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.

38 NCHRP Project 20-05/Topic 51-05 examined the state of the practice for state DOT and MPO collaboration and coordination on TAM. Although many state DOTs and MPOs have long-standing partnerships, collaboration has often been strengthened as a result of the MAP-21 and FAST Act requirements. This legislation brought additional attention to creating an aligned and integrated system of performance-based planning at the local, state, regional, and national levels, requiring communication across agencies with transportation responsibilities, including state DOTs and MPOs. This report synthesizes the available information on this topic and serves as a baseline for future developments in this area. This synthesis involved a literature review, an online questionnaire, and a series of case examples. Key insights from these three activities are summarized as follows. Insights from the Literature Review PBPP Process • MPOs generally have less mature TAM and PBPP analysis capabilities than state DOTs. • There are differences in asset performance measures used at the state and local levels, which can create collaboration challenges. Target Setting • There is variation in the maturity of target-setting processes across performance areas, and state-local collaboration is relatively stronger for the more mature areas (safety, bridge and pavement). • MPOs often rely on state DOTs for bridge and pavement condition data. • MPOs are aware of the condition of assets within their member jurisdictions but don’t tend to separate out NHS asset conditions as part of their planning activities. Obstacles to Collaboration • Staff availability and capacity. • Availability of reliable and accessible data. Future Opportunities for Collaboration • Coordination of financial plans through the TAMP; using information from the TAMP financial plan to inform LRP financial plans. C H A P T E R 5 Conclusions and Knowledge Gaps

Conclusions and Knowledge Gaps 39   • Taking both capacity and asset management into account in scoping and prioritizing projects to meet mobility needs and replace assets. • Use of TAM to make MPOs aware of investment needs, shared regional goals, and other PBPP needs, including progress toward sustaining a state of good repair. Insights from the State DOT Survey PBPP Process • Eighty-one percent of state DOTs surveyed stated that they collect data for locally owned NHS assets. The remaining DOTs reported either split responsibility for data collection across state and local agencies and toll authorities or variations in practice across assets. • Seventy percent of state DOTs coordinate TAM programming for bridges and pavements with their MPOs. • Fifty-five percent of state DOTs included their MPOs in the development of LRP goals and objectives related to TAM. • Thirty-six percent of state DOTs asked their MPOs to participate in the development of TAM performance targets. • Twelve percent of state DOTs asked their MPOs to participate in the development of perfor- mance measures in their statewide LRP. Target Setting • MPOs were not typically involved in target setting for infrastructure assets. • Fifty-one  percent of DOTs reported that they developed performance targets and then informed MPOs about these targets (indicating little or no coordination). However, almost 32 percent of DOTs reported that MPOs were involved throughout the process of developing both MPO and DOT targets. • Sixty-one percent of state DOTs offered assistance to MPOs in analyzing their targets; more than 40 percent of states had an MPO accept their offer of assistance. • Eighty-five percent of state DOTs indicate that they plan to follow the same target-setting process of collaboration and coordination with their MPO partners for future TAM target setting. • Ninety-five percent of state DOTs felt that face-to-face meetings were the most successful form of coordination for setting NHS pavement and bridge targets. Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) Development • Forty-six percent of states surveyed include their MPOs in reviewing predicted pavement or bridge conditions. • Thirteen percent of states had MPOs provide or help coordinate data on current or future asset expenditures in the state TAMP. • Forty-four percent of states offered their MPOs the opportunity to review a draft version of the TAMP before submission to FHWA. • As with target setting, state DOTs reported that they are satisfied with their collaboration and cooperation with MPO partners, with 80 percent of states planning to follow the same approach for future TAMP updates. • Seventy-two percent of state DOTs are interested in collaborating on TAM activities more regularly with their MPOs.

