Highway Performance

 Monitoring System

Reassessment

Office of Highway Information Management

Federal Highway Administration

Department of Transportation

December 1998

Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim Publication No: FHWA-PL-99-001
Notice:

Subsequent to the publication of the HPMS Reassessment Final Report, the FHWA

conducted four implementation workshops attended primarily by FHWA staff and State and

MPO data providers. In the process of conducting these workshops, FHWA received

valuable input on several of the data items. From this interactive review process, FHWA

has concluded that several changes are required. These revisions have been incorporated

into this report and are shown in bold italics. This revised Final Report should be used

when developing changes to State HPMS reporting systems. HPMS submittal and other

software to be used to report 1999 data in June 2000 and the HPMS Field Manual will be

adjusted to reflect these changes.

Acknowledgment:

FHWA wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Henry L. Peyrebrune, Transportation

Consultant, to this Highway Performance Monitoring System Reassessment: Final Report.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) i

Foreword

This report documents the results of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) review of the agency’s

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). The purpose of the comprehensive review was to assist

FHWA in determining an appropriate future form and direction for this major FHWA data system. This report

represents the culmination of several serial activities including: 

C the identification and assessment of the impacts of the HPMS on FHWA, its State and other

governmental partners, and the many and varied HPMS customers; 

C the results of an extensive outreach program that included a national HPMS workshop held in June

1997; and 

C the subsequent assimilation of inputs from these activities into a set of proposals for the future form

of the HPMS.

The HPMS provides essential information on highway condition, performance, and use. It serves many critical

functions for both the FHWA and the States, providing investment information for Congress, condition and

performance information for the traveling public, and information necessary to make equitable apportionments

of highway funds to the States under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The

reengineering of this valuable data system to reflect business needs for the 21st century has been a high priority

for the FHWA. This thorough review of the HPMS was done with input from our partners, stakeholders, and

customers, and is an exemplary model of partnership and cooperation.

FHWA welcomes comments on this report. These comments will be useful in guiding the FHWA as it

implements changes to the HPMS over the next year. Comments may be forwarded to FHWA’s Office of

Highway Policy Information (HPPI-20), 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590 to the attention of

Mr. James Getzewich (jim.getzewich@fhwa.dot.gov).

This report is available in electronic form at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim.

Gary E. Maring

Director, Office of Highway Information Management

Federal Highway Administration
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) ii
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) iii

Table of Contents

Page

Foreword ......................................................................... . i

Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... . iv

Executive Summary ................................................................. . 1

Introduction ....................................................................... . 4

Section 1: 

 Summary of Phase 1 .............................................................. . 5

Section 2:

 Decision Process and Review Criteria ................................................ . 10

 Data Item Review ................................................................ . 12

 Areawide Data Review ............................................................ . 21

 Using HPMS Data for Apportionment and Other Purposes ............................... . 23

 Grouping Data .................................................................. . 26

 Implementing Change ............................................................. . 26

Section 3:

 Future Perspectives ............................................................... . 29

 Measuring Current Pavement Condition and Estimating Future Pavement Requirements ........ . 29

 Measuring Congestion Parameters and Estimating Congestion Levels and Trends ............. . 30

 Measuring Safety Parameters ....................................................... . 31

 The Future HPMS Operating Environment ............................................ . 33

Appendix A:

 Is HPMS a World Class System? .................................................... . A-1

Appendix B:

 Detailed Information on Data Items for Which Change is Proposed ......................... . B-1
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT ....................................................... . Annual Average Daily Traffic

AASHTO ...................... . American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials

AMPO .................................... . Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

AP ................................................................... . Analytical Process

BTS ..................................................... . Bureau of Transportation Statistics

DOD .............................................................. . Department of Defense

DOT ........................................................ . Department of Transportation

EPA ..................................................... . Environmental Protection Agency

FARS ................................................... . Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA .................................................... . Federal Highway Administration

FRA ....................................................... . Federal Railroad Administration

GES ............................................................ . General Estimate System

GIS ....................................................... . Geographic Information System

GPRA ............................................. . Government Performance and Results Act

GPS ........................................................... . Global Positioning System

HERS ............................................. . Highway Economic Requirements System

HPMS ............................................. . Highway Performance Monitoring System

HSIS ................................................... . Highway Safety Information System

IRI ......................................................... . International Roughness Index

LRS ........................................................... . Linear Referencing System

LTPP .................................................... . Long Term Pavement Performance

ITS ....................................................... . Intelligent Transportation System

MPO .................................................. . Metropolitan Planning Organizations

NAAQS .............................................. . National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCHRP ...................................... . National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHS ........................................................... . National Highway System

NHTSA ....................................... . National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PSR ......................................................... . Present Serviceability Rating

SCOP ..................................................... . Standing Committee on Planning

SHRP ................................................. . Strategic Highway Research Program

SN or D ........................................ . Structural Number (SN) or Slab Thickness (D)

STRAHNET ................................................... . Strategic Highway Network

TEA-21 ............................................. . Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TRB ........................................................ . Transportation Research Board

VMT ............................................................. . Vehicle Miles of Travel
Apportionment Factors

Performance Indicators

HPMS

MPO's Local governments

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

for key governmental

business processes

State DOT's

report data annually

Biennial Condition

and Performance 

Report to Congress

Policy Studies

- Truck Size & Weight

- Cost Allocation

State-MPO VMT

Tracking in NonAttainment Areas

National Data Base

(Internet Accessible) - Strategic Planning

- Program Assessment

- Miles

- Lane-Miles

- VMT

State and Local Partners

Public/Private

Customers

HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to document the outcome of the HPMS strategic reassessment. The reassessment

was accomplished over the period beginning in December 1996 to December 1998. The report summarizes the

analysis and public outreach steps that were undertaken to develop a consensus on a future HPMS focus, mission,

and content. Specific changes to streamline the existing HPMS are proposed, and the use of HPMS to meet

FHWA needs for high quality performance and apportionment data under the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) are explored. A short term

implementation plan is offered, and longer term visions for meeting the agency’s future safety, pavement, and

congestion data needs are discussed.

Background

The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway transportation system data base. The HPMS replaced

numerous uncoordinated annual State data reports as well as biennial special studies conducted by each State.

The HPMS is a principal source of data for Highway Statistics and other FHWA publications, the Condition and

Performance Report to Congress, strategic performance indicators, and highway program fund apportionment.

The following is an input/output schematic representation of the HPMS.

The purpose of the strategic reassessment was to review the HPMS in light of contemporary issues and emerging

business needs and to determine what changes were appropriate at this time. The reauthorization of the FederalAid Highway Program provided an appropriate opportunity and framework for FHWA to undertake a

reassessment of the HPMS. Changing technology, including the development and deployment of Intelligent
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 2

Transportation Systems (ITS), requirements of the GPRA, and changing State and local data needs including

the increased use of management systems also provided an impetus to the strategic review.

The reassessment was conducted by the FHWA in partnership with the HPMS Steering Committee, which

includes members from States, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(AMPO). These partners have had a continuing role in the process from developing the need for the reassessment

to drafting and reviewing various work products and reports, participating in workshops and Steering Committee

meetings, and providing insight and support to the results of the reassessment as reflected in this report.

Significant Outcomes and Recommendations

The reassessment has been guided by a longer term vision of an HPMS which builds from the data systems of

local, regional and State governments and is connected through a common geo-referencing system thereby

minimizing the need for data reporting between agencies. It has produced a number of significant outcomes and

recommendations that when implemented will result in an HPMS that effectively meets its mission and objectives,

contains only data items having specific uses and customers, can be produced at a lesser cost and provider burden,

and offers opportunities for improved data quality. The outcomes and recommendations include:

C During the HPMS reassessment process, FHWA placed a high value on maximizing public outreach and

developing a consensus on recommendations from both data users and providers. Throughout the process,

participants voiced strong support for retaining the HPMS as a State-based data reporting system and

continuing the HPMS in a form very similar in basic structure to the existing system. A statement of the

future HPMS mission and objectives reflecting this support was developed through extensive public

outreach to the user and provider communities.

C FHWA will make substantial changes to the number and detail of the data items in HPMS. The study

recommends eliminating 15 data items, changing 21 others, thereby eliminating 90 reported detail lines, and

adding one new item. The study identified opportunities for States to reduce the HPMS sample size by 35

percent in the aggregate, and for FHWA to reduce the number of HPMS records by two thirds through

grouping. In all, these changes offer an opportunity to reduce provider burden, eliminate unneeded data,

and improve data quality. Estimated potential annual costs savings of $3-$5 million were identified.

C FHWA will use the HPMS universe, sample, and areawide data for apportionment purposes with

adjustments to sampled data made using universe length as the control value. This moves the data

adjustment process totally within the HPMS, and provides a consistent, controlled basis for meeting

FHWA’s expanded financial stewardship responsibilities under TEA-21. However, this will also require

more attention to the use of appropriate sampling techniques and sample management on the part of data

providers.

C FHWA will eliminate the reporting of fatal and injury crash data now provided by the States on a summary

basis by functional system. In the short term, the report recommends that FHWA rely on existing safety

data systems including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Fatality Analysis

Reporting System (FARS) and General Estimates System (GES) as well as FHWA’s Highway Safety

Information System (HSIS) to meet crash data needs. In the longer term, the report recommends that

changes to crash data requirements and data sources be made in cooperation with NHTSA and others in the

safety community through the mandate to develop model safety data elements under Section 2005 of TEA-
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 3

21.

C FHWA will continue to require only International Roughness Index (IRI) data for pavement performance

purposes in the HPMS in the near term. In the longer term, the report recommends that FHWA pursue a

research program aimed at developing alternative pavement models for policy applications and, as States

develop the ability to include other pavement stress data in their pavement management systems, investigate

appropriate mechanisms for making such additional data available to the FHWA for pavement analysis

purposes.

C In the near term, FHWA will continue to require current congestion-related information in the HPMS and

investigate better ways to estimate highway congestion using HPMS data. In the longer term, the report

recommends that FHWA conduct research directed at better estimating relevant congestion indices and

system performance using archived ITS data and other sources of data external to HPMS. This will likely

require linking HPMS sections to a common geo-referencing frame.

C In the short term, FHWA will continue to implement software improvements to the HPMS that simplify data

provider input burden and that add value to the HPMS by improving accessibility to the data base through

Internet links and associated analysis software. In the longer term, the report recommends that these HPMS

capabilities be appropriately linked to existing geo-referencing systems using the efforts of the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (BTS) to create a national datum.

C In the short term, FHWA will work with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

and other partners to complete the synthesis of best practices--NCHRP Topic 30-07, Data Sharing and

Data Partnerships for Highways. In the longer term, the report recommends that FHWA, AASHTO, and

AMPO use the synthesis results to conduct pilot studies and establish working models of data partnerships

and data sharing in several suitable locations.

 

C FHWA will implement short term improvements to the HPMS data system as soon as possible. As a

practical matter, the earliest this can be accomplished is with the reporting of 1999 HPMS data in June

2000. This schedule allows data providers a one year lead time to plan for necessary changes to

accommodate the HPMS requirements. To the maximum extent possible, changes will be achieved through

software conversions of existing data; other changes will be phased in as providers make changes to their

existing systems. Since the majority of changes involve a reduction in data collection and reporting, FHWA

expects minimal implementation problems.

Conclusion

As a result of the reassessment, the HPMS is better positioned to maximize the use of future new technologies

for collecting and reporting data. FHWA believes that the proposed revisions to the HPMS meet the decision

process elements and evaluation criteria laid out by the HPMS Steering Committee for this review. Implementing

the proposed changes will permit FHWA to better fulfill its HPMS mission and objectives. The new HPMS data

base appears to be an improvement over the existing data system and cost estimates suggest that States should

be able to save resources with these revisions. The proposed HPMS revisions, when viewed as a whole, appear

rational, beneficial, and consistent. FHWA will continue to take steps to meet the future HPMS vision in concert

with the HPMS Steering Committee and FHWA’s partners, stakeholders, and customers.

Introduction
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 4

The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway transportation system data base. It includes limited

data on all public roads, more detailed data for a sample of the arterial and collector functional systems, and

certain areawide summary information for urbanized, small urban and rural areas. The HPMS replaced numerous

uncoordinated annual State data reports as well as biennial special studies conducted by each State. These special

studies had been conducted to support a 1965 congressional requirement that a report on the Nation’s highway

needs be submitted to Congress every two years. The first such Condition and Performance Report was compiled

in 1968; the first report to make use of the HPMS data base was the 1980 Condition and Performance Report,

which was forwarded to Congress in January 1981.

A major purpose of the HPMS is to provide data that reflects the extent, condition, performance, use, and

operating characteristics of the Nation’s highways. These data are the source for a substantial portion of the

information published in Highway Statistics and in other FHWA publications, and form the basis of the analyses

that support the Condition and Performance Reports to Congress. In addition, these data are used for assessing

highway system performance under FHWA’s strategic planning process and for apportioning Federal-aid

highway funds under TEA-21. In order to meet these varied needs, the HPMS has gone through an evolutionary

process that has recognized over time the changing needs for data related to highway purposes. All in all, the

changes to the HPMS over its nearly 20-year life have reflected a process of incremental adjustments to the

HPMS data base so that it would be responsive to the needs introduced by changes in legislation and changes in

the focus of the Federal-aid highway program. The HPMS has changed over time to keep responsive to the

demands placed upon it. 

The purpose of the strategic reassessment was to review the HPMS in light of contemporary issues and emerging

business needs and determine what changes were necessary and desirable at this point in time. The reassessment

has been guided by a longer term vision of an HPMS which builds from the data systems of local, regional and

State governments and is connected through a common geo-referencing system thereby minimizing the need for

data reporting between agencies. The reauthorization of the Federal-Aid Highway Program has provided an

appropriate opportunity and framework for FHWA to undertake a reassessment of the HPMS. Changing

technology, including the development and deployment of ITS, requirements of the GPRA, and changing State

data needs including the increased use of management systems also provide an impetus to the strategic review.

