Transportation Asset Management Plans 

Case Study 6 - Communicating Asset Management Strategies

FHWA-HIF-20-066

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Office of Stewardship, Oversight and 

Management

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

May 2020

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Except for the statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the 

force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is 

intended only to provide information and clarity to the public regarding existing requirements 

under the law or agency policies.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA-HIF-20-0676 

2. Government Accession No. 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle: Communicating Asset Management Strategies - Case Study 6 

5. Report Date: May 2020 

6. Performing Organization Code: None 

7. Author(s): Principal Investigators: Shobna Varma, Starisis Corporation, Gordon Proctor, Proctor Associates 

8. Performing Organization Report No: Case Study 6 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Starisis Corporation, 3737 Woodstone Drive, Lewis Center, 

Ohio 43035; Gordon Proctor & Associates 7825 Wiltshire Drive, Dublin, Ohio, 43017; Greenman Petersen 

Inc.325, West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702Greenman-Pedersen Inc. 10977 Guilford Road Annapolis 

Junction, MD 20701 

10. Work Unit No.: None 

11. Contract or Grant No.: DTFH61-10-D-00024, Task Order No. T-11-006 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, 

DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Case study covering 2019 and 2020 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code: FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes: Peter Doan (COR), Nastaran Saadatmand (Technical Lead) 

16. Abstract: This is one of seven case studies of practices in the 2019 transportation asset management plans 

(TAMPs). This case study highlights practices State departments of transportation (DOTs) deployed to 

communicate and engage internal and external stakeholders. These communication practices increased 

coordination within the DOTs and with important external partners such as the owners of assets on the National 

Highway System (NHS) and metropolitan planning organization (MPOs).

17. Key Words: Asset management, transportation asset management plans, MPOs, local engagement, locally 

owned NHS, communication, coordination, outreach, engaging stakeholders in asset management

18. Distribution Statement: No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 

19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified 

20. Security Classification (of this page): Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages: 12 

22. Price Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 

Table of Contents

Case Study Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1

Communicating and Coordinating with Partners ......................................................................................... 2

Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Use of the TAMP as a Communication Tool...................................... 2

Improving Internal Communication.......................................................................................................... 3

VTrans Communication Plan..................................................................................................................... 4

Caltrans Asset Management Spurs State/Local Coordination...................................................................... 5

New Jersey DOT’s Coordination with Other NHS Owners............................................................................ 6

Washington DOT’s Coordination with Local Asset Owners.......................................................................... 8

Communicating with Legislators and a Commission ................................................................................ 9

Michigan DOT’s Communication and Coordination Highlights .................................................................... 9

Ohio DOT’s Data Collection and Sharing.....................................................................................................10

Ohio DOT’s Stakeholder Communication Plan .......................................................................................11

Colorado DOT Providing Data to Locals and MPOs ....................................................................................11

Nebraska DOT’s Communication with Legislators and MPOs....................................................................12

Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

1 

Case Study Introduction

This case study is one of seven that captures good asset management practices documented in the 2019

transportation asset management plans (TAMPs) required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e). The TAMPs include a 

wealth of information about the asset management practices deployed by State departments of 

transportation (DOTs). The asset management plan framework that the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) describes in 23 CFR Part 515 provided the structure to document how these practices are 

applied. This series distills many of the good practices and presents them in a convenient format for use 

by other transportation agencies. 

The seven case studies are:

Case Study 1: Asset Management Practices and Benefits

Many of the TAMPs provided comprehensive summaries of their asset management practices and the 

benefits they received from them. Several examples are highlighted in this case study. These include 

examples from the DOTs in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Washington State. These examples 

illustrate how asset management plans can effectively summarize asset management processes and 

improvement strategies.

Case Study 2: Linking Asset Management to Planning and Programming

This case study examines how TAMPs documented linkages to the DOT’s long-range plan, the State 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and state planning and programming practices. Examples 

are selected from the TAMPs in Missouri, Maine, Utah, Ohio, Wyoming, and Montana.

Case Study 3: Supporting Life-Cycle Planning

To develop a life cycle plan, one needs to know how assets deteriorate throughout their life cycle. 

Several TAMPs were notable in documenting how they manage assets with life cycle plans. Included in 

this case study are examples from the DOTs in Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, and New Jersey.

