Guide to Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets (2022)

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.

2023 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1035 Guide to Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets Michael Grant Kerri Snyder Sunil Dhuri Sarah Lettes Haley Eggert ICF International Inc. Arlington, VA Anna Batista High Street Consulting Pittsburgh, PA Brad Allen Applied Pavement Technology Albany, NY Subscriber Categories Highways • Administration and Management Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta- tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high- way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- ment No. 693JJ31950003. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1035 Project 23-07 ISSN 2572-3766 (Print) ISSN 2572-3774 (Online) ISBN 978-0-309-69872-6 Library of Congress Control Number 2023938586 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade- marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or spec- ifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

e National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. e National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. e National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. e three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. e National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. e Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. e mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. e Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. e program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is dedicated to the memory of Kirk Zeringue, who, as a member of the project panel, brought technical expertise and collegiality to the early stages of the project. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1035 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Ann M. Hartell, Senior Program Officer Dajaih Bias-Johnson, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Janet M. McNaughton, Senior Editor NCHRP PROJECT 23-07 PANEL Field of Administration—Area of Agency Administration Sreenath Reddy Gangula, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA (Chair) Gehan M. Elsayed, West Virginia Department of Transportation, Charleston, WV Keith L. Killough, Arizona Department of Transportation (retired), Phoenix, AZ Robert Maffeo, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI Michael L. Pack, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD Karuna R. Pujara, ATCS, PLC, Timonium, MD Katherine Beckett Suter, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL Sharada R. Vadali, Economic Insights and Research, College Station, TX Nadarajah Sivaneswaran, FHWA Liaison Matthew H. Hardy, AASHTO Liaison

NCHRP Research Report 1035: Guide to Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Perfor- mance Targets describes an array of methods for establishing targets for performance-based management of the transportation system and provides guidelines on selecting and applying a target-setting method that is meaningful and appropriate for specific performance measures. The guide will be of interest to those at state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies who are responsible for performance management and performance reporting. In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act established national per- formance management requirements for state DOTs. Successive legislation, regulation, and guidance have reinforced these requirements in the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) framework, with its national performance goals and related performance measures, including safety, pavement condition, bridge condition, reliability, congestion, and emissions. State DOTs are required to establish performance targets for each performance measure and to regularly report on progress toward meeting those targets. Metropolitan planning organizations are also required to establish targets for TPM measures and to regularly report on progress. In addition to the federally required measures, some agencies have developed other measures and targets for safety, asset management, system performance, environmental effects, and other program areas. Performance targets for the federally required measures should be data driven, but there is a wide variety of approaches that can be used to establish targets that account for quantitative and/or qualitative information. For example, a quantitative method could use historical data to forecast a trend line or develop a statistical model that accounts for many different factors to predict anticipated performance. Other approaches use probabilistic and risk-based approaches or other tools and methods, such as pavement management systems or travel demand fore- casting models. A target may be established by using qualitative approaches, based on policies or agency leadership direction, such as an annual percentage reduction in fatalities to address a longer-term Vision Zero goal. A combination of approaches may also be used, such as adjusting a trend line forecast on the basis of policy considerations. Any of these methods can result in a target that supports performance-based decision-making and performance reporting. However, establishing targets presents a number of challenges. Reliance on historical trend data can result in a target that cannot account for unforeseen events, such as severe weather that significantly affects roadway conditions or the changes in travel behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic that have affected congestion and safety. Transportation agencies also need to consider how the target-setting process itself can help the agency to adjust its programs and reallocate resources in ways that can affect progress toward a target. F O R E W O R D By Ann M. Hartell Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

Under NCHRP Project 23-07, “Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets,” ICF International Inc. was tasked with developing and disseminating a practitioner- ready guidebook on methods for the target-setting component of transportation perfor- mance management for state DOTs and other transportation agencies. The research team conducted a review of current target-setting practices at state DOTs and MPOs, including any adjustments to targets that were made as part of the October 2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA. Additional information and perspectives were collected through targeted outreach. A range of methods for setting targets was identified and piloted with seven agencies: the Connecticut DOT, Minnesota DOT, New Jersey DOT, Oklahoma DOT, South Carolina DOT, Utah DOT, and Washington State DOT. Accompanying this guide is NCHRP Web-Only Document 358: Developing a Guide to Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets, which documents the research and pilot and dissemination activities. A series of virtual workshops to disseminate the research was conducted during the spring and summer of 2022; recordings are available at https://vimeo.com /showcase/10177279.