The objectives of the strategic reassessment can be summarized as follows:

C Conduct a comprehensive analysis of HPMS and its mission

C Make HPMS a more efficient and user-friendly system

C Examine more cost-effective methods for collecting data, including new technologies such as ITS

C Examine ways to create or enhance data partnerships with State, regional, and local governments as well

as the private sector and other data source entities

C Consider the evolving needs of GPRA

C Ensure that HPMS is the definitive Federal source of information on roadway extent, characteristics and

performance

C Conduct a fully participatory review

C Review current data entries and consolidate or remove those items which are of marginal use

C Ensure that HPMS is a “world class” data system

One of the key requirements of the reassessment was to assure that the process was open to participation by the
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 5

various stakeholders, customers, and partners. This has been accomplished in part by the extensive use of an

HPMS Steering Committee. The Steering Committee includes, among others, State, MPO, AASHTO and AMPO

members, and Federal representatives including DOT agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

From the beginning, the Steering Committee has been a full partner in the strategic reassessment of the HPMS:

C It was instrumental in convincing the FHWA that the reassessment was needed.

C It has been deeply involved in guiding the process by which the reassessment has been conducted.

C It has reviewed all the analytical work done to support the reassessment.

C It played a major role in conducting the national HPMS outreach workshop.

C It has provided its insight, and finally its support, for the proposed changes to the HPMS that are included

in this report.

In addition to the Steering Committee and the aforementioned national workshop, other steps to assure an open

process have included wide dissemination of interim reports through the Internet, various meetings and

presentations to interest groups, involvement of over 450 interested partners, stakeholders, and customers and

use of an open Federal Register Docket as a conduit for public comment.

 

The purpose of this report is to document the outcome of the HPMS strategic reassessment. In the first section

of this report, the results of Phase 1 of the study, as previously reported in Phase 1 Final Report, September

1997, are summarized. In the second part, the evaluation and review criteria used are documented as are the

results of the review in terms of short term changes to existing data items and data summaries. In addition, the

use of HPMS data for apportionment and other purposes is discussed along with a proposal to use grouped

reporting for lower level functional systems. A summary of proposed changes and the implementation of change

are also discussed. In the third part, issues of concern for the future are assessed, including perspectives on

pavement, congestion, and safety data and their relationship to the HPMS. Technology sharing, data partnerships

and data sharing, and the implications for HPMS of Transportation Research Board (TRB) Conference

Proceedings 14, Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation Decisionmaking into the 21st

Century, are also assessed. A consultant was retained to assess whether the HPMS met the requirements for a

“world class” data system. The results of a limited consultant analysis are reflected in the report Is HPMS A

World Class System? This report, which generally concluded that the HPMS is in fact a “world class” data

system, is included in Appendix A. 

Section 1

Summary of Phase 1

Reassessment Process

Phase 1 of the HPMS reassessment was conducted over the period of January to July 1997. An independent

consultant was retained to complete this phase of the reassessment in accordance with the objectives previously

described in the Introduction section. Work was done with an emphasis on conducting a fully participatory

process involving HPMS data partners, stakeholders, and customers. In essence, Phase 1 was intended to be a

zero-based reanalysis of the mission, objectives, use, structure and content of HPMS. The consultant and FHWA

used a number of strategies for obtaining input to the reassessment including: 
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 6

C Interviews were conducted with over 21 Federal employees who are either customers of HPMS data or

involved in Federal data and policy analysis activities.

C A survey of the States was conducted with the assistance of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning

(SCOP). Forty seven States responded to the survey form and the remaining States were interviewed by

phone. Results of the survey and progress on the reassessment have been presented periodically at SCOP

meetings.

C A similar survey of AMPO members was conducted; 44 MPO’s responded. Presentations on the reassessment

process have been made at several AMPO meetings.

C An information meeting was held with Washington-based transportation organizations; a follow up survey

form was sent to 32 organizations.

C FHWA has placed benchmark reports in the Federal Register and on the Internet for review and public

comment; 50 sets of comments on the reassessment have been placed in the docket. In addition to publication

on the Internet, over 450 interested partners, stakeholders, and customers have been provided relevant

materials on a continuing basis.

C A number of information presentations have been made before TRB Committees and other organizations.

The consultant documented the findings of this outreach and analysis in a draft Phase 1 report. The draft report

was used as the framework for a national HPMS workshop which was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in June

1997. Ninety five participants, including representatives from 35 States, MPOs, consultants, TRB committee

members, interest groups, academia, and the Federal Government attended the workshop. The workshop was

followed by a meeting of the HPMS Steering Committee. Details of the results of the Phase 1 effort are

summarized in this section; additional information can be found in the following reports:

Strategic Reassessment of the Highway Performance Monitoring System - Phase 1 Final Report

Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-PL-98-011

HPMS Reassessment Workshop/Steering Committee Meeting Summary

Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-PL-98-012

Summary Outcomes of Phase 1

The following discussion highlights a number of the principal outcomes of the consultant study of the existing

HPMS, the results of the various surveys and outreach activities, and the national HPMS workshop.

Mission and Objectives of the HPMS: One of the study objectives was to take a fresh look at the mission and

objectives of the HPMS, subjecting them to the wide scrutiny of the varied data suppliers and customers.

Through the study and accompanying public outreach effort, the following mission statement and objectives were

developed, tested, and adopted for the future HPMS:

Mission: It is the mission of the Highway Performance Monitoring System, as an integral part of the National

Highway Data base and a component of the National Transportation Data base, to provide a data base and

analysis process for assessing and reporting the condition and performance of the Nation’s highway system

in the most cost-effective manner consistent with the following objectives:
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 7

Objective 1: Meet FHWA’s highway stewardship responsibilities, including preserving the national interest

in the National Highway System (NHS).

Objective 2: Support Federal transportation policy analysis and planning activities.

Objective 3: Meet the various congressional requirements, including the Condition and Performance Report.

Objective 4: Provide a publicly accessible, consistently high quality, objective and timely national highway

data base.

Objective 5: Provide, at the State and local government option, an HPMS data base, an analytical process,

and FHWA technical support which meets the needs of State, regional and local agencies.

Objective 6: Evolve HPMS to a data system which:

- builds from the data systems of local, regional, and State governments

- is connected with a common geo-referencing system and

- avoids, whenever possible, collecting data which is not used by the collecting agency

Through the use of the surveys, Federal Register responses, and discussions at the national workshop, the mission

and objectives were found to have wide support by all groups involved in HPMS. For example, support from

the States ranged from a high of 96 percent for Objective 2 to a low of 72 percent for Objective 5. For MPOs,

support for these objectives ranged from 95 percent to 78 percent. Objective 6 was added by workshop

participants and adopted at the following HPMS Steering Committee meeting. 

The process of reexamining the mission and objectives, in essence, reestablished the basic purposes of HPMS

and demonstrated that the program has strong support among the users and providers of the data and products

of HPMS. The addition of Objective 6 was consistent with the results of a previously held TRB Conference on

Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation Decisionmaking into the 21st Century. That

is, participants at both conferences stressed the need for establishing data partnerships and sharing data among

transportation agencies as the major issue for the future direction of transportation data activities. The existence

of new technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and

increased Internet accessibility to data and data systems will facilitate progress toward meeting this objective.

Key Factors Affecting the Reassessment: In the process of conducting the study and outreach activities, the

consultant identified a number of key factors or basic tenets of HPMS in the course of working with the surveys,

interviews and other individual discussions. These factors or tenets were subsequently used to frame the

discussions at the national HPMS workshop and have guided the Steering Committee and FHWA in subsequent

steps and decisions in the reassessment process. These basic tenets include:

C HPMS has an excellent reputation in the transportation and governmental field.

C Data collected through the HPMS is necessary to support decision making.

C The reassessment is a relevant activity occurring at a time of major transition in transportation and HPMS.

C HPMS is a subset of a national highway data base which itself is part of a larger intermodal transportation

data base (see following figure).

C HPMS is both a data set and an analytical process.

C A distinction needs to be made between the Federal use of HPMS and the public use of the national

highway data base.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 8

C As an alternative to expansion, the HPMS data base should continue to be supplemented as necessary with

additional external data to better measure condition and performance.

C HPMS serves many purposes at the Federal level, including many which were not originally envisioned

when HPMS was established.

C The collection of HPMS data will always be an intergovernmental activity.

C The full demands of the Government Performance and Results Act on HPMS are still evolving.

C The timeliness of data collection and presentation and the timing of any changes to HPMS are critical parts

of the reassessment.

C One of the most important indicators for policy makers is consistent time series data that can be used to

show trends.

C There is a large sunk cost in the current HPMS data collection system; changes need to recognize cost

implications.

Scope of the HPMS: Several alternatives which would change the scope of the current HPMS were presented

and discussed as part of the study and outreach process. In general, scope can be defined to be related to the

extent of the highway system included in the HPMS. As currently configured, the scope of the HPMS involves
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 9

the collection of data at three highway system levels: 

C limited length, jurisdiction and identifier data are collected for all sections of all public roads, including

local roads and streets; 

C other data are collected for all NHS and other principal arterial roadways; and 

C still other more detailed data are collected for a sample of the arterial and collector functional systems (nonlocal roads). 

Workshop participants recommended that the current scope of the HPMS not be changed and that the future

HPMS should continue to have information on all highways. The HPMS Steering Committee supported this

recommendation and it was adopted by FHWA.

Further analysis done as part of the reassessment indicated that the number of sampled sections could be reduced

from the current level of approximately 124,000 to about 80,000 without impacting the designed statistical

reliability of the HPMS. This has the potential of producing significant savings to State and local governments

that are in a position to reduce their existing HPMS sample sizes.

Scale and Content of the HPMS: As with the issue of scope, several alternatives which would change the scale

and content of the current HPMS were presented and discussed as part of the study and outreach process. In

general, scale and content of the HPMS can be related to the types of data and the statistical level of the

significance of the data types collected. Workshop participants recommended that FHWA examine each data

item against a set of criteria and determine if collection should be continued. A data item decision process was

developed and a set of evaluation criteria was recommended to FHWA by the workshop participants and the

HPMS Steering Committee. FHWA adopted these recommendations; the results of the evaluation are presented

in the following sections of this report.

Other Issues: Several additional issues were developed and discussed at the national workshop and at the

following HPMS Steering Committee meeting. This resulted in a number of recommendations and action items

for FHWA to address in the reassessment process:

C Including better and more comprehensive information on pavement condition and congestion in the HPMS:

Although FHWA has concluded, with Steering Committee agreement, to continue current pavement and

congestion measures in the HPMS at this time, Section 3 of the report presents a vision for making future

improvements in these areas.

C Improving the clarity of the relationship between the HPMS and Clean Air Act requirements in HPMS and

other FHWA program guidance: In response to this action item, FHWA will be working with the EPA to

improve the instructions in the HPMS Field Manual. FHWA is also working internally to include appropriate

HPMS references and explanatory material in the Transportation Conformity Reference Guide, a document

that is now being developed.

C Improving data partnerships and data sharing as a means of achieving part of HPMS Objective 6: In response

to this action item, FHWA, in accordance with recommendations of the workshop participants, and with input

from the HPMS Steering Committee, proposed a new topic for NCHRP Synthesis Project 20-5, Synthesis of

Information Related to Highway Problems. The synthesis topic has been subsequently selected as topic 30-

07, Data Sharing and Data Partnerships for Highways for the 1998 program.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 10

C Improving the quality of HPMS data: This action item was discussed at the HPMS Steering Committee

meeting in June 1998; the Committee provided a number of general recommendations to FHWA on

mechanisms and processes to improve data quality. Using these recommendations as a basis, FHWA is

currently developing a new data quality improvement program to be implemented beginning in fiscal year

1999. FHWA believes that streamlining the HPMS data set in accordance with the proposal documented in

this report and implementing the action agenda will lead to enhanced data quality. Experience with the 1997

HPMS data that was submitted by the States using the new data submittal software indicates that the new

software has already resulted in improvements to data quality and consistency.

C Increasing the use of new technology to collect HPMS data in a cost effective manner and improving the

sharing of this information: FHWA’s consultant, in conjunction with AASHTO SCOP, has surveyed the

States and prepared an HPMS Catalog, New Technology and Techniques, publication no. FHWA-PL-98-045,

containing 73 new technology applications and techniques from 30 States. The catalog is also available on

the Internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim.

C Improve HPMS training for States and other data collection agencies: In response to this action item, FHWA

has included development of a new training program in its research program as a pooled-fund study. Based

upon HPMS Steering Committee input and recommendations, FHWA plans to develop an interactive

computer-based training program reflecting the revised HPMS as proposed in this report; contract work is to

get underway in fiscal year 1999.

Section 2

Decision Process and Review Criteria

At the national HPMS workshop in June 1997 and at the HPMS Steering Committee meeting which followed

the workshop, there was a consensus that there needed to be a detailed review of each of the data items currently

included in HPMS. A five-step decision process for the data item review was established with input from the

workshop participants and the HPMS Steering Committee; FHWA and the HPMS Steering Committee

subsequently established a set of seven detailed evaluation criteria to be applied to each data item. The following

decision process and review criteria were adopted by FHWA and the Steering Committee for the HPMS

reassessment:

Step 1 - Screen each data item against the seven evaluation criteria: Review each item, stratified by

functional system, against each of the evaluation criteria; determine which items should continue to be candidates

for a revised HPMS data base. The evaluation criteria used were:

C Legislative Requirement: Is the item specifically required to meet a legislative requirement; for instance, is

the item used in an apportionment formula?