Case Study 4: Managing Risks to Assets

DOTs embrace risk management to support the long-term performance of assets, and for making riskbased investment tradeoffs. This case study summarizes some of the good risk management practices 

from Washington State, California, Kansas, South Dakota, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Texas, 

Colorado, and Michigan. 

Case Study 5: Developing Financial Plans and Investment Strategies

The financial plans and investment strategies reflect priorities for allocating scarce resources to achieve 

their highest asset management objectives. This case study examines how several TAMPs described the 

clear linkages between their asset management objectives, gaps, risks, and investment strategies. 

Examples are from Kentucky, Michigan, Washington State, New York State, Utah, Vermont, and Illinois.

Case Study 6: Communicating Asset Management Strategies

This case study summarizes examples of communicating asset management strategies with key internal 

and external stakeholders. Examples are cited from the DOTs in Vermont, California, New Jersey, 

Washington State, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, and Nebraska. 

Case Study 7: Managing Non-Bridge-and-Pavement Assets
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

2 

Several State TAMPs included additional assets beyond pavements and bridges. Examples are cited from 

Minnesota, Connecticut, Utah, and California.

This is the sixth case study in the series. It summarizes TAMP examples of communicating asset 

management strategies with key internal and external stakeholders. Examples from the DOTs in 

Vermont, Michigan, Washington State, Ohio, California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Nebraska are 

included in this study.

Communicating and Coordinating with Partners

The 2019 transportation asset management plans demonstrated the importance of communicating and 

engaging with stakeholders to promote the long-term management of transportation assets. Some of 

the States’ engagement was with local owners of the National Highway System (NHS) who manage 

nearly 12 percent of the NHS.1 Other engagement was with legislators or the agencies’ commission. Still 

other engagement was with the numerous internal stakeholders.

This case study documents some of the good practice examples of engaging with stakeholders to

manage assets. These case studies summarize only a few of the engagement efforts seen in the 

2019 transportation asset management plans. 

Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Use of the TAMP as a 

Communication Tool

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) emphasized the asset management plan’s role as a 

vehicle to communicate with its internal and external stakeholders. The 2019 TAMP included numerous 

references to the plan’s role as a communication medium, an internal coordination tool, and as a 

repository of institutional knowledge and policy.

The TAMP listed as one of asset management’s main benefits the ability to integrate efforts across the

department and communicate how that integration sustains the transportation system. 

Among the communication strategies was the adoption of a formal asset management policy. The policy

communicated to internal and external stakeholders VTrans’ four main asset management objectives, 

which were to:

• Meet the minimum Federal and State legislative requirements regarding asset management

implementation.

• Develop factual, risk-based, and data-driven asset management procedures.

• Use asset management to manage the Agency’s physical infrastructure, drive the budget

development procedures, and support the Agency’s Strategic Plan.

• Integrate asset management principles into VTrans culture.

One strategy to communicate the importance of asset management and integrate it across the many 

VTrans departments was the formation of a broad working group. The participants were called asset 

management stewards and represented areas including finance and accounting, budgeting and 

programming, materials, geotechnical, information technology, maintenance, right of way, bridges and 

culverts, planning, pavement management, traffic operations, bridge management, risk management, 

and asset management. This group developed the Asset Management Policy Statement, supported the

current TAMP efforts, and continued to guide asset management implementation.
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

3 

The working group guided development of three products to maximize the benefits of asset 

management.

1. A brochure entitled, “Why Should We Care About Roads” – The key audience for this 

brochure was legislators, regional planning commissions (RPCs), RPC Transportation Advisory 

Committee (TAC) members, municipal officials and board members, and everyone who will help 

make decisions that affect transportation assets. The TAMP stated that a brief, visually 

interesting brochure was the appropriate format to engage people in reading about this 

technical topic.

2. The TAMP – The plan said the key audience for the plan was professionals whose work 

intersects with transportation asset management. The TAMP stated that people whose work 

contributes to, or is guided by, asset management can do a better job if they understand how 

the pieces fit together. The plan also explained how VTrans is meeting FHWA requirements. The 

TAMP stated it is essential that the plan be clear and relatively brief for a range of VTrans staff 

and other partners to read it and implement it.

3. The VTrans Asset Management Practitioners’ Guide – The TAMP stated that this is a more indepth supplemental document for a smaller, more technical audience of transportation 

professionals conducting asset management and includes assets that are not yet part of the 

TAMP. This guide also represented VTrans’ enhanced efforts to document institutional 

knowledge and procedures as staff members change positions or retire.

