Document Library

FHWA published a compilation of all HSIP measures and targets in one website. Select a state from the map to see them.

FHWA TPM one-stop shop for all things TPM (Transportation Performance Management)-related

This document is a sample joint agreement form created by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), which includes the terms of a transportation performance management plan to which MoDOT and an MPO would agree. These terms include: the types of data that would be provided by each organization, the processes of selecting and reporting performance targets, and progress reporting.

This report provides background information on the current state of autonomous vehicle technologies, and offers strategies that state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs), and State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) can use to best prepare to manage roadway assets as autonomous vehicles rise in popularity. It begins with a description of the various levels of autonomous vehicles, a summary of what’s on the road now and what’s coming soon, results from surveys of public knowledge and attitudes regarding autonomous vehicles, and projections of autonomous vehicle sales and use. Next, it describes the key topics that states must address to manage traffic safety in a world with both driver-operated and autonomous vehicles. The report then summarizes what some states already have done to address autonomous vehicles. Finally, the report suggests what all states can and should do to prepare for autonomous vehicles and to assure that traffic safety is at the forefront of all autonomous vehicle discussions.

This timeline, developed by Iowa DOT, presents information on the implementation of MAP-21/FAST Act performance measures and performance-based planning. The left portion of page 1 shows key dates for several rulemakings: safety (green); pavements, bridges, system performance, and freight (blue), transit asset management (purple), and transportation asset management (orange). Additional information includes dates for target setting, reporting, evaluation, and potential penalty periods if the State doesn’t meet targets or specific requirements. Note that CMAQ measures are not included, as Iowa does not have non-attainment/maintenance areas and those measures do not apply. The right portion of page 1 is broken into the same categories, and lists the required performance measures and relevant information about how States will be reviewed and what penalties may apply for not meeting targets or specific requirements, such as minimum pavement and bridge conditions.
The second page is a condensed summary of the CFR sections that deal with establishing and reporting targets and assessing a State’s progress, as well as a summary of asset management plan requirements.
If you wish to print a copy of the timeline, note that it is designed to be printed on a single double-sided 11x17 inch page.

A case study of financial asset management planning in Vermont.

A report on the public policy advocacy efforts at ITS America.

A report on congestion causes and solutions in the Twin Cities, Minnesota.

The objectives of this project are to (a) update the comparative analysis of DOT performance regarding construction project cost and schedule, (b) expand that analysis to incorporate more of the nation’s DOTs, and (c) report on successful techniques employed by leading agencies. While the techniques developed in the initial NCHRP 20-24(37)A may be employed to make this update, this study will give attention also to creating a data specification and data submission process to support on-time and on-budget project delivery measurement across DOTs.

The initial NCHRP 20-24(37)A project was completed in 2007. The research agency's final report of that 1st phase is available here . AASHTO’s leadership believe that periodic updates and extensions of that study will help DOTs both to assess the effectiveness of their efforts to control project delivery time and cost variances and to participate more effectively in discussions related to evolving national transportation program management policy. A second analysis was completed in 2011. The final report of that work is available for download by clicking here .