C Policy Decisions: Is the item used in the various policy decision activities in the Federal Government? The

criteria included use in the Analytical Process (AP) and the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS)

which are used for the biennial Condition and Performance Report to Congress as well as internal strategic

planning and budget planning activities. Also included in this category are the Federal Highway Cost
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 11

Allocation Study and the National Truck Size and Weight Study which are used as input to executive and

congressional decisions. Other policy uses include performance reporting indicators deriving from the GPRA,

including pavement roughness (IRI), congestion as represented by volume/service flow, and modeled delay

as represented by daily hours of delay per 1000 vehicle miles of travel (VMT). 

C Historic Trends: Is the data item necessary to track historic trends in highway condition and performance?

C State and Local Use: Is the item used by State and local governments? Is it an integral part of State or local

highway data bases?

C Consistency: Can the data item be collected with consistency? Is it a measured item or a subjective item?

C Simulate/Estimate: Is it possible to simulate or estimate the information rather than have each State collect

information on the item?

C Part of National Data Base: How many tables in the publication Highway Statistics contain the data item?

Is the table a national summary? Is it a State-by-State summary? Based on available surveys of the use of

the various Highway Statistics tables, what is the frequency of use and relative importance of the table?

Step 2 - Evaluate section level versus aggregate reporting: Evaluate each remaining data item against the

current level of reporting for each of the functional systems. Determine whether the data item should continue

to be collected and reported on a section basis or whether the item should be collected and reported on an

areawide, or aggregate, basis.

Step 3 - Evaluate statistical significance: Evaluate each data item obtained on a section basis to determine if

the data should be collected for all sections or for a sample of sections. For those sections to be sampled, evaluate

the appropriate level of statistical significance--national versus State. It was predetermined that section length

and traffic data would be needed at the urbanized area level of statistical significance to meet travel tracking

requirements.

Step 4 - Review resulting HPMS data base: Evaluate the resulting data collection and reporting process on

the basis of:

C Is the new data base consistent with the HPMS mission and objectives?

C Is the new data base an improvement over the current system?

C What is the cost of change versus the costs saved?

C What decisions on individual data items can be reconsidered when they are viewed as a group?

C What is the process and timing of change?

Step 5 - Public Input and Final Decision: The final step includes internal FHWA review and adoption and

additional outreach to SCOP, AMPO, user, other outside groups and the public.

The initial review of data items, Steps 1 through 3 of the decision process, was accomplished during a three- day

work session at FHWA Headquarters in September 1997, using the established review criteria. Each data item

was reviewed by the working group and a preliminary recommendation made as to whether the data item should

be continued in the HPMS data base or whether the item was a candidate for elimination. Items meeting some
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 12

or all of the review criteria were designated for retention. For those items recommended for retention, the level

of detail within that item was then reviewed for possible reduction, again based on the review criteria. Items

needing further study before a decision could be made were specifically identified.

FHWA’s consultant consolidated the results of this work session and the results were circulated to the

participants in the working session for confirmation. A preliminary review of the results by the FHWA

Headquarters members of the HPMS Steering Committee was also completed. In February 1998, the review

recommendations were sent to the full HPMS Steering Committee for review; FHWA Region Office staff were

also invited to comment on the preliminary recommendations. Changes were made to accommodate the

comments received, although for the most part the preliminary recommendations of the working group were

generally supported by the Steering Committee and other reviewers.

Subsequently, an evaluation of items needing further study was undertaken. In determining whether the item

should be retained, changed, or deleted, the study focused on a number of factors related to the variable under

study, including the range of values reported, the reasonableness of reported values, and identifiable reporting

patterns. The evaluation also addressed the sensitivity of the analytical models to these data element in terms of

the inclusion of the item as well as to the impact within the ranges reported. Recommendations were reviewed

by the HPMS Steering Committee; the final recommendations contained in this report reflect the outcome of the

additional data item evaluation.

The final step leading to this report occurred with the adoption of the recommended data item changes by the

HPMS Steering Committee. Conclusions related to Step 4 of the decision process are discussed in Section 2 of

this report. The final step in the decision process, Step 5, is being undertaken with the publication of this report

and the subsequent review and comment opportunity.

Data Item Review

This section addresses the results of the data item review process described above. The use of each item is briefly

discussed and related to the review criteria; the reason for decision to retain, change or delete is then presented.

Each item is discussed separately to provide the reader with an understanding of the use of each item and the

reason why FHWA requires the data item to be reported. More detailed information on data items for which

change is proposed is included in Appendix B.

Retain: Item 1 - State Control Field

This is a basic administrative and identification data item used by the State. FHWA does not use this data.

Change: Item 2 - Metric (or English) Reporting Units 

This item is used to indicate the reporting units of the data. A minor change in coding of this data item is

needed to meet HPMS software programming requirements.

Change: Item 3 - Year

This item identifies the calendar year for which the data apply. It was changed to a 4-digit year code.

Retain: Item 4 - State Code

This item contains the State’s FIPS code.

Change: Item 5 -- Type of Section Identification 

This item is used to indicate whether the data reported are for a single section or for a group of sections.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 13

A minor change in coding of this data item is needed to meet HPMS software programming requirements.

Retain: Items 6-13 are basic administrative and identification data items for universe and sample sections.

These include attributes such as Linear Referencing System (LRS), urban/rural classification, functional

system, and non-attainment area information. Some items are State reported, while others are software

generated and result in no reporting burden; the current identification scheme is functioning satisfactorily.

Retain: Item 14 - National Highway System (NHS)

This item is used to track changes to the approved NHS, including intermodal connectors. This is done to

satisfy requirements of the legislation approving the NHS.

Change: Item 15 - Planned Unbuilt Facility

Along with item 14, this item is also used to track changes to the approved NHS, including intermodal

connectors. This is done to satisfy requirements of the legislation approving the NHS. However, this item is

being reduced in detail to apply to the NHS only; previously, it applied to the NHS and all other principal

arterials.

Retain: Items 16-19 are basic system and route identification parameters that are used to support GIS/LRS

applications and satisfy customer needs to relate HPMS data to signed routes. The current identification

scheme is functioning satisfactorily.

Change: Item 20 - Governmental Ownership

This item is used to identify facility ownership. It is used in cost allocation studies, to track historic data, and

in the national highway data base. Many of the categories have seen little use; therefore, FHWA will reduce

the data stratifications from 17 to 8. 

Change: Item 21 - Special Systems

This item is used to track changes to various Interstate and other system categories. The HPMS is also used

to track changes to special Interstate Systems for fund apportionment purposes. As a result of the passage of

TEA-21, however, there is no continuing legislative reason for tracking the several Interstate designations and

FHWA will delete the unneeded codes for a reduction in the number of stratifications from 14 to 2. FHWA

will retain the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) designation because it is used by the Department

of Defense (DOD) for identifying strategic deployment routes. The remainder of the categories are not needed

in HPMS as a result of TEA-21.

Retain: Item 22 - Type of Facility

This item is used to determine whether a roadway or structure is a one- or two-way operation. It is used in

investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating

capacity; estimating roadway deficiency and improvement needs), the cost allocation pavement model, and the

national highway data base.

Change: Item 23 - Designated Truck Route

This item is used as an administrative identifier to determine whether a section is on or off a truck route

designated under Federal regulatory authority for truck size and weight studies. FHWA will reduce this item

to require a yes/no answer only. The remaining detail is not needed for FHWA decision purposes.

Change: Item 24 - Toll

This item is used as an administrative identifier to determine whether a section is on or off a toll road. Toll data

are also used for historic trends, policy analysis, and legislation development purposes. This item was used for

apportioning Interstate Maintenance funds to the States; however, with the passage of TEA-21, all Interstate
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 14

mileage and travel are used in the Interstate Maintenance fund apportionment formula and there is no continuing

legislative reason for retaining the same level of detail on toll roads. As a result, future toll road data needs can

be met using a reduced data record indicating simply whether or not the section in question is or is not a toll road

for a reduction in the number of stratifications from 4 to 2. The remainder of the categories are not needed in

HPMS as a result of TEA-21.

Retain: Item 25 - Section Length

This item provides basic inventory information on the amount of public roads. It is extensively used for

apportionment, administrative, legislative, analytical, and national highway data base purposes. Ground length

public road mileage is used to adjust sampled HPMS data to a universe representation where necessary. This item

is intended to be consistent with the certified public road mileage reported to the FHWA.

Retain: Items 26-27 are sample section identifiers needed for administrative purposes in the HPMS data base.

Retain: Item 28 - Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

This item provides basic existing traffic inventory information for selected universe and sample roadway sections.

It is extensively used for apportionment, administrative, legislative, analytical, and national highway data base

purposes.

Delete: Item 29 - AADT Derivation

An informational data item, this item was originally intended to extend the truth-in-data concept to traffic data;

however, it has been largely ignored, subject to misinterpretation, and has proven to be of questionable value to

FHWA. In the future, as with other significant HPMS data items, FHWA proposes to handle quality control of

AADT reporting through a separate review process.

Change: Item 30 - Number of Through Lanes

This item provides basic inventory information on the amount of public road supply. It is extensively used for

apportionment, administrative, legislative, analytical, and national highway data base purposes. With the

adoption of HPMS lane-mile data as an apportionment factor under TEA-21, and after reviewing recent

lane-mile data derived from the expanded sample, FHWA has decided to extend the requirement for

universal reporting of number of through lanes to other functional systems as a means to improve the

accuracy of the lane-miles estimate. Therefore, in addition to reporting number of lanes for all Principal

Arterials and the NHS, States are asked to also report number of through lanes for all rural minor arterial,

rural major collector, urban minor arterial, and urban collector functional systems.

Delete: Item 31 - Urban Location

This item identifies the general character of the land surrounding each urban section of roadway. Outside of the

cost allocation study, this item sees no other use in the national data base or the modeling process. It was judged

to be too subjective and difficult to consistently code; FHWA will delete this item. 

Change: Item 32 - Access Control

This item is a measure of the degree of access control on selected universe and sample roadway sections. It is

used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(calculating capacity, estimating type of design), truck size and weight studies, and the national highway data

base. Consistent with these uses, FHWA will change this item to require it on sample sections only.

Change: Item 33 - Median Type

This item is a characterization of the type of median on selected universe and sample roadway sections. It is used

in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 15

capacity, estimating type of design) and for national highway data base purposes. Consistent with these uses,

FHWA will change this item to require it on sample sections only.

Change: Item 34 - Median Width

This item is a measure of existing median width on selected universe and sample roadway sections. It is used in

investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating

capacity, estimating type of design) and for national highway data base purposes. Consistent with these uses,

FHWA will change this item to require it on sample sections only.

Change: Item 35 - Measured Pavement Roughness (IRI)

This item is a measure of pavement surface roughness on selected universe and sample roadway sections. It is

used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(estimating pavement deterioration, section deficiencies, and needed improvements), cost allocation studies,

pavement condition trends and other analysis purposes, and NHS performance indicators. In order to foster more

standardized pavement roughness measurement among States, FHWA will largely adopt the AASHTO

Provisional Standards for measuring IRI for HPMS reporting purposes. Because of difficulties in obtaining

meaningful IRI data on city streets, the reporting of other than IRI data on urban other principal arterials

is permitted. Although IRI data are still preferred on all urban other principal arterials, PSR data may be

reported when it is impractical to obtain IRI data on city streets. States are encouraged to use State or local

pavement management system data when they are available, are current, and when they meet other HPMS

reporting requirements.

Retain: Item 36 - Pavement Condition (PSR)

This item is a measure of pavement condition on selected universe and sample roadway sections. It is used in

investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating

pavement deterioration, section deficiencies, and needed improvements), in the cost allocation pavement model,

and for national highway data base purposes. It is used in place of missing IRI data for modeling purposes where

available. FHWA proposes to retain PSR until it is totally supplanted by IRI or until a better measure of

condition can be adopted

Delete: Item 37 - Reserved

This is an unused data field that will be dropped for streamlining purposes.

Delete: Item 38 - Record Type

This is a software coded data item that is no longer used in the new PC-based data system. 

Retain: Item 39 is an administrative data item.

Delete: Item 40 - Sample Subdivision

Sample sections are to be subdivided only when significant changes in a sample have occurred; over time,

however, sample subdivisions have come to account for a growing number of HPMS samples. In order to reduce

the proliferation of samples that result from the subdivision process in the future, FHWA is narrowing the list

of reasons for requiring subdivisions. And, when a sample is subdivided, data providers will be asked to select

only one of the section splits for reporting as a sample. While this may result in the shortening of sample sections

over time, sensitivity analyses done on this proposal for the HPMS Steering Committee indicated that this would

not adversely affect the HPMS data set. Appropriate guidance will be included in the HPMS Field Manual.

Retain: Items 41 and 42 are software calculated administrative data items.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 16

Change: Item 43 - Surface/Pavement Type

This item details the type of pavement surface. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the

Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating pavement deterioration and loading history), for

the cost allocation pavement model and for the national highway data base. Many of the categories have seen

little use; therefore, FHWA will reduce this item by collapsing the data stratifications from 15 to 6.

Delete: Item 44 - Pavement Section

This item provides general information about the pavement section. With the change in Item 45 - SN or D

to require the reporting of either section specific values or State typical values for all sample sections, Item

44 is no longer required. The determination of whether Item 45 is SN or D can be determined from the

pavement type coded in Item 43 - Surface/Pavement Type.

Change: Item 45 - SN or D

This item provides specific information about the pavement section in terms of SN or D. It is used in

investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating

pavement deterioration and loading history) and in the cost allocation pavement model. This item cannot be

defaulted without significant impact on pavement deterioration rates. This item will be changed to require the

reporting of State specific typical values, by functional system and pavement type, where the actual values are

not known.

Delete: Item 46 - Type of Base

This item describes the type of base used. It is not used in either the national data base or the modeling

process. While used in the highway cost allocation pavement models, the data for many records are believed

unreliable and other data sources are used. No other business purpose has been identified.

Delete: Item 47 - Type of Subgrade

This item describes the type of material used for the subgrade. It is not used in either the national data base

or the modeling process. While used in the highway cost allocation pavement models, the data for many

records are believed unreliable and other data sources are used. There are no plans to incorporate this item into

the pavement models. No other business purpose has been identified.