The TAMP stated that as VTrans discusses asset management in increasingly diverse settings, it needs 

brief, clear communication pieces. 

The TAMP discussed its linkage to the agency’s project-prioritization procedures called the Vermont 

Project Selection and Prioritization Process (VPSP2) which not only prioritizes projects but also provides 

a transparent scoring procedure to communicate why some projects are selected and others are not. 

VPSP2 communicates the value that projects provide using eight criteria: safety, asset condition, 

mobility/connectivity, economic access, resiliency, environment, health access, and regional priority.

Another tool to share information and data is the Vermont Asset Management Information System 

(VAMIS), which is intended to also be accessible to local agencies. The TAMP stated that VAMIS will 

support the analysis of different investment scenarios across multiple asset types. VAMIS is a collection 

of hardware, software, data, and procedures that support asset management business activities. It will 

gather data from various sources, store, and analyze them. It will be used for budget and planning to 

implement maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement strategies and to schedule, track, and manage 

work. VAMIS was anticipated to be available online in 2020. The TAMP indicated that statewide entities 

have expressed interest in using VAMIS to manage their assets. 

Improving Internal Communication

The VTrans plan also focused on internal communication bottlenecks and identified procedures to 

improve them. One was the prompt communication of bridge maintenance needs once an inspection is

completed. Typically, the inspector would inform the district maintenance staff about a maintenance 

need. However, if the district did not have the staff or resources to address the need, it went 

unaddressed. At times, non-emergency bridges have gone onto a long list subject to funding and 

staffing. The TAMP stated that districts while operating under these constraints sometimes make 

reactive maintenance decisions that are not consistent with the most effective long-term life-cycle 

strategy. The loop of communication did not consistently get closed promptly. 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

4 

To address this issue, the TAMP indicated the bridge inspection team will enter bridge findings into 

VAMIS. That will automate the procedure to generate a work order, which will streamline the activity 

and facilitate the communication of the issue in a timely manner. The TAMP stated that automating the 

workflow will reduce delays, add accountability, and allow the repair cost to be linked to the correct 

expenditure account. Work will be defined as Emergency, Urgent, Critical, Maintenance Finding, or 

Cyclical Activity. Each definition has a specific time frame within which the deficiency must be corrected.

The TAMP stated that another communication strategy will be the Practitioners’ Guide to document and 

hand down institutional knowledge as pavement management staff turnover. The 2019 TAMP indicated 

VTrans has lost over 150 years of pavement management experience in the past two years, and little of 

this knowledge was transferred in a proactive manner.

The TAMP Practitioners’ Guide for asset stewards and managers is under development and when 

released across VTrans is intended to develop a common level of understanding and support knowledge 

transfer. In 2014, VTrans established a Pavement Working Group and a Structures Working Group. The 

TAMP indicated that benefits of these teams include the interactions between asset subject matter 

experts (SMEs) that share institutional knowledge. The meeting minutes provide written history of each

group’s activities. The TAMP stated that an oversight team that includes Division and Bureau Directors is 

being considered. This oversight team is expected to provide tasks to the working groups. A deliverable 

from each working group will be defined roles and improved procedures for asset management across

the agency. Another deliverable will be to understand how the agency will select and deliver the next 

generation of employees who will commit themselves to managing Vermont’s pavements and bridges. 

The TAMP stated that coordinating procedures within VTrans is intended to build horizonal alignment to 

complement the vertical alignment described in life-cycle planning. This will integrate performance and 

risk considerations into data-driven decisions while creating awareness as to the impact of those 

decisions on business procedures, goals, and objectives, and on VTrans’ customers. The TAMP started 

with an effort to improve coordination among the long-range transportation plan, strategic plan, and 

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Even before the initial TAMP was completed, VTrans 

saw improvement in coordination of contents and visual communication, such as STIP and strategic plan 

report covers that display the relationship of each of these related plans. The long-range transportation 

plan (LRTP) and strategic plan coordinate with the TAMP, and all these efforts build on a foundation of 

risk management and performance management.

The TAMP also stated that ongoing commitment to communication, outreach, training, and education 

were essential. Some techniques VTrans will use are: 

• Ongoing trainings on life-cycle planning, risk management, financial planning, asset 

management, and performance planning to build knowledge and engagement. 

