reinforced a performance-based federal surface transportation program. State Departments of Trans- portation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to establish (2- and 4-year) performance targets related to National Highway System (NHS) pavement and bridge asset conditions – as well as safety, air quality, freight movement, and system performance. State DOTs are required to produce Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs) that include 10+ year state of good repair (SGR) objectives and strategies for making progress toward achievement of the established pavement and bridge targets. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 2016 Transit Asset Management rule (§ 49 CFR Part 625) established requirements for transit providers to set performance targets for their capital assets based on four SGR performance measures and report these targets and the actual asset conditions to the National Transit Database. Many state DOTs have historically focused investment decision-making for state-owned assets within engineering divisions while planning divisions work in parallel with MPO planning efforts. MAP-21/FAST has prompted DOTs and MPOs to strengthen collabora- tion on performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) activities, including TAMP development and target setting for bridges and pavements. NCHRP Project 20-05/Topic 51-05: “Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs” examined state DOT collaboration with MPOs relative to asset inventory and condition assessment, target setting, investment decision- making, and performance monitoring of pavement and bridge assets. The project included a literature review, an online survey of state DOTs, interviews with selected state DOTs and MPOs, and documentation of collaboration practices. S U M M A R Y Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs

2 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs The findings presented in this report are based on survey responses from 43 of the 52 state DOTs (83 percent), interviews with seven state DOTs and four MPOs, and the litera- ture review. District of Columbia DOT responses are included in the overall percentage of state DOT responses. Key Findings The degree of state DOT/MPO collaboration on goals and performance targets varies. • Fifty-five percent of state DOTs included their MPOs in the development of long-range planning (LRP) goals and objectives related to TAM. • Thirty-six percent of state DOTs asked their MPOs to participate in the development of pavement and bridge performance targets. Most MPOs deferred to state DOTs for the initial set of Pavement and Bridge NHS performance targets. • Fifty-one percent of state DOTs developed their 2- and 4-year NHS pavement and bridge targets first and then provided that information to MPOs. • Thirty-two  percent of state DOTs surveyed reported that they included their MPOs throughout the process of developing targets. • Sixty-one percent of state DOTs surveyed offered assistance to MPOs in analyzing their targets, and 40 percent of states had an MPO accept their offer of help. State DOTs are leading data collection and analysis tasks supporting target setting for both state and local NHS assets. • Eighty-one percent of state DOTs reported that they collect data for locally owned NHS assets. • Forty-six percent of states surveyed included their MPOs in reviewing predicted pavement or bridge conditions. • Thirteen percent of states surveyed reported that MPOs provide or help coordinate data on current or future asset expenditures in the state TAMP. • State DOTs generally have more mature TAM modeling and predictive capabilities than their counterparts in MPOs. Most MPOs have limited technical staff resources who tend to be transportation planning generalists, and most MPOs do not own or maintain NHS roads or bridges. There is currently strong state DOT/MPO collaboration on asset project programming. • Seventy percent of state DOTs reported that they coordinate TAM programming for bridges and pavements with their MPOs. Initial collaborative processes for target setting are in place, and there is interest in improvement. • Eighty-five percent of state DOTs indicated that they plan to follow the same process for future TAM target setting. • Seventy-two percent of state DOTs expressed interest in collaborating on TAM activities more regularly with their MPOs. Case Examples Four illustrative case examples of state DOT and MPO collaboration were identified. The Michigan DOT/Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) case example describes how TAM has, over time, evolved from a legislatively mandated process

Summary 3   to a highly functional, collaborative relationship of trust that has become part of the state’s culture. TAM has provided a mechanism for bringing together agencies with disparate agency goals and objectives into a unified statewide strategy for investing in infrastructure assets. The Florida DOT case example illustrates a formal approach to collaboration, appropriate for a state with a large number of MPOs. The Florida DOT has established an MPO advisory council, with policy/governance and operational groups charged with advocating for the state’s MPOs. The state DOT developed a consensus document on coordination and used existing MPO liaisons to produce documentation and fact sheets related to the requirements and the state’s target-setting process. The Pennsylvania DOT/Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) case example illustrates a bottom-up approach based on longstanding relationships to provide comprehensive TAM support for their MPOs. This case example also describes how DVRPC, as a multi-state MPO, manages the different priorities of the different state DOT partners. The California DOT (Caltrans)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) case example focuses on a series of workshops that Caltrans conducted with their MPOs on TAMP development, which culminated in a target-setting workshop. It also shares lessons learned and opportunities for the next round of target setting. Conclusions This synthesis report documents a review and synthesis of state DOT practices to initiate, facilitate, collaborate, and cooperate with MPO partner agencies on TAM activities, including asset inventory and condition assessment, target setting, investment decision-making, and performance monitoring for pavement and bridge assets. The 43 state DOTs responding to the online questionnaire represent each of the four AASHTO regions. Based on the literature review, questionnaire, and subsequent interviews, the following conclusions emerge: • Given that MPOs generally do not own and maintain assets, they are less empowered to make decisions about asset investments than state DOTs or their local agency members. • State DOTs are leading TAM-related decision-making for the NHS. Many MPOs value TAM as important and trust their state DOT partners to conduct the analyses needed for the parts of the NHS within the MPO’s region. • State DOTs are generally collecting data and setting 2- and 4-year performance targets for bridges and pavements for the entire state. Many MPOs are supporting statewide perfor- mance targets (rather than setting their own targets), and states are providing data needed for computing the national performance measures to MPOs for the NHS assets owned by their member local governments. • There is a general understanding that TAM’s importance will continue to grow as asset manage- ment and performance-based investment decision-making are further integrated into local, state, and national funding allocations. DOTs and MPOs contacted for this synthesis described a number of practices that can be considered to foster collaboration for TAM performance management. These include • Communication using a mix of formal and informal channels, • Involvement of MPO members on LRP advisory committees, • Development and distribution of fact sheets to provide a common understanding of require- ments, methodologies, and processes,

4 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs • Technical assistance/capacity-building activities on specific topics, such as target-setting, • Statewide collection of asset condition information covering state and locally maintained assets, • Protocols and tools for data sharing across state DOTs and MPOs, • Standard report cards on asset condition within MPO boundaries, • Standard asset investment reporting, • Workshops involving state DOT, MPO, and local agency staff to discuss current practices, challenges, and future collaboration opportunities, • Formal documentation of collaboration processes, • Standing coordinating bodies for MPOs and TAM, and • Development of templates with standard language for MPOs to use within their planning documents [e.g., to establish targets within Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs)].