Delete: Item 48 - Overlay or Pavement Structure Thickness

This item is used to identify pavement structure thickness for new or reconstructed pavements and pavement

overlay thickness for resurfaced pavements. After completion of the Final Report, FHWA determined that

this data item is not used in the cost allocation pavement model and can be deleted.

Retain: Item 49 - Year of Surface Improvement

This item is used to identify the year in which the roadway surface was last improved. It is used in the cost

allocation pavement model to deteriorate pavement condition.

Delete: Item 50 - Type of Improvement

This item reports improvements completed during the year. It is not used in either the national data base or

the modeling process. Pavement improvement history is not tracked; no other business purpose has been

identified for this item.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 17

Retain: Item 51 - Lane Width

This item is a measure of existing lane width on sample roadway sections. It is used in investment requirements

modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity, estimating,

needed improvements, computing a safety index), for cost allocation pavement models, and other policy

analysis and national highway data base purposes.

Change: Item 52 - Shoulder Type

This item provides information on the type of existing shoulder on sample roadway sections. It is used in

investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating

needed improvements). FHWA will reduce this item by collapsing the data stratifications from 8 to 6. HPMS

distinguishes between reporting of shoulders and parking lanes for purposes of estimating capacity; clearer

instructions will be included in the HPMS Field Manual. This item has been changed to add back the

category “combination” shoulders and the descriptions have undergone minor change. Shoulders behind

mountable curbs should be coded as shoulders as if the curbs did not exist. Shoulders in front of barrier

curbs should be coded as shoulders while areas behind barrier curbs should not be coded as shoulders -

code 6 should be used. Curb types are described in the 1994 AASHTO Design Guide, pp. 344-349. See

Appendix B-6.

Retain: Item 53 - Shoulder Width

This item is a measure of existing shoulder width on sample roadway sections. It is used in investment

requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity,

estimating needed improvements).

Retain: Item 54 - Peak Parking

This item provides specific information about the presence of peak parking on urban sample roadway sections.

It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(calculating capacity on sections with signals). Parking cannot be defaulted based upon other HPMS data

items and it has significant impact on calculated delay. Retention of one side versus two side parking

designation facilitates estimating needed capacity improvements in the investment models.

Delete: Item 55 - Right-of-Way Width

This item reports the prevailing right-of-way width for the section. It is not used in either the national data base

or the modeling process. No other business purpose has been identified.

Retain: Item 56 - Widening Feasibility

This item provides a subjective measure of whether it is feasible to widen an existing sample section. It is

used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(estimating needed capacity improvements). This item will be retained with improved definitions and examples.

Retain: Item 57 - Horizontal Alignment Adequacy

This item provides information about the adequacy of horizontal alignment; it is calculated from curve data,

Item 58. If curve data are not entered, the information is entered separately; separately entered data are based

on subjective criteria. This data item is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and

Performance Report to Congress (estimating horizontal alignment deficiencies) and in the truck size and weight

analyses. This data item cannot be used to eliminate Item 58 (specific curve information is needed for

investment requirement and impact modeling) and is needed when curve data are not entered.

Change: Item 58 - Curves by Class

This item provides specific information regarding the number and length of horizontal curves by degree of
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 18

curvature for sample sections. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and

Performance Report to Congress (calculating horizontal alignment adequacy, estimating running speed and

operating costs). This data item will be reduced from 26 existing detail lines (number of curves and total curve

length for 13 curve classes) to 6 (total curve length in 6 curve classes). 

Retain: Item 59 - Type of Terrain

This item provides subjective information on the type of terrain through which the section passes. It is used

in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating

capacity, estimating needed capacity improvements) and in the truck size and weight analysis process. Grade

information should be used in calculating capacity in lieu of terrain; however, the type of terrain is still

necessary for estimating tolerable conditions and construction costs in the investment requirements models.

Retain: Item 60 - Vertical Alignment Adequacy

This item provides information about the adequacy of vertical alignment; it is calculated from grade data,

Item 61. If grade data are not entered, the information is entered separately; separately entered data are based

on subjective criteria. This data item is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and

Performance Report to Congress (estimating vertical alignment deficiencies). This data item cannot be used

to eliminate Item 61 (specific grade information is needed for investment requirement and impact modeling)

and is needed when grade data are not entered.

Change: Item 61 - Grades by Class

This item provides specific information regarding the number and length of vertical grades by percent gradient

for sample sections. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance

Report to Congress (calculating vertical alignment adequacy, estimating running speed and operating costs)

and in the truck size and weight analysis process. This data item will be reduced from 12 existing detail lines

(number of grades and total length of grades for 6 classes) to 6 (total length of grade for 6 classes). 

Retain: Item 62 - Percent Length with 1500-foot Sight Distance

This item provides specific information on the percent of the sample section meeting the sight distance

requirement for passing. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and

Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity, estimating running speed) and for truck size and weight

analysis purposes. FHWA proposes to change the HPMS Field Manual instructions to use “percent length

marked for passing” for this value.

Retain: Item 63 - Speed Limit

This item provides specific information on the posted speed limit on sample sections. It is used in investment

requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating running

speed) and for other analysis purposes, including delay estimation.

Change: Item 64 - Weighted Design Speed

This item is a calculated value that provides a design speed weighted by the length of individual horizontal

curves and tangents in a sample section. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the

Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity, estimating needed capacity

improvements). The Item will be retained as a calculated value using curve data or, where curve data are

not provided, a default value based upon functional system and facility type. The Item will not require any

coding by the State; States will not be able to override the calculated value. When curve data is provided,

edit checks will flag whether the coded speed limit exceeds the weighted design speed by 15 mph or more;

curve data should be checked for accuracy if the edit check indicates a problem.
Facility Type

Functional Class

1 2 6 7 11 12 14 16 17

Multilane Divided 70 70 70 65 70 70 70 60 55

Multilane Undivided 70 70 70 60 70 70 70 55 45

2/3-Lane 70 70 65 60 70 65 65 55 45

Facility Type

Functional Class

1 2 6 7 11 12 14 16 17

Multilane Divided 70 70 70 65 70 70 70 60 55

Multilane Undivided 70 70 70 60 70 70 70 55 45

2/3-Lane 70 70 65 60 70 65 65 55 45

HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 19

Retain: Item 65 - Percent Trucks

This item provides information on truck use on a sample section. It is used in investment requirements

modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity, estimating

pavement deterioration, design volumes, and operating speeds), in the cost allocation pavement model, and in

the truck size and weight analysis process. This item will be further evaluated to determine if HPMS can

require reporting of average percent trucks only with peak percent trucks estimated from the reported average.

Retain: Item 66 - K-factor

This item provides the design hour volume as a percent of AADT for a sample section. It is used in investment

requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity,

estimating needed capacity improvements), in the cost allocation pavement model and for other analysis

purposes. Using default K-Factors would significantly alter the results of the capacity needs analysis and the

selection of needed capacity improvements.

Retain: Item 67 - Directional Factor

This item provides the percent of design hour volume flowing in the peak direction on a sample section. It is

used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(calculating capacity, estimating needed capacity improvements), in congestion and other analyses, and in the

cost allocation pavement model. Using default D-Factors would significantly alter the results of the capacity

needs analysis and the selection of needed capacity improvements.

Retain: Item 68 - Peak Capacity

This item provides existing peak hour capacity for a sample section. It is computed by the HPMS software

using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1994 procedures. It is used in investment requirements modeling

to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity), in the cost allocation

pavement model, and in congestion and other analyses.

Retain: Item 69 - Volume/Service Flow Ratio

This item is a computed value reflecting peak hour congestion for a sample section. It is used in investment

requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating needed

capacity improvements), in the national highway data base, and for congestion and other data analyses.

Retain: Item 70 - Turning Lanes

This item provides information on the presence of turning lanes at a typical intersection on a sample section. It

is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(calculating capacity) and in congestion analyses.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 20

Retain: Item 71 - Prevailing Type of Signalization

This item describes the predominant type of signal system on the sample section. Recently completed research

recommends its use in the investment requirements modeling process to calculate capacity and estimate delay.

Retain: Item 72 - Percent Green /Time

This item provides information on the typical percent green time in effect at intersections on a sample section.

It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress

(calculating capacity) and in congestion analyses. Percent green time results in significant variation in individual

section capacity and delay calculation and cannot be defaulted or eliminated. 

Retain: Item 73 - Future AADT

This item provides forecast AADT information for a sample section. It is used in investment requirements

modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimating deficiencies and future

improvement needs), in the cost allocation pavement model and in other analytical studies. This item is used to

determine pavement and capacity needs on a sample section basis due to projected traffic growth impacts.

Retain: Item 74 - Future AADT Year

This item provides the year for which the AADT has been forecast. It is used to normalize the forecast AADT

to a consistent 20-year horizon.

Retain: Item 75 - Climate Zone

This item is a calculated value locating the sample section in one of 9 climate zones. It is used in the cost

allocation pavement model.

Delete: Item 76 - Drainage Adequacy

This item is a subjective assessment of the adequacy of pavement drainage for the sample section. It is used in

investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (evaluation of

pavement condition) and in the cost allocation pavement model. The reported data are strongly related to

pavement type; FHWA will develop a default based upon pavement type from existing HPMS data.

Delete: Item 77 - Type of Development

This item is a subjective assessment of the predominant type of development in which the sample section is

located. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to

Congress (calculating capacity, estimating operating speed and needed capacity improvements). The data item

is subjective with no clear definition or apparent reporting patterns; it impacts only a very few rural sections, and

the reality of its impacts are speculative. FHWA will estimate this variable within the investment model from

other reported data.

Delete: Item 78 - Number of Grade Separated Interchanges

This item provides a count of the number of interchanges on the sample section. It is not used in either the

national data base or the modeling process. No other business purpose has been identified.

Retain: Item 79 - Number of At-Grade Intersections

This item provides a count of the number of traffic controls on the sample section. It is used in investment

requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity).

Delete: Item 80 - Number of At-Grade Railroad Crossings

This item is a count of the number of grade crossings on a sample section. It is not used in either the national data

base or the modeling process. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has a complete inventory of these
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 21

data.

Change: Item 81 - HOV Operations

This item provides information on 26 categories of HOV operational activity. They have not been used in the

national data base or in the models in the past. FHWA will change this data item to a universe inventory item

and reduce the level of detail by eliminating all but one of the 26 categories and collapsing the 8 detail lines into

4. The reduced data will be incorporated into the national data base.

Change: Item 82 - Surveillance Systems

This item provides information on 7 categories of highway surveillance systems. FHWA will change this data

item to a universe data item to provide information on deployment of ITS technologies. The number of detail

lines is being increased to 9. The data will be used by FHWA and others to track deployment of ITS

technologies. This item has been changed to reflect a minor change in coding detail. New subitem 82G,

“free cellular phone” is intended to apply to limited area cell phone systems related to specific Intelligent

Transportation System (ITS) deployment sites. Do not include statewide DUI numbers or similar statewide

or regionwide cell phone services in this item. 

Add: Item __ - Number of Peak Lanes

FHWA will add a new sample data item to be used to provide better information on the number of lanes used in

the peak hour direction of flow. In many cases this number exceeds the off peak directional lanes derived from

item 30 and leads to incorrect capacity calculations. It will be used in investment requirements modeling to

support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (calculating capacity) and in congestion analyses,

including the estimates of delay used as a performance indicator. Software coding of peak lanes will only

apply in the transition year(s) as existing HPMS sections are automatically coded based upon the

value in item 30. This item will have to be coded if a new section is added. For rural 2- or 3-lane

facilities, number of peak lanes must be coded as the number of through lanes in both directions

in the peak period.

In summary, FHWA will make significant changes to the basic data items included in the HPMS. These changes

were arrived at through a consultative process using criteria established by the HPMS Steering Committee and

FHWA. The changes will result in the elimination of 15 data items and 90 detail lines, and the addition of one

new sample data item. Three data items will be moved from universe reporting to sample reporting consistent

with FHWA use of these data. Changes in these data items are expected to reduce the reporting burden on the

States and result in a more streamlined data base that will be of more utility to a wide variety of users. At the

same time, FHWA believes its business needs and those of its cutomers will continue to be adequately served.

Areawide Data Review

There are seven areawide data summaries submitted by the States and one provided by the Territories. These

summaries are used to supplement the HPMS data by providing information not otherwise reported on either a

universe or sample section basis. Each of the summaries has a specific purpose and each was evaluated

considering the review criteria. The review process for the areawide summaries generally followed the data item

review process described previously. Each data summary report is briefly discussed and related to the review

criteria; the reason for a decision to retain, change or delete is presented. 

Retain: Areawide Summary 1 - System Length and Daily Vehicle Travel 

This summary report provides statewide subtotals of length and travel for urbanized, urban, and rural portions

of the State. The length summary for all systems is software generated from the HPMS data base. Travel for
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 22

the principal arterials is software generated from the universe HPMS data, while travel for the minor arterials,

rural major collectors and urban collectors is generated from the HPMS sample data. Aggregate travel data for

the local and rural minor collector functional systems are input by the State from inventory records. This

summary is the only source for travel data for the local and rural minor collector functional systems and is used

for apportionment, administrative, legislative, analytical, and national highway data base purposes.

Change: Areawide Summary 2 - System Length and Daily Vehicle Travel by Individual Urbanized Area

This summary report provides subtotals of length and travel for individual urbanized areas, including vehicle

occupancy. The length summary for all systems is software generated from the HPMS data base. Travel for the

principal arterials is software generated from the universe HPMS data, while travel for the minor arterials and

collectors is generated from the HPMS sample data if urbanized areas have not been grouped for sampling

purposes. The State can override the sample calculated data with data from other sources or travel records.