P A R T I Target-Setting Overview and Tips 3 Introduction to the Guide 3 Target-Setting Background 4 Guide Purpose 5 Organization of Guide 6 Before We Begin: Target-Setting Foundations 6 Overview of Target-Setting Methods 8 Target-Setting Philosophies 9 What Makes a Target-Setting Method Effective? 11 Practical Application 11 Challenges in Target Setting 13 Tips for Selecting a Method 14 Handling Performance Disruptions 16 Strategies for Making the Target-Setting Process More Effective P A R T I I Menu of Target-Setting Methods 21 Target-Setting Methods for Safety 21 Measures 21 Challenges in Setting Safety Targets 22 Summary of Target-Setting Methods for Safety 24 Fact Sheet Safety Method 1: Targeted Reduction 27 Fact Sheet Safety Method 2: Time-Series Trend 30 Fact Sheet Safety Method 3: Trend Plus Other Factors 34 Fact Sheet Safety Method 4: Multivariable Statistical Model 39 Target-Setting Methods for Infrastructure Condition 39 Measures 41 Challenges in Setting Targets for Infrastructure Condition 43 Summary of Target-Setting Methods for Infrastructure Condition 45 Fact Sheet Pavement Method 1: Target Change in Condition 47 Fact Sheet Pavement Method 2: Time-Series Trend 49 Fact Sheet Pavement Method 3: Time-Series Trend Plus Future Funding C O N T E N T S

52 Fact Sheet Pavement Method 4: Pavement Management System 57 Fact Sheet Pavement Method 5: Scenario Analysis 61 Fact Sheet Bridge Method 1: Targeted Change in Condition 64 Fact Sheet Bridge Method 2: Time-Series Trend 66 Fact Sheet Bridge Method 3: Time-Series Trend Plus Future Funding 70 Fact Sheet Bridge Method 4: Asset Management System 74 Fact Sheet Bridge Method 5: Scenario Analysis 78 Target-Setting Methods for Reliability 78 Measures 78 Challenges Associated with Setting and Revising Targets 79 Summary of Target-Setting Methods for Reliability 81 Fact Sheet Reliability Method 1: Building off the Baseline with Assumptions 83 Fact Sheet Reliability Method 2: Time-Series Trend Analysis 86 Fact Sheet Reliability Method 3: Trend Plus Other Factors 90 Fact Sheet Reliability Method 4: Performance Risk Analysis 94 Fact Sheet Reliability Method 5: Segment Risk Analysis 98 Fact Sheet Reliability Method 6: Multivariable Statistical Model 102 Target-Setting Methods for Traffic Congestion 102 Measures 102 Challenges Associated with Setting and Revising Targets 103 Summary of Target-Setting Methods for Traffic Congestion 105 Fact Sheet Annual PHED per Capita Method 1: Building off the Baseline with Assumptions 107 Fact Sheet Annual PHED per Capita Method 2: Time-Series Trend Analysis 110 Fact Sheet Annual PHED per Capita Method 3: Trend Plus Other Factors 113 Fact Sheet Annual PHED per Capita Method 4: Travel Forecasting Model 115 Fact Sheet Non-SOV Mode Share Method 1: Time-Series Trend Analysis 117 Fact Sheet Non-SOV Mode Share Method 2: Trend Plus Other Factors

119 Fact Sheet Non-SOV Mode Share Method 3: Travel Forecasting Model 121 Fact Sheet Non-SOV Mode Share Method 4: Policy Based P A R T I I I Target Setting for Nonrequired Measures 125 Why Use and Set Targets for Other Measures? 126 Examples of Nonrequired Performance Measures and Targets 126 Accessibility 128 GHG Emissions 130 Active Transportation 131 Transit Ridership 132 Customer Satisfaction 134 Acronyms 136 References