• Two-way communication with users of the transportation system and partners, such as through 

participating in outside meetings, and sharing survey results. 

• Education efforts, both traditional and cutting edge, so that everyone interested in asset 

management has the knowledge to participate in decision-making at an appropriate level. 

VTrans Communication Plan

Among the items in the 2019 VTrans TAMP was a communication plan, which included the brochure, the 

TAMP itself, a one-page fact sheet on asset conditions, fact sheets about individual assets, and the 

practitioners’ guide.
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

5 

As of April 2019, hundreds of copies of the TAMP brochure had been requested by legislators and by the 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and RPCs. Copies of the TAMP or a shortened version of it 

were to be distributed widely within VTrans as part of an education effort. A key audience was the staff 

members whose work intersects asset management, but who had not been directly involved. The TAMP 

stated that the effort to explain why each person’s work matters and how collective efforts fit together 

has asset management benefits for the overall VTrans organization.

VTrans spent considerable effort on the Practitioners’ Guide. Highlights include having short 

informational “pull-outs” that provide key asset information or individual asset management plans. 

These plans can be used by asset stewards to provide background asset information quickly and 

efficiently to a diverse audience. The Practitioners’ Guide will document VTrans’ efforts, support 

continuous improvement, and capture institutional knowledge. 

Caltrans Asset Management Spurs State/Local 

Coordination 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) faced the asset management challenge of 

coordinating with the owners of 19,427 lane miles of the locally owned NHS. Caltrans has by far the 

greatest number and highest percentage of locally owned NHS assets of any State with 34.6 percent of 

NHS lane miles locally owned. In fact, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 

manages 11,658 NHS lane miles which is more mileage than that managed by several small States 

combined.

2,3 Caltrans manages 9,196 NHS bridges while the locals manage 1,629 NHS bridges, a slightly 

greater amount than the State-maintained NHS bridges in Minnesota.4

The 2019 Caltrans TAMP stated the result of the asset management plan coordination was to increase 

collaboration with the local NHS owners. Caltrans hosted several workshops with local NHS owners, 

which led to increased understanding among the agency, local NHS owners, and regional transportation 

agencies. The TAMP process also spurred establishment of a Transportation Asset Management 

Advisory Committee (TAMAC) that included Caltrans and local NHS stakeholders. 

The Caltrans TAMP addressed two overlapping highway systems, the State Highway System (SHS) and 

the NHS. The SHS is managed by Caltrans but the NHS is managed by Caltrans and cities and counties, 

toll authorities, tribal governments, and Federal agencies. 

Among the issues that Caltrans and the local partners discussed was how to reconcile different 

pavement performance measures, estimate local investments on the NHS that were not tracked by local 

partners, and create local awareness of the TAMP. 

Caltrans collects pavement inventory and condition data for all NHS and SHS pavements through an 

automated survey procedure. Although Caltrans reports data to the Highway Performance Management 

System (HPMS) based on the Federal measures, the local jurisdictions tend to use the Pavement 

Condition Index (PCI) measure. Analysis of locally managed NHS pavements indicated that because of 

International Roughness Index (IRI) values, few locally managed NHS pavements will be rated as Good 

per the Federal performance measures.

The Caltrans TAMP stated that several strategies will need to be pursued by local, regional, and State 

partners to close the performance gaps for locally owned NHS pavements and bridges. Additional 

funding from a recent State revenue increase would need to be reallocated by local partners to the NHS 

assets. Or, the local owners could re-prioritize their local funds to emphasize NHS conditions. Also, 

better informed investment decisions are possible through improved coordination and information 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

6 

sharing among local, regional, and State partners. For the portion of the NHS owned by local agencies, 

revenues are derived from a variety of sources, including Federal and State sources, as well as additional 

local funding sources, such as local sales taxes, development impact fees, property taxes, and traffic 

impact fees. However, the local funds must support all local roads, not only the locally owned NHS.

Developing the TAMP identified areas of weakness and many opportunities to strengthen investment 

decisions in the future. The TAMP stated an effort to make progress on data improvements and tool 

availability to support TAM will be initiated. This effort was intended to prioritize and sequence the set 

of data and tool-improvement actions. It will also identify the coordination needed to ensure that the 

data will be aligned across assets and jurisdictions. The TAMP indicated among the data needs raised by 

local stakeholders was the need for consistent data about local conditions, systems, and assets, 

common terminology, and procedures to ensure data quality and accuracy.