Aggregate travel data for the local functional system are input by the State from inventory or other records. The

summary is the only source for travel data for the local functional system; if the State has grouped urbanized areas

in the HPMS data, the summary is the only source of travel for the lower systems. The summary data are used

for administrative, legislative, analytical, and national highway data base purposes. FHWA will retain all data

with the exception of the data on vehicle occupancy; the quality of the data is suspect and the data are not used

in either the national data base or the modeling process or for any other known decision purposes. The usefulness

of aggregate occupancy values by functional system for an urbanized area is questionable. While more useful

occupancy data may be needed by the transportation community, it ultimately should be obtained outside of the

HPMS using a system more suitable for the collection of occupancy information.

Change: Areawide Summary 3 - System Length and Daily Vehicle Travel - Donut Area Data

This summary report provides travel data for the donut areas of individual urbanized nonattainment areas. Data

for higher level systems are software generated from the HPMS data base. They are compiled from HPMS link

level statistics for all principal arterials and from samples for minor arterials, rural major collectors, and urban

collectors in the donut area. Aggregate data for the local and rural minor collector functional system travel are

input by the State from its own or local government records; they are developed using State or locally determined

procedures. The data provided to FHWA are used in apportionment-related estimation models. FHWA will

change Summary 3 to retain the aggregate data for the local and rural minor collector system travel; the remainder

can be generated from the HPMS data set.

Change: Areawide Summary 4 - Minor Collector and Local Functional System Length

This summary report provides information on public road length by surface type and volume group. These data

are primarily used for national data base and historical purposes. FHWA will change this summary to simplify

data reporting by collapsing the pavement types to paved and unpaved and by eliminating the volume groups.

The deleted data are of limited use in the national highway data base and their loss is viewed as inconsequential.

Delete: Areawide Summary 5 - Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Crashes

This summary report provides fatal and injury vehicle crash data by functional system. The data are primarily

used to support development of the Section 207 Safety Report to Congress; limited fatality and injury data are

also included in the national highway data base. Aggregate fatality and injury data are input by the States from

their own or local government records; they are developed using State or locally determined procedures. The crash

data that are reported are not extensively used. The Section 207 Safety Report is required by legislation for

FHWA and the Department. Although the fatality information reported in this summary is redundant to

NHTSA’s FARS data, a census of injury data is not compiled by anyone else. Even though all States collect fatal

and injury data, it is difficult and expensive to report crash data by functional system; FHWA will develop

alternative methods to compile injury data as this HPMS summary is phased out.

The safety community and FHWA have expressed the need for improved location specific crash data to permit
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 23

them to conduct research into crash causation and countermeasure development; however, the data provided by

this summary does not meet those needs. The functional system level data provided by this summary report is

not being used; its deletion has been recommended and supported by the HPMS Steering Committee. While more

useful crash data are needed by the transportation community, the specific data needed and the appropriate

sources of these data have not as yet been defined. See Section 3, Measuring Safety Parameters, for further

discussion of safety data needs.

Retain: Areawide Summary 6 - Travel Activity by Vehicle Type (Basic)

This summary report provides travel by various vehicle types by functional system. The standard for reporting

calls for the use of 13 vehicle types. These travel data stratifications are used for legislative, analytical, and

national highway data base purposes including cost allocation study activities and the truck size and weight study.

Alternatives to the current vehicle classification scheme are being evaluated in conjunction with efforts to update

the Traffic Monitoring Guide. An alternative that would provide for collapsing the 13 into fewer vehicle types

is currently under consideration.

The existing 13 categories in the summary report will be retained until such a time as an appropriate alternative

is fully developed and explored with the States and other partners, stakeholders, and customers, including EPA.

FHWA expects to eliminate the need for this summary on a State-by-State basis as soon as FHWA is able to

develop the summary directly from raw data provided by the States. A few States will be able to make this

change easily; most will need to make improvements to raw data reporting before this change can be effected.

Change: Areawide Summary 7 - Travel Activity by Vehicle Type (Supplemental)

This summary report provides additional information on travel activity data collection techniques. These data

are used for legislative, analytical, and national highway data base purposes including cost allocation study

activities and the truck size and weight study. Although FHWA is making a minor redesign of this summary

report for clarification and streamlining purposes for the short term, FHWA expects to eliminate the need for

this summary on a State-by-State basis as soon as FHWA is able to develop the summary directly from raw data

provided by the States. A few States will be able to make this change easily; most will need to make

improvements to raw data reporting before this change can be effected. 

Retain: Areawide Summary 8 - U.S. Territory Information

This summary report provides a variety of information for the U.S. Territories. The information is reported from

territorial inventory records and is the only source of these data. These data are used for analytical and national

highway data base purposes; they have minimal reporting burden and have current use and historical value. 

Using HPMS Data for Apportionment and Other Purposes

HPMS data are used by FHWA and others for a wide variety of purposes. The HPMS is an integrated data base

that relies on the States and others to annually furnish complete, high quality data including areawide data,

universe data, standard sample data, and "donut" area sample data. The following definitions are offered to set

a perspective for the discussion in this section. 

Areawide data consist of statewide summaries. The summaries include information for travel, system length,

crashes and vehicle classification by functional system and area type, plus land area and population by area type.

The area types include rural, small urban, individual urbanized and the donut area of air quality nonattainment

areas.

The term universe data refers to a limited set of data items reported for the entire public road system. The public

road system includes those roads owned by States, local governments and Federal agencies.

Sample data (standard or donut area) consist of data items added to the universe data that are reported for a small

portion, or sample, of the total highway length. The sampled sections form sample panels of highway sections

that are monitored from year to year. They are used to represent the full functional system upon which they are

located. The sample, if selected following the sampling guidelines, is fully representative of the functional system
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 24

it is intended to represent. As a result, the more detailed information collected for a sample section is used to

represent similar conditions on the associated functional system after expansion. Sample data include items

related to the physical characteristics, condition, performance, use, and operation of the sampled sections of

highway. These sample data provide detailed information which is used as the basis for evaluating change over

time, and provides the basic input to the HPMS simulation models--AP and HERS.

Donut area samples are unique in that their sole purpose is to enhance the precision of travel estimates outside

of the adjusted urbanized area boundary but within the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

nonattainment areas designated by the EPA. Consequently, donut sample data item additions are limited to

sample identification, AADT, and an expansion factor.

HPMS sources of select data factors are shown in the following table. These data factors are shown because they

represent those data factors used for apportionment purposes under TEA-21 legislation and they are at the same

time of great interest for other purposes. Note that any given HPMS derived data factor shown in the left column

of the table can be a composite of universe, sample, and areawide data. In order to develop any one of these data

factors, FHWA uses the universe and areawide portions as reported to the HPMS by the States. However, data

factors derived from samples need to be adjusted from the expanded sample value to fully reflect the known

universe total.

FHWA will adopt a uniform procedure to adjust expanded sample data using length as the known universe total.

The simple proportional equation is shown in the following figure. The net effect of this procedure is to move

the adjustment process totally within the HPMS reporting process. To accomplish this, the mileage reported to

the HPMS on a universe basis will become the control to which other variables are adjusted. This is a break from

past practice when States sometimes provided areawide control totals developed outside of the HPMS to adjust

various HPMS sample values. Under the new procedure, for example, expanded sample travel, as represented

by VMT, will be adjusted using reported universe length; under the old procedure, it may have been adjusted to

an areawide travel value provided by the States from sources outside of the HPMS.

Among others, the move to a uniform adjustment process internal to the HPMS has been necessitated by

legislated demands to provide apportionment data factors using HPMS data. Using externally provided control

totals is not considered appropriate under these conditions. In making this change, FHWA also considered the

need for greater consistency between the data reported to the HPMS by the States and that used for FHWA

modeling, the national data base, and apportionment purposes. In the past, a less consistent sample adjustment

process has been used; different adjustments may have been made to data used for modeling purposes than were

made to data used for national data base purposes. As the HPMS data sees greater use in an on-line environment,

the move to a uniform sample adjustment procedure is seen as needed to assure consistency between the various

uses of the HPMS data. A change to a uniform adjustment procedure also supports truth-in-data objectives.

With the adoption of HPMS lane-mile data as an apportionment factor under TEA-21, and after reviewing

recent lane-mile data derived from the expanded sample, FHWA has decided to extend the requirement for

universal reporting of number of through lanes to other functional systems as a means to improve the

accuracy of the lane-miles estimate. Therefore, in addition to reporting number of lanes for all Principal

Arterials and the NHS, States are asked to also report number of through lanes for all rural minor arterial,

rural major collector, urban minor arterial, and urban collector functional systems. This change is

reflected in the following table.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 25

Summary of HPMS Data Sources

HPMS Data

Sources

Rural Functional Systems

Interstate Arterials Collector Collector Local

Other Principal Minor Arterial Major Minor

Interstate Lane Miles Universe

Interstate VMT Universe

Non-Interstate PAS Lane Miles Universe

Non-Interstate PAS VMT Universe

FA Highway Lane Miles 1/ Universe Universe

FA Highway VMT 1/ Universe Universe

Universe 2/ Universe 2/

Sample 3/ Sample 3/

NHS Lane Miles Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe

Miles Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe

Lane Miles Universe Universe Universe 4/ Universe 4/

VMT Universe Universe Areawide 5/ Areawide 5/

Universe 2/ Universe 2/

Sample 3/ Sample 3/

Total Public Road Miles Certified Mileage ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HPMS Data

Sources

Urban Functional Systems

Interstate & Expressways Principal Arterial Collector Local

Other Freeways Other Minor

Arterial

Interstate Lane Miles Universe

Interstate VMT Universe

Non-Interstate PAS Lane Miles Universe Universe

Non-Interstate PAS VMT Universe Universe

FA Highway Lane Miles 1/ Universe Universe Universe

FA Highway VMT 1/ Universe Universe Universe

Universe 2/ Universe 2/

Sample 3/ Sample 3/

NHS Lane Miles Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe

Miles Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe Universe

Lane Miles Universe Universe Universe Universe 4/

VMT Universe Universe Universe Areawide 5/

Universe 2/ Universe 2/

Sample 3/ Sample 3/

Total Public Road Miles Certified Mileage ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1/ Universe data will be used to estimate lane-miles & VMT for the few miles of NHS that are on the minor collector & local functional systems.

2/ Universe data will be used; where not available, expanded sample data will be used.

3/ Expanded sample data will be used. Expanded sample data will be adjusted to universe length control totals.

4/ Universe miles times 2 (lanes) will be used. States are not required to report number of through lanes on these systems.

5/ Areawide data will be used because States are not required to report section level AADT on these systems.

Definitions: Universe: Data required by HPMS to be reported for all roadway links in the system.

Sample: Data required by HPMS to be reported for a randomly selected sample of roadway links in the system.

Areawide: Data required by HPMS to be reported in aggregated form by functional system.

PAS: Principal arterial system made up of Interstate, Other Freeways & Expressways, and Other Principal Arterial systems.

VMT: Vehicle miles of travel.

FA: Federal-aid.

NHS: National Highway System.

When necessary, lane miles and VMT will be adjusted for the functional systems where sample data are used if the universe and expanded sample length

do not equal. The total expanded sample segment lengths will be compared to the universe length. A percent difference will be calculated. This percent

difference will be used to adjust the total lane miles and VMT obtained from the sample data.

% Difference = Universe Mileage - Sample Mileage

 Universe Mileage
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 26

This change clearly will have impacts upon the State and other data providers. It will require greater attention

than in the past to HPMS sample selection and maintenance practices at the State level in order to achieve an

expanded sample needing minimal adjustment by FHWA.

Grouping Data

Approximately eighteen HPMS universe data items for the three lower functional systems (urban local and rural

minor collector and local) are reported on either a link level or grouped to some extent by political subdivision

level by the States; currently, nearly 40 States group these records to some extent. These data are estimated to

comprise about two-thirds of the 3.4 million section records in the HPMS on an annual basis. The primary use

of these data is to report length of facility by jurisdiction and several other related parameters such as

STRAHNET length, toll road length, nonattainment and donut area length, as well as urban, rural, and individual

urbanized area length. In general, with the exception of the NHS, the information is not used otherwise at the

section level; historic data have already been compressed.

Since the data are not used at the section level by FHWA and others, and are available for the most part only in

varying degrees of aggregation at the present time, FHWA believes it would be more efficient to replace the

approximately 2.4 million annual non-NHS section records with similarly grouped records for all States with no

significant loss of analytical capability. FHWA will do this using the existing record grouping scheme contained

in the HPMS Field Manual operating within the FHWA software package. As a result, States maintaining a link

level data base for their own purposes will not be adversely impacted by the change. 

FHWA believes that the change will make the HPMS more user friendly in the future as a significantly smaller

data base is opened up to a wider audience and will result in a far more consistent HPMS data set for the lower

order systems. However, grouping HPMS data for these lower functional systems means that link data will not

be available for future GIS applications.

Despite this drawback, FHWA will structure the HPMS to:

C collapse the lower level section records into grouped records on a uniform basis 

C use the HPMS software applications to minimize impacts on States using other data storage schemes

C use the existing grouping guidelines in the HPMS Field Manual

Implementing Change

FHWA has gone through an extensive participatory process to establish a mission and objectives for a revised

HPMS, has evaluated the basic structure of the HPMS using this same process, and has completed an extensive

technical review of the 82 data items and 8 summary reports included in the HPMS. The technical review was

completed by an FHWA team using a consultant as a facilitator and the results have been documented in the

preceding text. The review was conducted in accordance with guidelines developed by participants at the national

HPMS workshop in June 1997 and the HPMS Steering Committee. Results of the technical review have been

evaluated and endorsed by the HPMS Steering Committee.

As a result, of the existing HPMS data items, 46 will be retained as is, 15 will be deleted, and 21 will be changed,

typically to reduce the level of detail required. The “change” category includes the shift of 3 data items from
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 27

universe to sample, and 13 where a reduction in detail of 90 detail lines results; one new data item will be added.