40 Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs Insights from the Case Examples DOT/MPO Collaboration Practices • 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. • 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 conditions within urban area/MPO boundaries. • Standard asset investment reporting. • Workshops involving state DOT, MPO, and local agency staff to discuss data, current practices, challenges, and future collaboration opportunities. • Formal documentation of collaboration processes. • Standing coordinating bodies for MPOs and TAM. • Development of templates with standard language for MPOs to use within their planning documents (e.g., to establish targets within MTPs). Agency Perspectives on Future Improvement Needs • Make the TAMP more meaningful to MPOs. • Move beyond coordination to real partnership. • Create stronger linkages between the statewide TAMP and the regional MTPs and TIPs. • Increase transparency in information sharing. • Improve data sharing and software tools. • Share expenditures/investment levels across agencies. • Develop more robust modeling capabilities coordinated across states and MPOs. Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Needs Based on the results of the literature review, questionnaire, follow-up interviews, and case examples, the research team has identified several potential areas for TAM capacity building, knowledge sharing, and future study. These topics can be considered for incorporation into future research projects, as well as incorporated into knowledge exchange, training, and capacity-building initiatives involving MPOs and local agencies. • Data Collection, Analysis Sharing: – Practices for coordinating data collection across state DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies. – Practices for sharing roadway, asset, and project data across state DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies. – Practices for applying geospatial analysis to segment and summarize asset performance data for individual MPOs. • TAMP Development: – Practices for engaging MPO partners in the TAMP development process. – Approaches to aligning state and local asset improvement strategies. – Approaches to integrating use and communication of national, state, and local performance measures (which may all be different). – Understanding and communicating approaches to developing a risk-based TAMP. – Understanding and communicating approaches to asset life-cycle planning. • Target Setting: – Practices for state DOTs to engage MPO partners in target setting. – Practices for MPOs to engage local agencies in their regions in target setting.

Conclusions and Knowledge Gaps 41   – Ways to address challenges associated with the fact that MPOs have target-setting respon- sibilities but do not own local NHS assets and have indirect responsibility for their perfor- mance and condition. – Practices for coordinating on performance dashboards and other ways of communicating performance targets and results across state DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies. – Data requirements and technical approaches available for setting targets. – Understanding and communicating the purpose and benefits of target setting from national, state, and local perspectives. – Understanding and communicating the relationship between long-term SGR objectives (in TAMPs) and short-term (2- and 4-year) performance targets. – Understanding and communicating the difference between aspirational and realistic targets. – Understanding and communicating the implications of an MPO “supporting” a state target; reasons why an MPO might want to set their own target. • Financial Planning and Programming: – Practices for coordinating asset investment strategies in State Long Range Plans and Metropolitan Transportation Plans. – Practices for coordinating asset investment strategies in state and MPO transportation investment programs. – Practices for project scoping and prioritization that combine consideration of asset condi- tion, safety, and mobility objectives. – Practices for risk-based approaches for dealing with funding constraints. • Project Tracking: – Methods and tools for tracking past, present, and planned investments on both state and locally owned assets. – Methods for distinguishing pavement and bridge work on larger projects. – Approaches for establishing uniform work categories consistent with those required for the TAMP (initial construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction). – Approaches for sharing project data across local agencies, MPOs, and state DOTs to enable integration “roll-ups” of local and DOT projects. • Asset Condition Forecasting: – Methods and tools for pavement and bridge condition forecasting to account for planned and programmed projects. – Approaches for coordinating pavement and bridge forecasting methods across state DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies. – Approaches to use of scenario analysis to inform financial plans and target setting at state and MPO levels. • Monitoring and Adjustment: – Approaches for modifying targets based on observed performance results, performance projections, and other relevant indicators. – Approaches for analyzing variance between predicted and observed results and for improving predictions to incorporate what was learned. Recognizing that this synthesis represents a snapshot in time at a relatively early stage of the TAMP and TPM evolution, future follow-up surveys and/or syntheses can be considered to track future evolution in the state of the practice. The timing of these follow-ups should consider key federal TPM reporting milestones, including the mid-performance report (October 2020) and the first full-performance period report (October 2022). • Follow-Up Tracking of Practice: A follow-up survey and synthesis to assess advances in practice from the time of the baseline questionnaire (May-June 2020) to the mid-performance report (October 2020) to the first full-performance period report (October 2022).