Another identified need was better coordination of local, regional, and State decision-making about 

assets. At the State/local TAMP workshops, participants saw this as an opportunity to deliver a better 

transportation experience to California’s travelers. Stakeholders also identified the need to continue to 

improve the understanding of pavement and bridge assets and the need to better understand other 

asset classes as they are included in the TAMP. The first set of additional assets was to be drainage and 

TMS assets. Many other assets were planned to be included in the upcoming years. Among the modeling 

needs identified by participants were the need for climate change projections, life cycle planning 

information, and improved deterioration models. 

Another area identified in the State/local collaboration was the need for improved understanding of 

how transportation assets support other objectives such as safety, mobility, economic development, 

social equity, sustainability, and environmental mitigation. Stakeholders suggested the need for 

performance measures that help understand the relationship between assets and these other

objectives. They also suggested gathering information about how asset management supports these 

other objectives, and prioritizing areas where asset management will have the greatest impact on those 

objectives. 

Another suggestion was to emphasize corridor management to further engage local owners with the 

State, and to encourage support of Federal objectives. The TAMP stated that viewing local assets as part 

of a larger corridor can encourage broader thinking about inter-agency cooperation. The TAMP stated 

that moving forward with this priority, Caltrans will first look at existing corridor planning and

management procedures and explore how these can be enhanced with the addition of asset needs.

Other activities will look at identification of other corridors based on travel volume and asset needs. 

The stakeholders involved in the Caltrans TAMP development process recognized the value and 

importance of better communicating asset management needs and accomplishments. Ideas included 

the sharing of data, sharing of success stories, and providing templates for communication with the 

media.

New Jersey DOT’s Coordination with Other NHS Owners

For its 2018 and 2019 plans, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) developed protocols 

to coordinate with the 83 agencies that manage sections of the locally owned NHS. Those agencies 

include turnpikes, a port authority, cities, and counties, each with its own priorities and revenues. 

Through the TAMP-development process, NJDOT developed procedures by which the management of 

the NHS could be coordinated and its conditions forecasted. 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

7 

New Jersey has 12,233 lane miles of NHS. The NJDOT maintains 61 percent of the NHS lane miles, with 

the New Jersey Turnpike Authority managing 19 percent, other authorities managing 4 percent, and 

cities and counties managing the remaining 16 percent. The State has 61,396,535 square feet of NHS 

bridge deck area of which NJDOT manages less than half, 47 percent. The turnpike authority manages 34 

percent, the port authority 17 percent, and cities and counties manage 2 percent. 

The NJDOT plan stated that the agency developed an extensive communication and consultation 

program involving all 83 non-DOT NHS asset owners and the three New Jersey MPOs. The TAMP 

communications program informed and educated those parties about the purpose and scope of the 

TAMP and encouraged their participation during the TAMP development. The communications program 

was designed to enable NHS owners to become informed, provide data, review the TAMP, and 

participate in target setting.

The broad aims of the outreach were to:

Communicate Asset Management Purpose, Objectives, and Requirements – To enable 

meaningful input, communications and involvement included providing an overview of the 

TAMP, its purpose, objectives, and requirements, as well as the TAMP process and the role of 

non-NJDOT owners in the process.

Establish Ongoing Communications with NHS Owners – In the TAMP development process,

non-NJDOT NHS owners were invited to participate in all stakeholder meetings, coordinate and 

manage the data requests, review and validate technical analysis, and provide comments. 

Ensure Direct Engagement – The TAMP Team communicated plan processes and updates on the 

TAMP development to all stakeholders. Correspondence provided information on the 

development progress and how the stakeholders fit in.

Ensure Quality Data – The TAMP Team directly enlisted the support of the three MPOs to assist 

NJDOT during the TAMP communication process. Specifically, the MPOs assisted in the

collection of data and information from the various jurisdictions for NHS assets.

The NJDOT collected data from non-DOT NHS owners regarding their asset inventory and their planned 

expenditures on NHS assets. Local owners also were asked to confirm the accuracy of data about their 

assets and to document their past project work, planned expenditures, and their forecasted trends for 

NHS assets.