For data provided in 8 areawide data summaries, 3 are recommended for retention, 1 for deletion, and 4 for

change. Retained data summaries will be further collapsed to consolidate report detail.

The decision process established in conjunction with the HPMS Steering Committee calls for further reviewing

of proposed HPMS technical changes against five criteria, evaluating the resulting data collection and reporting

process on the basis of:

C Is the new data base consistent with the HPMS mission and objectives?

C Is the new data base an improvement over the current system?

C What is the cost of change versus the costs saved?

C What decisions on individual data items can be reconsidered when they are viewed as a group?

C What is the process and timing of the changes?

The results of that evaluation follow:

Is the new data base consistent with the HPMS mission and objectives?

The Phase I Final Report recommended a mission and six objectives for the HPMS. FHWA believes the

proposed technical changes to the HPMS data base are consistent with the mission and the six HPMS

objectives. Restructuring the data base to require fewer samples, reducing the number of records by two-thirds,

eliminating 15 data items which are not currently used and reducing detail in a number of items is consistent

with the cost-effective part of the mission. Concentrating data collection efforts on fewer items should permit

providers to improve the quality and consistency of the remaining items reported to the data base. FHWA will

continue to have available the information items necessary to meet its responsibilities.

Is the new data base an improvement over the current system?

FHWA believes the fact that the objectives are all met with a smaller data base which can be collected at a

lower cost and with higher quality and consistency would make the answer to this question “yes”.

What is the cost of change versus the costs saved?

Provider cost savings are difficult to estimate since much of the data is already collected by the States for their

own purposes. As indicated in the Phase 1 Final Report, there is a large sunk cost in the current system. In

the survey of the State Departments of Transportation, each State was asked to estimate the annual incremental

cost of the HPMS. The costs reported in those surveys are estimates since many States do not track costs in

this manner; it is difficult to separate out the incremental cost of HPMS from other data collection efforts since

the data may have multiple uses. Even with these caveats, a rough estimate of cost savings was constructed.

States reported that the estimated annual cost of HPMS is about $15,000,000 per year. States further

estimated that 13 percent of the effort is for areawide data, 24 percent for universe data, and 63 percent for

sample data. Some cost savings should come from economies introduced if States address over-sampling and

reduce the number of HPMS samples to the minimum needed--from 123,000 to 80,000, a 35-percent reduction.

Using the annual cost estimate from the HPMS survey information, estimated savings could approach

$3.3 million per year if sampling can be reduced by 35 percent. Since some of the over-sampling is done

intentionally to provide additional information for State use, even reducing the number of sub-section samples,

numbering nearly 18,000, could result in a 15 percent sampling savings of $1.4 million per year.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 28

Similar estimates of savings from other recommendations include: 

C Cutting areawide data summaries by 30 percent could yield a savings of $500,000 per year,

C Cutting universe data does not involve significant savings in data collection efforts, so little or no savings

can be attributed to this action,

C Deleting the number of sample data items by about 15 percent could yield savings of about $1.4 million

per year.

Estimating the savings from cutting the number of records from 3.4 million to about 1 million by reporting

lower functional class highways as grouped records is less clear. In the first years, there may be a slight

increase in costs to the States to reformat the data with a savings to FHWA in checking for validity and

processing. However, this change should bring savings to both FHWA and the States in terms of a reduction

in data storage and processing time and costs. Larger unmeasurable savings to users of the smaller resulting

data system are envisioned as HPMS is migrated to the Internet in the future.

However, one can reasonably conclude that the potential savings could range from $3.2 to $5.1 million per year

when the technical recommendations are fully implemented.

What decisions on individual data items can be reconsidered when they are viewed as a group? 

FHWA believes that when the individual recommendations are viewed as a whole, the decisions appear rational

and will result in a streamlined data base which meets the mission and objectives of the HPMS. None require

reconsideration. 

What is the process and timing of the changes?

In general terms, FHWA proposes to have a final decision made on the form and content of a revised HPMS

by the end of calendar year 1998. Implementation workshops are targeted for the first quarter of 1999; new

requirements would be put in place for 1999 HPMS data reported in June 2000. In order to be sensitive to

problems associated with change among the States and other data providers, FHWA intends to make the

transition as easy as possible. For instance, nearly all data items being marked for change collapse data into

fewer categories than in the past and will have conversions built into the HPMS software package. Existing

data using old codes in State data bases or inventory files can be retained but should be easily transferred to

the new format when generating the HPMS report to FHWA. FHWA expects that stretching out the transition

over time will allow change to be accomplished more easily if it is phased into State-initiated change cycles.

Based upon the assessment of the data item technical review, FHWA believes that the proposed revisions meet

the decision process elements and evaluation criteria laid out by the HPMS Steering Committee. The changes

will permit FHWA to better fulfill its HPMS mission and objectives; the new data base appears to be an

improvement; cost data from the State surveys suggests that the States should be able to save resources with

these revisions; and the data item revisions viewed as a whole appear rational, beneficial, and consistent.

Section 3
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 29

Future Perspectives

When implemented, the recommendations and restructuring proposals for the HPMS presented in the preceding

discussions are expected to result in a data system which meets the HPMS mission and objectives, contains data

items having specific uses and customers, can be produced at a lower annual cost, and provides new opportunities

to improve data quality. However, the reassessment process also identified a number of issues where immediate

solutions were not evident or possible. This section of the report deals with the future of HPMS and presents

recommendations for not only resolving these outstanding issues but also for positioning HPMS for future

technological changes. The approach suggested by the HPMS Steering Committee was to put forward a “vision

for the future” for these remaining items and to suggest certain tasks over the next 5 to 10 years to meet or

approach this vision. Consistent with this suggestion, the recommendations are nominally targeted for FHWA

action and resolution within the 10-year vision of the current FHWA Strategic Plan. 

Measuring Current Pavement Condition

and Estimating Future Pavement Requirements

Discussions and comments on pavement conditions during the reassessment process recognized that HPMS uses

only one measure of pavement condition, roughness, as measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI).

Other principal measures of pavement condition such as rutting, cracking and faulting are not reported in HPMS

although some States have complete inventories of these conditions on at least the State highway system. While

one can conclude that all States have a form of a pavement management system, it is with the recognition that

these systems are all different. The Phase 1 Final Report highlighted the apparent disconnect between the level

of information on bridges as opposed to pavements versus the differences in expenditure levels. While there is

a complete, comprehensive and consistent national inventory of all bridge conditions, HPMS only has IRI data

to represent pavement conditions. However, annual expenditures on pavement related projects are about twice

the expenditure for bridges. The impediments to having additional pavement condition information in HPMS

include a lack of uniformity between the States, a lack of detailed pavement condition information for roads that

are not on highway systems under State jurisdiction, and the different approaches by the States to policy planning,

programming and project development.

Looking to the future, FHWA has been working with AASHTO and the States to establish standards for

measuring roughness, cracking, rutting and faulting. One of FHWA’s Pavement Technology Program goals is

to have these pavement condition measurement standards implemented in 30 States by the end of 2001. Data

from these condition measurements can be used to estimate remaining service life of pavements. In the longer

term, the Pavement Technology Program anticipates demonstrating a rolling wheel deflectometer by the end of

2000. When implemented, data from this dynamic condition measurement device can be used to estimate the

remaining structural life of pavements. In view of these program directions, FHWA and the HPMS Steering

Committee have recommended that further HPMS changes be deferred until additional pavement information

requirements can be more clearly identified.

In a future vision, the HPMS will contain uniform information on standard pavement distresses, and remaining

service and structural life for at least the National Highway System and all other arterials. Research will have

been completed on probabilistic pavement models directed at predicting future conditions based on remaining

service and/or structural life; such pavement condition models will be less data-rich than those currently in use.

There are a number of steps that will need to be taken to achieve the vision outlined above. Research and study

steps include:
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 30

1. Completion of a pilot research study directed at determining the feasibility and impact of including data

related to standard distresses and remaining service life from State pavement management systems in

FHWA’s current policy pavement models.

2. Completion of research on less data-rich probabilistic models for predicting pavement condition, including

a detailed examination of using information available from the Strategic Highway Research Program/Long

Term Pavement Performance (SHRP-LTPP) and State pavement management systems obtained outside of

HPMS.

3. Completion of prototype development and testing of a rolling wheel deflectometer to measure and calculate

remaining structural life.

Coordination and agreement steps include:

4. AASHTO adoption of standards for cracking, roughness, rutting and cracking.

5. Achieving MPO, local government, and State agreement on using AASHTO standards for measuring

pavement condition.

6. Implementation of distress measurement standards by States and others for State highway system routes

as well as for non-State routes in all rural and urban areas.

7. Achieving agreement on the uniform estimation of remaining service life.

Measuring Congestion Parameters and Estimating Congestion Levels and Trends

Congestion is measured in HPMS primarily by using the volume-to-service level ratio, a highway capacity manual

based method. This method produces an estimate of average conditions on the system. Changes in this condition

are tracked over time to estimate if congestion is worsening or improving. HPMS Steering Committee members,

participants in the reassessment process, and many others in the transportation community have expressed

concern about the adequacy of this measure of congestion for some time. The transportation community,

however, has not developed a universally accepted single measure substitute that meets the many needs and uses

for congestion information. Criticisms of the volume/service flow relationship include:

C The current measure does not include non-recurring congestion which by many estimates accounts for about

50-60 percent of congestion.

C The measure is a peak hour average and does not capture the duration and extent of congestion.

C The calculation requires over 20 HPMS data items. Many of the data items required to make the calculation

are generally not routinely included in State and local data systems, so much of the information is collected

for HPMS purposes only.

FHWA is currently completing research on using the ratio of AADT to capacity as a measure of 24-hour

congestion; it is also using a modeled value of hours of daily delay per 1000 VMT as a measure of congestion

for performance reporting purposes. Both of these measures, however, rely on the same HPMS data items and

the Highway Capacity Manual procedures in the calculation of capacity and do not address the criticisms noted

above.

The Phase 1 Final Report recommended that further analysis be conducted on the potential use of information

from Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) deployments for measuring congestion. Similar recommendations

have come to FHWA from other sources and studies. FHWA has moved forward in this area and has actively

promoted the concept that archived ITS data should be a user service in the National ITS Architecture. What this
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 31

means is that data collected for operational purposes by ITS deployments will be retained and made available for

planning and policy analysis purposes. New ITS projects will be required to include data archiving in the design

of ITS projects, and States, MPOs and local governments will be able to obtain considerable information on the

location, extent, duration and causes of congestion from ITS. While consistent information from a number of

ITS locations should be available for establishing trends on the performance of the highway system in terms of

various measures of congestion, it is doubtful that in the next 10 years such information will be uniformly

available for inclusion in the HPMS data base. In view of these constraints, FHWA and the HPMS Steering

Committee have recommended that further HPMS changes be deferred until additional congestion information

requirements can be more clearly identified.

In a future vision, research will have been conducted using the ITS archived data user service to develop

consistent information on the extent, duration and causes of congestion on a sample of systems to provide

consistent measures of congestion to track the performance of the highway system. Subsequently, HPMS will

begin to transition from the Highway Capacity Manual approach for congestion calculation to a system which

includes information from ITS on monitoring of actual conditions. Models which predict future levels of

congestion and delay from relationships developed between monitored conditions and other highway attributes

will be developed.

There are a number of steps that will need to be taken to achieve the vision outlined above. Research and study

steps include:

C Using a subcommittee of the HPMS Steering Committee and an outside consultant, develop measures of

system performance that would be most meaningful to report through HPMS.

C Participate in the revision of the National ITS Architecture to ensure that appropriate congestion

information is available from the archived data user service.

C Identify, with the ITS Joint Program Office, a sample of areas where ITS information is or will be available

and initiate a pilot study to collect and analyze the information to monitor and measure congestion on a

continuous basis.

C Revise FHWA’s analytical models to use the information and relationships from the pilot studies to predict

the future performance of the highway system.

C Transition the data collection in HPMS to drop data items used solely to calculate capacity by the Highway

Capacity Manual method.

C Estimate changes in congestion and system performance from highway and area attributes obtained from

archived ITS data and other data sources external to HPMS.

Measuring Safety Parameters

Safety on the highway system is acknowledged by FHWA as the number one priority of its many programs. The

FHWA strategic safety goal is to continually improve highway safety with the objective of reducing the number

of highway-related fatalities and injuries by 20 percent in 10 years. National crash information currently comes

from several sources including the HPMS, FHWA’s Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), NHTSA’s

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and NHTSA’s General Estimate System (GES); current performance

indicators are derived from existing NHTSA data systems. The GES estimates the number of non-fatal injury

crashes and property-damage-only crashes. This estimate is based on a random sample of crash reports taken
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 32

at 60 sites across the States. It does not provide an estimate of non-fatal injury crashes by State by functional

system class. The HPMS is the only DOT source of counts of non-fatal injury crashes, non-fatally injured

persons, “most serious” injuries, and non-fatally injured pedestrians. 

Throughout the reassessment process and within the HPMS Steering Committee, there has been a consensus on

the importance of meeting FHWA’s strategic safety goal, but there have been differing opinions on the future role

of HPMS. Those in the highway safety community want to be able to accurately link information on fatalities

and serious and other crashes to highway locations and location attributes in order to determine the characteristics

of the highway at crash locations. The purpose is to assist in eliminating high crash locations by improving the

highway conditions at that point as well as establishing causal relationships between highway conditions and

crash rates for highway design and operational standard modification.

Various types of analyses of high crash locations and related factors are done routinely by most States and in

many urban areas, generally not using HPMS data but using locally available information. Crash data definitions,

thresholds, and formats are not consistent within and across States, making compilation of the resulting

information difficult to use on a national basis. HPMS crash data provided by the States on a functional system

basis does not meet the States’ needs. Further, these data have been erroneous and can be misleading. While the

value of accurate crash information to DOT, FHWA, NHTSA and others is recognized, the HPMS data system

does no justice to those needs by providing data of questionable accuracy. Consequently, FHWA and the HPMS

Steering Committee have concluded that the current crash data should be dropped from HPMS while FHWA and

others in the safety community undertake an effort to reassess safety data needs and to develop other sources of

crash data with location information.

The reassessment of crash data needs will be accomplished cooperatively with NHTSA, the States, and others

in the safety community. Section 2005 of TEA-21 provides a new incentive grant program for States to improve

highway safety data. It also requires the Department to be involved in the determination of necessary data items

to assess national trends in crashes, rates, outcomes, and circumstances based upon a Model Minimum Uniform

Crash Criteria. FHWA will coordinate with NHTSA and others with safety and safety information

responsibilities to evaluate safety data needs for the Department.

The FHWA has initiated a partnership with NHTSA and AASHTO to develop the Crash Records Information

System (CRIS) proposed by the Texas Department of Transportation. The CRIS will streamline the collection,

management and dissemination of timely and accurate data to those who need it to improve safety of roadways.

This project recognizes that data are needed on crash-involved highways, vehicles, and drivers to effectively

analyze highway crashes and make recommendations for countermeasures. 

While the HPMS requirement for reporting summary data to FHWA by functional system will be phased out,

the States’ data bases and other existing FHWA and NHTSA safety data reporting systems will remain in place

as these new sources of data are developed.

In a future vision, activities called for in Section 2005 of TEA-21 will have been completed and FHWA, the

States, and others in the safety community will have a better idea of their crash data needs and requirements. The

appropriate role of the three existing safety data systems within FHWA and NHTSA in meeting these data needs

will have been assessed and, consistent with the ONE DOT concept, an integrated approach to meeting those

needs will have been developed. Subsequently, HPMS will assess changes appropriate to support the identified

crash data system.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 33

There are a number of steps that will need to be taken to achieve the vision outlined above. Research and study

steps include:

1. Complete the activities called for in Section 2005 of TEA-21.

2. Determine with BTS a common geo-referencing frame which could be used to link crashes to highway

characteristics.

Coordination and agreement steps include:

3. Determine if there is a need for reporting to the Federal level a national roll up of locally collected crash

information linked to highway conditions on top of the systems used and maintained by State and local

governments.

4. If a Federal data roll up is desired, determine the specific items of data required and identify their uses.

5. Evaluate HSIS, FARS, GES, ITS, and HPMS as potential sources of information; compare requirements

to the currently collected HPMS universe and sample items and make decisions on the need to supplement

or modify HPMS or to use other data sources.

The Future HPMS Operating Environment

At the Conference on Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation Decision Making into the

21st Century, Bruce McDowell put forth the following vision for information systems of the future:

“It is the year 2027. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), State Departments of

transportation and metropolitan planning organizations are all linked by a common

performance-based geographic information system (GIS). Each of these agencies uses the

system to manage its own programs for peak performance. Data reporting between agencies

is no longer necessary: any report an agency needs can be designed and downloaded from the

common GIS the same day.”

First steps toward that vision were essentially adopted at the HPMS national workshop and by the HPMS

Steering Committee and incorporated into Objective 6:

C To evolve HPMS into a data system which:

- builds from the data systems of local, regional and State governments,

- is connected with common geo-referencing system,

- avoids, whenever possible, collecting data which are not used by the collecting agency.

Steps to move toward this future vision of HPMS include:

C Implement the recommendations in this report to streamline the data set and system; lower costs, reduce the

data burden, and improve quality.

C Complete the improvements to the HPMS computing environment outlined in the Phase 1 Final Report,

including submittal software, data manipulation software, and Internet access to HPMS data.

C Establish the linkages between various existing geo-referencing systems using the efforts of BTS to create

a national datum.

C Complete the synthesis of best practices on data partnerships and data sharing, NCHRP Topic 30-07. Select
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) 34

several promising models and in conjunction with AASHTO and AMPO conduct pilot studies to establish

working models of data partnerships and data sharing. Modify HPMS and other FHWA procedures to

incorporate data partnerships and data sharing into HPMS on a uniform basis.

C Under the leadership of BTS, evaluate the potential for private data sources or private-public partnerships to

supplement or replace current HPMS data and enhance knowledge of intermodal passenger and freight issues.

C Increase the electronic collection and distribution of data with the objective of reducing the current data cycle

time.

C Complete a study with BTS and other modes on the need to include operational performance and the user

perspective of transportation performance in the national transportation data base. Determine the appropriate

role of HPMS in this larger data reporting system.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix A-1

U.S. Department of Transportation 

 Federal Highway Administration

Is HPMS a

 “World Class” System?

Prepared by

Henry L. Peyrebrune

Transportation Consultant

for the

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Highway Information Management

March 1998
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix A-2

IS HPMS A “WORLD CLASS” SYSTEM?

INTRODUCTION

A. What is the HPMS Reassessment purpose and status?

In the winter of 1997, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) embarked on a comprehensive reassessment

of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). The Phase 1 Report of this effort provides:

1. A brief summary of the reassessment purposes and process,

2. A description of what HPMS is and isn’t,

3. How HPMS products are used by the various levels of government, and

4. The conclusions and recommendations of Phase 1 of the reassessment.

A review of the Phase 1 document, especially the Executive Summary, is necessary to understand the context for

addressing the question of “world class.”

B. What is HPMS?

The following statement is put forth as a summary statement of HPMS; it is subsequently used for making the

“world class” comparison. 

HPMS is a curb-to-curb highway information system on the extent, use, condition and performance of all

roads in the country. HPMS provides limited information on lower classified roads and more detailed

information for the higher classified roads. HPMS is used for many different purposes at the Federal, State

and local level. Data collection is an intergovernmental activity involving State, regional and local agencies.

The national HPMS data base is a highly aggregated data base of universe and sample section data where

information is generally obtained from more detailed State, regional and local data bases. Some

information, basically on sample sections, is collected for HPMS purposes only. HPMS is a subset of a

larger national highway data base. HPMS is used by FHWA and the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT) for policy and strategic planning activities through the use of several analytical models. Two of the

primary uses of HPMS are: Highway Statistics and the biennial Condition and Performance Reports to

Congress.

C. Context for Question on “World Class”

As part of the reassessment of the HPMS, one of the questions to be addressed was: Is HPMS a “world class”

system? HPMS serves the objectives of the Federal Government under the current legislative and jurisdictional

distribution of responsibility for highways. The system also serves State and local governments and relies on

these governments for the collection of data for the HPMS data base. Therefore, answering the question of “world

class” first requires an understanding of the legislative and jurisdictional responsibilities for highways in other

countries. Some of the questions explored included:

1. Are there any countries that have a structure similar to the United States for highway funding, planning,

project development, etc?

2. Do these countries have highway data systems similar to HPMS?
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix A-3

3. Do they perform national policy analyses similar to the models used to prepare the biennial Condition

and Performance Reports?

4. Do they have reports similar to Highway Statistics and the Condition and Performance Reports?

5. How do countries deal with lower levels of government in terms of data collection and analysis to

create a national data base and conduct national level policy analyses?

6. If countries do not have a similar structure for highways as the United States, are there components

of their highway data bases, intergovernmental data collection, or policy analysis systems which can

be compared to the United States?

The sources readily available for this analysis were two reports from the Organization for Economic

Cooperation Development (OECD), a wide variety of reports from the Permanent International Association

of Road Congresses (PIARC), results of previous international scans, proceedings from the third International

Conference on Pavement Management, and several other documents obtained at the World Road Congress.

In addition, there were numerous discussions with individuals involved in international activities. 

D. Comparison of HPMS Mission and Objectives to Other Countries

As part of the reassessment, a mission and a set of objectives were established for HPMS. They were reviewed

extensively as part of the outreach program and modifications were made before the mission and objectives

were approved. For this international comparison, the HPMS objectives are used as a framework for

comparing how systems in other countries would meet the United States objectives.

1. Objectives 1, 2, and 3

Objective 1: Meet FHWA’s highway stewardship responsibilities, including preserving the national

interest in the NHS.

Objective 2: Support transportation policy analysis and planning activities.

Objective 3: Meet the various congressional requirements, including the Condition and Performance

Reports.

DISCUSSION: The OECD Report, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: Funding and Allocation

Strategies, concludes: “administrative/organization structures for resource allocation and distribution reflect

the governmental structures prevailing in each country.” Similarly, the policy analysis systems in each country

reflect the legislative, financial and jurisdictional structure for highways in each country. The search of the

literature shows that the system in the United States is unique in several aspects.

First, the Federal highway agency in the United States does not have jurisdiction (project development, design,

construction, operation, maintenance, etc.) over national or regional roads; rather, the responsibility is assigned

to States and local governments. Other country’s Federal highway agencies have jurisdiction for these national

roads; therefore, their policy analysis and data systems are very detailed with regard to roads under their

jurisdiction. These organizations are more analogous to our State Departments of Transportation, and their

highway information systems are more like State pavement management systems which are used for policy

planning, programming and project development.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix A-4

Second, while the United States makes Federal road funds available to other levels of government, this is not

the case in most other countries where Federal funds are spent on Federal roads. As a result, the United States

requires detailed information from all levels of government. For instance, the United States requires estimated

travel [vehicle-miles of travel (VMT)] as a basis for fund allocation; only Great Britain has a similar system

but a different method of obtaining VMT.

Third, the PIARC report, Highway Performance Monitoring Systems Workshop, compares HPMS systems

in five countries. While these systems are basically pavement management systems, the policy analysis

portions described in the report are not as comprehensive as the Analytical Process and HERS models used

in the United States HPMS.

Fourth, HDM-4, the World Bank project to develop the most advanced road maintenance and investment

analysis system, uses one of the HPMS analytical models--HERS.

CONCLUSION: Since the current HPMS system meets the first three objectives for HPMS and the

United States highway funding and jurisdiction system is unique, the question of “world class” is not very

relevant to these three objectives. There is evidence from the literature that HPMS for national policy analysis

is, in fact, “world class”.

2. Objective 4

Objective 4: Provide a publicly accessible, consistently high quality objective and timely national

highway data base.

DISCUSSION: The national HPMS data base is a highly aggregated curb-to-curb set of information covering

all roads in the country. The data bases in other countries appear to be more detailed for national highways

(highways under the jurisdiction of the Federal highway agency) and less detailed and/or less comprehensive

for systems under regional and local jurisdiction. There are several references to HPMS being a “world class”

system in this regard.

The OECD report, Performance Indicators for the Road Sector, states: “Several OECD countries have

developed and used analytical systems of the type described (the U.S. HPMS). The road data bank of the

HPMS has been in use for two decades. The inventoried data items are the same or very similar in all OECD

countries.”

The International Scanning Tour on European Traffic-Monitoring Programs and Technologies concluded:

“Overall, the European countries visited do not have counting or monitoring programs that are as extensive or

sophisticated as those usually found in the United States.”

Reviewing the summary tables on data systems of 15 countries in the OECD performance indicators report

shows that the United States is the only country which attempts to measure congestion in a systematic basis

for multi-jurisdictional road systems.

The United States data base is less comprehensive with regards to pavement condition information; a

conclusion also of the reassessment process. The United States data base does not include asset value

information while other countries tend to include this information in their data bases, at least for highways in

their jurisdiction. Many countries have extensive information outside the curb lines in their data bases, but this

information is not within the current purposes of HPMS.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix A-5

CONCLUSION: The United States highway data base is a “world class” system in its comprehensiveness,

traffic information, congestion analysis, and in meeting the national objectives for a national highway data base.

The weaknesses in the United States HPMS data base when compared to other countries have also been

identified in the reassessment process and are currently under evaluation. 

3. Objectives 5 and 6

Objective 5: Provide, at the State and local government option, an HPMS data base, an analytical

process, and FHWA technical support which meets the needs of State, regional and local agencies.

Objective 6: Evolve HPMS to a data system which:

- builds from the data systems of local, regional and State governments,

- is connected with a common geo-referencing system, and

- avoids, whenever possible, collecting data which is not used by the collecting agency.

DISCUSSION: These two objectives deal with the intergovernmental aspect of HPMS. Referring back to

the discussion under the first three objectives, the intergovernmental nature of highway responsibility in the

United States is unique and therefore the intergovernmental objectives are also unique. The literature does refer

to some intergovernmental activities in France, Great Britain, and Germany which would need to be studied

through visits. The scanning tour on traffic monitoring discovered two techniques relating to intergovernmental

data collection which they recommended for possible use in the United States--purchasing data rather than

funding general collection programs and contracting with private companies for traffic data collection.

Cooperation among operating agencies was found to be better in the countries visited than in the United States.

Data aggregation and storing and the use of control systems for data collection [Intelligent Transportation

Systems (ITS)] was also better in the European countries.

CONCLUSION: The intergovernmental aspects of the United States HPMS are evolving as technological

advances allow easier sharing of data. This area, which was also highlighted in the Transportation Research

Board (TRB) Conference on State and Local Data Needs into the 21st Century, is still a major effort in the

continuing reassessment. The HPMS workshop participants recommended a synthesis of the best practices

in this country as the next step to improve meeting the two intergovernmental objectives. While the

United States HPMS is certainly a “world class” system in including all governmental level highways in a

comprehensive data system, there are certainly intergovernmental arrangements and techniques in other

countries which could add to the synthesis of best practices. These are not reported well in the literature and

visits to several countries or face-to-face discussions would be helpful.

4. Summary Statement

From this limited analysis, one can conclude that HPMS is a “world class” system. The current HPMS will

be improved when the recommendations of the reassessment are implemented. The reassessment process

revealed that there is strong support for HPMS from the users and providers of information, and that the system

meets the stated mission and objectives. Currently, there are no equivalent HPMS systems in use in other

countries which would meet all the objectives of the United States HPMS. The United States should continue

to learn from other countries about data collection techniques and intergovernmental arrangements through

specifically focused international scans or mini-scans on specific subjects similar to the traffic monitoring scan

including additional information on intergovernmental arrangements for data sharing and partnerships.
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-1

Detailed Information on Data Items for Which Change is Proposed

Add: Item 2 -- Metric (or English) Reporting Units 

A minor change in coding of this data item is needed to meet HPMS software programming requirements.