Despite the ownership spread across 83 agencies each with its own procedures, the information 

collected from the other stakeholders allowed NJDOT to forecast statewide trends. One trend was that 

non-NJDOT NHS bridges will remain in their current network condition, which is less than 2 percent in 

Poor condition. Another is that the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS pavements will also surpass the 

target with less than 1 percent of the Interstate pavement forecasted to be Poor by 2029. 

Information about NHS investments from the turnpike and port authority were available through those 

agencies’ capital planning procedures. The NJDOT made its best effort to obtain local NHS investment 

data by conducting a survey of local NHS owners. A survey collected data for 90 percent of the assets 

managed by the cities and counties. The results provided lane-mile estimates of how much the cities and 

counties invested both in recent years and through 2022. With those estimates, the NJDOT extrapolated 

expected expenditures through 2029. Those investment levels were included in the forecasts that 

projected future NHS bridge and pavement conditions. 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

8 

The large amount of local NHS ownership not only influenced condition forecasting and financial 

planning; it also influenced the management of risks. Several risks related to the dispersed ownership of 

assets were included in the agency’s risk register: 

• If other jurisdictions do not implement the asset management processes, then condition targets 

will not be met.

• If NJDOT cannot collect accurate data about local investments, then it will hinder its ability to 

make good decisions about goals, performance measures, targets, and prioritization.

• If there is no systematic prioritization process for the NHS, then NJDOT cannot achieve its 

targets. 

• If NJDOT does not establish a data-sharing process with other asset owners, then it will reduce 

the awareness and communication of issues between departments, stakeholders, and the 

public.

• If NJDOT lacks a system to track programming for NHS roadways that are operated by other 

agencies, then NJDOT cannot meet its reporting requirements.

Washington DOT’s Coordination with Local Asset Owners 

The Washington State DOT TAMP indicated that one of the risks facing the state of good repair was the 

large amount of locally owned NHS assets. The 2019 TAMP stated that locals owned 31 percent of the 

non-Interstate NHS. With such a high percentage of local ownership, how funding was allocated for 

bridge and pavement preservation on those local NHS routes had a significant impact. 

Since the 2018 initial plan identified local NHS ownership as an issue, WSDOT in partnership with the 

MPOs has begun addressing the issue. One example of this was the local engagement plan. Through this 

process, WSDOT estimated the average annual pavement needs based on lowest life-cycle cost 

strategies and intended to make pavement condition and needs information available geospatially.

WSDOT has begun the planning process to address the following areas:

• Evaluate and identify average annual bridge needs on the locally owned sections of the NHS. 

• Work with MPOs to determine ways of reasonably estimating future NHS investment levels for 

bridge and pavement assets. 

• Align local investment activity types to FHWA investment activity types to review general

investment strategies on the local NHS and to address the Federally required annual consistency 

review. 

• Align planned level of expenditures to funding needs and identify funding gaps. 

Another issue related to risks surrounding the local NHS was that 32 percent of the non-Interstate NHS 

pavement data was submitted to the HPMS as incomplete because the local data did not have all the 

pavement performance measure attributes. 

The WSDOT plan noted that 103 local agencies own some portion of the NHS. WSDOT had been actively 

working with the MPOs and local agencies to implement pavement performance measures, and 

established a Pavement Technical Committee with representatives from MPOs and local agencies to 

implement pavement performance targets. 

WSDOT’s TAMP outlined a six-step plan to extend a comprehensive State process to locally owned NHS 

pavements, and to provide guidance to the MPOs on pavement management best practices. The six 

steps to address the locally owned NHS pavements include:
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

9 

1. Improve and extend data collected and stored in the HPMS. 

2. Perform analysis on locally owned NHS pavement data to include an estimate of service life and 

life cycle planning analysis. 

3. Develop local agency NHS pavement funding needs based on life cycle planning results. 

4. Develop investment strategies based on available funding and needs. 

5. Document and communicate results along with any guidance on best practices. 

6. Identify local agency top value pavement projects that reflect investment strategies. 

The plan stated that WSDOT’s local programs office will work with local agencies to identify and vet 

projects. These projects will be communicated to the MPO technical committees for the “call for 

projects” funding process. The list of projects also can be used to reassess overall needs and make 

assumptions about the future condition of the NHS. 