Old

Code

New Description

Code

1 0 This file of section data is coded using the English system of unit

measurement (miles, feet, inches, etc.).

2 1 This file of section data is coded using the modernized metric system of unit

measurement known as the SI (kilometers, meters, millimeters, etc.).

Add: Item 5 -- Type of Section Identification 

A minor change in coding of this data item is needed to meet HPMS software programming requirements.

Old

Code

New Description

Code

1 0 Section Identifier: A countywide unique identifier for section records.

2 1 Grouped Length: A countywide unique identifier for grouped length

(kilometers or miles) records only.

Change: Item 15 - Planned Unbuilt Facility

This item is used to track changes to the approved NHS, a requirement of the legislation approving the NHS,

including intermodal connectors. The item is being reduced to apply to the NHS only.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

0 Section is not on the applicable (PAS/NHS) 0

systems, and is open to public travel.

This section is not on the NHS

1 PAS/NHS section is built and open to public 1

travel.

This section is on the NHS and is open

to public travel

2 PAS/NHS section is not yet built, but is part of 2 This section is on the NHS, but is not

an approved or adopted plan of a short range

improvement program which has a good

probability of being under construction in the

near future (up to 6 years). This code shall

include those sections that are built but were

not yet open to traffic for the reporting year.

yet built
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-2

Change: Item 20 - Governmental Ownership

This item is used to identify facility ownership. It is used in cost allocation, to track historic data, and

in the national highway data base. This item is being reduced by collapsing the data stratifications

from 17 to 8. The “New Code” changed to one digit as italicized below.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 01 State Highway Agency 1 State Highway Agency

 02 County Highway Agency 2 County Highway Agency

 03 Town or Township Highway Town or Township Highway

Agency Agency

3

 04 Municipal Highway Agency 4 Municipal Highway Agency

 11 State Park, Forest, or Other State Agency

Reservation Agency

5

 12 Local Park, Forest, or Other Local Agency

Reservation Agency

6

 21 Other State Agency 5 Other State Agency

 25 Other Local Agency 6 Other Local Agency

 26 Private 8 Other

 31 State Toll Authority 5 Other State Agency

 32 Local Toll Authority 6 Other Local Agency

 60 Other Federal Agency (Not Federal Agency

Listed Below)

7

 62 Bureau of Indian Affairs 7 Federal Agency

 64 U.S. Forest Service 7 Federal Agency

 66 National Park Service 7 Federal Agency

 68 Bureau of Land Management Federal Agency

 

7

 70 Military Reservation/Corps of Federal Agency

Engineers

7
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-3

Change: Item 21 - Special Systems

This item has been used to track changes to various Interstate and other system categories. In

addition, the HPMS was selected to track changes to special Interstate Systems for fund

apportionment purposes. As a result of the passage of TEA-21, there is no legislative reason for

tracking the several Interstate designations and the item is being reduced to delete the unneeded

codes. A reduction in the number of stratifications from 14 to 2 is proposed. The STRAHNET

designation is proposed for retention because of its use by the DOD for identifying strategic

deployment routes. The remainder of the categories have become irrelevant to FHWA business

purposes as a result of TEA-21. (All Interstate System open-to-traffic coded as STRAHNET)

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 00 Not on a Special System 0 Not on a Special System

 01 Addition to the Interstate System [23 1 Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)

U.S.C. 139(c)] (includes Interstate System [23 U.S.C. 103])

 02 Addition to the Interstate System [23 1 Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)

U.S.C. 139(a)] approved prior to March

9, 1984

(includes Interstate System [23 U.S.C. 103])

 03 Addition to the Interstate System [23 1 Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)

U.S.C. 139(a)] approved on or after

March 9, 1984

(includes Interstate System [23 U.S.C. 103])

 04 Future addition to the Interstate System [23 0 Not on a Special System

U.S.C. 139(b)]

 05 Section 332 Interstate System that meets 1 Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)

the Interstate System design standards (includes Interstate System [23 U.S.C. 103])

 06 Designated future Section 332 Interstate 0 Not on a Special System

System

 08 Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) 1 Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)

(includes Interstate System [23 U.S.C. (includes Interstate System [23 U.S.C. 103])

103])

 11 Appalachian Development Highway 0 Not on a Special System 

 13 Indian Reservation Roads and Bridges 0 Not on a Special System

 15 National Forest Highway System 0 Not on a Special System

 16 National forest Development Roads and 0 Not on a Special System

Trails

 18 National Park Service Parkway 0 Not on a Special System

 19 National Park Roads and Trails 0 Not on a Special System
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-4

Change: Item 23 - Designated Truck Route

This item is used as an administrative identifier to determine whether a section is on or off a truck

route designated under Federal regulatory authority for truck size and weight studies. This item is

being reduced to require a yes/no answer only.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 1 Designated truck route under Federal 1 Designated truck route under

authority in

23 CFR 658.

Federal authority in

23 CFR 658.

 2 Designated truck route only under 0 Not on a designated truck route

State authority and fully available to

both types of trucks described below.12

 3 Parkway -- not on a designated truck 0 Not on a designated truck route

route.

 4 Not a Parkway -- not on a designated 0 Not on a designated truck route

truck route.

Change: Item 24 - Toll

In the past, this item has been used as an administrative identifier to determine whether a section is

on or off a toll road. In addition, the HPMS was selected to track changes to toll roads meeting

selected legislative criteria for the primary purpose of apportioning Interstate Maintenance funds to

the States. Toll data have also been used for historic trends, policy analysis, and legislation

development purposes.

With the passage of TEA-21, all Interstate mileage and travel are used in the apportionment formula

and there is no legislatively mandated reason for retaining the same level of detail on toll roads. As

a result, future toll road data needs can be met using a reduced data record indicating simply whether

or not the section in question is or is not a toll road. A reduction in the number of stratifications from

4 to 2 is proposed. The remainder of the categories have become irrelevant to FHWA business

purposes as a result of TEA-21.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 1 Non-toll 0 Non-toll

 2 Toll 1 Toll

 3 Interstate toll section under Secretarial 1 Toll

Agreement
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-5

 4 Interstate toll section under Secretarial 0 Non-toll

Agreement, now free of tolls

Change: Item 43 - Surface/Pavement Type

This item details the type of pavement surface. It is used in investment requirements modeling to

support the Condition and Performance Report to Congress (estimate pavement deterioration and

loading history), for cost allocation pavement model and national highway data base purposes. This

item is being reduced by collapsing the data stratifications from 15 to 6.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 20 Unimproved Road 1 Unpaved

 30 Graded and Drained 1 Unpaved

 40 Soil, Gravel or Stone 1 Unpaved

 51 Bituminous Surface-Treated 2 Low type

 52 Mixed Bituminous 3 Intermediate Type

 53 Bituminous Penetration 3 Intermediate Type

 61 High Flexible 4 High Type Flexible

 62 Composite; Flexible over Rigid 6 High Type Composite

 71 High Rigid; Plain Jointed 5 High Type Rigid

 72 High Rigid; Reinforced Jointed 5 High Type Rigid

 73 High Rigid; Continuously 5 High Type Rigid

Reinforced

 74 Rigid over Rigid; Bonded or 5 High Type Rigid

Partially Bonded

 75 Rigid over Rigid; Unbonded 5 High Type Rigid

 76 Rigid over Flexible 5 High Type Rigid

 80 Brick, Block or Other Combination 4 High Type Flexible
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-6

Change: Item 52 - Shoulder Type

This item provides information on the type of existing shoulder on sample roadway sections. It is

used in investment requirements modeling to support the C&P report to Congress (needed

improvements). This item is being reduced by collapsing the data stratifications from 8 to 6. Enter

the code for the type of shoulder on the section. Item 52 has been changed to add back the

category “combination” shoulders and the descriptions have undergone minor change.

Shoulders behind mountable curbs should be coded as shoulders as if the curbs did not exist.

Shoulders in front of barrier curbs should be coded as shoulders while areas behind barrier curbs

should not be coded as shoulders - code 6 should be used. Curb types are described in the 1994

AASHTO Design Guide, pp. 344-349.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 1 None: No Shoulders or Curbs 1 None: No shoulders or curbs exist

Exist.

 2 Surfaced with Bituminous Material 2 Surfaced shoulder exists

 3 Surfaced with Portland Cement 2 Surfaced shoulder exists

Concrete (not Tied)

 4 Surfaced with Tied Portland 2 Surfaced shoulder exists

Cement Concrete

 5 Stabilized 3 Stabilized shoulder exists

 6 Combination 4 Combination shoulder exists

 7 Earth 5 Earth shoulder exists

 8 Curbed: No Shoulders Exist;

Section is Curbed.

6 Barrier Curbs; no shoulders

exist in front of curb
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-7

Change: Item 58 - Curvey by Class

This item provides specific information regarding the number and length of horizontal curves by degree of

curvature for sample sections. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and

Performance Report to Congress (calculating horizontal alignment adequacy, estimating running speed and

operating costs). This data item will be reduced from 26 existing detail lines (number of curves and total curve

length for 13 curve classes) to 6 (total curve length in 6 curve classes).

Old Code Number of Curves Length of Curves New Code Description

a && && a &&

b && && a &&

c && && a &&

d && && a &&

e && && b &&

f && && b &&

g && && c &&

h && && c &&

i && && d &&

j && && d &&

k && && e &&

l && && e &&

m && && f &&

Change: Item 61 - Grades by Class

This item provides specific information regarding the number and length of vertical grades by percent gradient

for sample sections. It is used in investment requirements modeling to support the Condition and Performance

Report to Congress (calculating vertical alignment adequacy, estimating running speed and operting costs) and

in the truck size and weight analysis process. This data item will be reduced from 12 existing detail lines (number

of grades and total length of grades for 6 classes) to 6 (total length of grade for 6 classes).

Old Code Number of Grades Length of Grades New Code Length of Grades

a && && a &&

b && && b &&

c && && c &&

d && && d &&

e && && e &&
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-8

f && && f &&

Change: Item 81 - HOV Operations

This item provides information on 26 categories of HOV operational activity. Change to a universe

inventory data item and reduce the level of detail by eliminating all but one (81G) of the 26 subitems.

Although not used in the modeling process, the reduced data will be incorporated into the national

database.

Old Description New Description

Code Code

 0 Nonapplicable 0 Section does not have HOV lanes

 1 Exclusive HOV Lane(s) or Roadway 1 Exclusive HOV lane(s)

(Not Reversible)

 2 Exclusive HOV Lane(s) or Roadway 1 Exclusive HOV lane(s)

(Reversible)

 3 Normal through lane that is signed 2 Normal through lane(s) used for

for exclusive HOV use in specified exclusive HOV in specified time periods

time periods (concurrent flow, same

direction as other traffic)

 4 Normal through lane that is signed 2 Normal through lane(s) used for

for exclusive HOV use in specified exclusive HOV in specified time periods

time periods (contra flow, opposite

direction to other traffic)

 5 Shoulder used during specified 3 Shoulder/parking lane(s) used for HOV

period by HOV in specified time period

 6 Shoulder used during specified 3 Shoulder/parking lane(s) used for HOV

period by general traffic in specified time period

 7 All through lanes used by HOV 2 Normal through lane(s) used for

vehicles during specified periods exclusive HOV in specified time periods

 8 Other; Describe in submittal 0 Section does not have HOV lane(s)

correspondence
HPMS Reassessment - Final Report (Revised April 1999) Appendix B-9

Change: Item 82 - Highway Surveillance Systems

This item provides information on 7 categories of highway surveillance systems. Change to a universe data item

to provide information on deployment of ITS technologies. The number of subitems is being increased to 9. The

data will be used by FHWA and others to track deployment of the ITS technologies. This item has been

changed to reflect a minor change in coding detail. New subitem 82G, “free cellular phone” is intended

to apply to limited area cell phone systems related to specific Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

deployment sites. Do not include statewide DUI numbers or similar statewide or regionwide cell phone

services in this item. 

Sub- N Y Subitem O E Description item Description

(Old) S (Old) (New) (New)

 82A 0 1 Manned Central Control Center that 82A Section is under electronic

collects/receives data and information via surveillance to collect real-time

cameras, detectors (lane counts and traffic data to monitor traffic flow

speed), etc. in real-time and relays the

information to motorists using the

facilities and/or police, emergency and

other such vehicles

 82B 0 1 Ramp Metering 82B Section has metered entrance ramps

 82C 0 1 Ramp Metering with bypass lane(s) for

certain (permissible) vehicles

82B Section has metered entrance

ramps

 82D 0 1 Variable message signs to advise

motorists of hazards, incidents and/or

congestion ahead, route diversion, etc.

82C Section is covered by permanent

variable message signs

 82E 0 1 Restricted visibility (fog, dust, etc.) and/or

ice/snow detection system

82C Section is covered by permanent

variable message signs

82F 0 1 Exclusive fixed frequency radio traffic

condition reports (AM or FM) to alert

motorists of roadway conditions,

incidents, possible route diversions, etc.

82D Section is covered by highway

advisory radio

82G 0 1 Other systems [Intelligent Vehicle

Highway Systems (IVHS) operations,

etc.]. Describe in submittal

correspondence

N/A Dropped

N/A 0 1 N/A 82E Section is covered by surveillance

cameras

N/A 0 1 N/A 82F Section is covered by incident

detection technology algorithms

N/A 0 1 N/A 82G Section is covered by free cell

phone to dedicated number other

than 911

N/A 0 1 N/A 82H Section is covered by publicly

sponsored on-call service patrol

or towing service

N/A 0 1 N/A 82I Section has the hardware needed

to provide in-vehicle signing

information to equipped vehicles