Communicating with Legislators and a Commission

The WSDOT plan also gave the agency the opportunity to document how its asset management 

practices fulfill legislative recommendations for how the agency should manage assets. The 2019 

WSDOT plan refers to a 2014 legislative assessment of how the department incorporates risk and life 

cycle planning into its bridge and pavement management. The assessment found that WSDOT was 

exceptional compared to other States in how it managed risks. The TAMP confirmed that those practices 

remain in place, as recommended by the assessment. The TAMP also confirmed that WSDOT continued 

to deploy the good practices for life cycle planning that were examined in the assessment.

The 2014 assessment found that WSDOT was not fully analyzing bridge deterioration rates and life cycle 

investments. The 2019 TAMP noted the progress made in that area and noted that WSDOT was

developing guidance on more strategic management of bridges, and it was adopting a bridge 

management system to improve deterioration forecasting and life cycle planning.

The 2019 TAMP identified the progress made since 2014 including increasing preventive maintenance, 

evaluating additional resurfacing techniques, and capturing maintenance treatments to improve life 

cycle planning analysis. 

Michigan DOT’s Communication and Coordination

Highlights

Michigan DOT (MDOT) has a history of successfully supporting the management of local transportation 

assets. This history of asset management and performance measurement helped pave the way for the 

development of the State’s 2019 TAMP, which in turn further advanced ongoing asset management 

efforts. 

Since 2002, the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) has developed statewide 

asset management strategies, procedures, and tools to support local governments’ adoption of asset 

management on Federal-aid highways. Working from MDOT’s example, the group developed tools that 

local agencies could use, as well as a methodology that all agencies could agree on for data collection 

and analysis. As a result, several hundred road agencies work together each year through their regional 

planning agencies and MPOs to gather performance data on almost 37,000 miles of Federal-aid highway 

pavements and more than 11,000 highway bridges. 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

10

Of the 84 Michigan road agencies with jurisdiction over the NHS, more than 60 percent use asset 

management procedures to select projects. More than 50 percent of these road agencies use software 

or other tools to prioritize projects and have a separate investment plan for their higher-level system, 

including the NHS. 

Moving forward, there is a new State requirement that local agencies in Michigan with at least 100 

route miles must prepare and manage their respective systems through an approved asset management 

plan. This effort will augment previously established undertakings.

The TAMP development process initiated another advance in the long-standing cooperation between 

MDOT and local asset owners. MDOT has managed its pavements using a remaining service life (RSL) 

metric for more than 20 years. However, the RSL metrics were not generated for locally controlled 

routes, including the 18 percent of the NHS that is locally controlled. For these routes, local 

governments used a pavement rating system based upon visual inspection, not the automated 

inspection required for performance reporting.

5 To prepare for the Federal pavement performance 

measurement rule, MDOT began collecting data for all the new pavement metrics on the State’s entire 

NHS in 2016. This included data collection on the non-Interstate NHS routes which are under local 

government jurisdiction. 

Using these data, MDOT provided each MPO with a “report card” for pavement condition on the 

Interstate and non-Interstate NHS in their areas that conveyed how this condition compared to the 

statewide condition. A similar effort occurred using the bridge target-setting data. These efforts reduced 

the burden of data collection and analysis on MPOs and ensured that they all had consistently measured 

and analyzed data.

MDOT and MPOs used these historical data to establish statewide targets and to understand which 

target option was appropriate for each MPO, whether it was to support the statewide targets or to 

establish their own.

Ohio DOT’s Data Collection and Sharing

The 2019 Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) asset management plan provided additional 

examples of how a TAMP can spur communication and coordination.

The Ohio DOT collects all bridge and pavement condition data on the entire NHS and provides them to 

local NHS owners and MPOs to support their investment decision making. ODOT collects the following: 

• Automated profiler ride quality data including IRI, rutting, cracking, and faulting on all NHS

sections including the Ohio Turnpike

• Manual Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) data on all NHS and Federal-aid routes, including the 

Ohio Turnpike

• General appraisal ratings for all conduits on the State system 

ODOT also oversees all bridge inspections and ratings on the entire State system, including the NHS. NHS 

conduits that are not on the State system are managed by its local partners and submitted to ODOT. The 

TAMP stated ODOT was developing processes to improve the collection of data on locally maintained 

NHS conduits to assist in future reporting. 

To coordinate these activities, ODOT made the data available through its Transportation Information 

Mapping System (TIMS), which is a public facing geographic information system (GIS) data portal that 

allows customers to view, consume, and distribute data. In addition, ODOT created an online 

Transportation Asset Management Decision Support Tool (TAMDST) that gives ODOT decision makers 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

11

access to data to support better business decisions. ODOT also utilized its Local Transportation 

Assistance Program (LTAP) to train partners on a host of topics, including how to use the asset 

management data. In 2017 alone, LTAP trained over 15,000 local transportation professionals on a 

variety of topics related to managing Ohio’s infrastructure. 

ODOT will continue to coordinate activities by working closely with the Ohio Association of Regional 

Councils (OARC) which represents 1,500 municipalities, villages, townships, counties and MPOs within 

the State.

Ohio DOT’s Stakeholder Communication Plan

The Ohio DOT also developed a communication plan to engage employees and partners such as the 

MPOs and local governments. The plan included two videos describing ODOT’s asset preservation 

strategy, a web page for downloading information, a PowerPoint presentation that can be shared with 

stakeholders, and a Fact Card that summarizes key points. The communication plan focused on three 

strategies:

• Using state-of-the art technology for better decision-making, including the use of computerized 

management systems that objectively predict asset needs. 

• Aggressively applying asset preservation treatments to get out in front of problems before they 

occur. 

• Improving collaboration in the way ODOT manages its assets that results in better, timelier 

decisions and more consistency across Districts. 

Finally, ODOT holds monthly meetings for its Asset Management Leadership Team and District Asset 

Management Coordinators.

Colorado DOT Providing Data to Locals and MPOs

To encourage the integration of asset management planning with the transportation planning process, 

the 2019 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) TAMP included data on the number and 

condition of NHS bridges in the planning areas of the State’s five MPOs. The 2019 TAMP enumerated the

number of NHS bridges in each MPO area, the percentage that are Good, Fair, and Poor as well as the 

square feet in each condition.

The TAMP stated that CDOT will continue working with the MPOs to develop a coordinated data-sharing 

process and to ensure there is agreement on responsibilities. Since early 2018, CDOT has provided 

historical data on the FHWA-required measures and targets to help MPOs understand current 

performance under the new metrics, especially for bridges and pavement. CDOT maintained the most 

comprehensive data on these assets because it collects pavement and bridge condition data for the full 

NHS.

In addition, the Department in the spring of 2019 collaborated with the cities of Denver and Colorado 

Springs to understand their future investments in NHS pavement and bridges. CDOT intended to 

integrate such spending information into analyses it developed for forecasting performance. 

In Colorado, the DOT managed 87 percent of the NHS lane miles with 13 percent managed by local 

agencies. CDOT also owned 88 percent of the NHS bridges, with 12 percent locally owned. 
Case Study on Communicating Asset Management Strategies

12

Nebraska DOT’s Communication with Legislators and 

MPOs

The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) 2019 asset management plan complemented a 

needs assessment report for the Nebraska State Legislature that communicated the cost to eliminate 

geometric deficiencies, address capacity, and achieve the State’s pavement condition targets. The 20-

year analysis also identified funding gaps. The TAMP augmented that long-standing report with 

additional detail on the life-cycle strategies, risks, and investment strategies to manage the NHS. 

The needs assessment was enhanced with a ten-year candidate list of pavement projects provided to 

each district. The candidate lists were generated by the agency’s pavement management system that 

recommended treatments as part of a 10-year life-cycle-based planning forecast. The analysis prioritized 

projects by identifying the life-cycle improvement strategy, timing, and cost for each pavement section. 

From the list, the districts and program management division developed the pavement program.

Similar project candidate lists were provided to the MPOs as a tool to help them develop their individual 

four-year transportation improvement programs (TIPs). To coordinate with the MPOs’ long-range plans, 

NDOT also provided the State’s two MPOs with 10-year lists of NHS bridge and pavement projects so the 

planning agencies could incorporate them into their long-range plans.

1 FHWA Highway Statistics, Table HM 40 National Highway System Road Length – 2017, Miles by Ownership. 2 California Department of Transportation, 2019 Transportation Asset Management Plan, p2-25. 3 Federal Highway Administration, Table HM-40 National Highway System Road Length – 2017, Miles by 

Ownership.

4 Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2019 Transportation Asset Management Plan, p54.

5 23 C.F.R 490.309 (b)(E)(3)