Improving FHWA’s Ability to Assess 

Highway Infrastructure Health

National Meeting Report 

 
iii

Notice

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

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

information contained in this document. 

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

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the 

document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

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

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

policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement. 
 Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Improving FHWA’s Ability to Assess

Highway Infrastructure Health

National Meeting Report

5. Report Date

December 8, 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Joseph Guerre, Jonathan Groeger,

Sam Van Hecke, Amy Simpson

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

12000 Indian Creek Court, Suite F

Beltsville, MD 20705-1242

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-07-D-00030-T10002

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Asset Management

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Ms. Nastaran Saadatmand, P.E., Task Monitor

16. Abstract

The FHWA in coordination with AASHTO conducted a study to define a consistent and reliable 

method to document infrastructure health with a focus on pavements and bridges on the 

Interstate System, and to develop a framework for tools that can provide FHWA and State DOTs 

ready access to key information that will allow for better and more complete assessments of 

infrastructure health nationally. This report summarizes the proceedings of a national meeting 

entitled, “AASHTO/FHWA Workshop on the Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment 

Study.” This workshop provided an opportunity for senior-level State department of 

transportation (DOT) stakeholders to provide input into national performance measures for 

pavements and bridges and identify challenges and implementation issues. The results of this 

Workshop including a summary of discussions related to proposed pavement and bridge 

condition and health metrics are contained in this report.

17. Key Words

Performance management, performance measures, 

pavement, bridges, Interstate Highway System, 

pavement condition, pavement health, bridge condition, 

bridge health

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

26

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m

2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m

2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha 

mi2square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m

3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m

3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) 

o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA 

mm2square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m

2

square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m

2

square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m

3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m

3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit o

F 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2candela/m20.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International e System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 i 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Meeting Overview .............................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Introduction .................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 National Meeting Objectives ..................................................................... 1-2

2.0 Good/Fair/Poor .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Good/Fair/Poor Presentation .................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Discussion and Common Themes from Breakout Groups ................... 2-3

3.0 Infrastructure Health .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Infrastructure Health Presentation ........................................................... 3-1

3.2 Discussion and Common Themes from Breakout Groups ................... 3-2

4.0 Workshop Conclusions ...................................................................................... 4-1

Appendix A. Meeting Participants...................................................«...A-1 

Appendix B. Meeting Agenda............................................................B-1
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 1-1

1.0 Meeting Overview 

1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION

Over the past several years, the importance of preserving existing transportation 

infrastructure has received increased focus. A fundamental element of the 

performance of a transportation system is the physical condition of the assets 

that comprise it. Consequently, the preservation of existing assets is a critical 

element of the nation’s transportation programs, and the identification of 

performance measures designed to capture and communicate the physical 

condition of pavement and bridges are needed. 

The primary goals of this project are to: 

Define a consistent and reliable method of assessing infrastructure health 

with a focus on pavements and bridges on the Interstate Highway System; 

and 

Develop tools to provide FHWA and State DOTs ready access to key 

information that will allow for a better and more complete view of 

infrastructure health nationally. 

While initially focusing on the Interstate Highway System, it is the intent of this 

project to develop methodologies that could be expanded in the future to the 

National Highway System or any other defined system of pavements or bridges, 

subject to data availability. 

To meet these goals, the scope of this project includes two main tracks: 

Develop an approach for categorizing pavement and bridges as 

Good/Fair/Poor, which can be used consistently across the country. 

Performance in this context is based on condition information. 

Develop a methodology for determining the health of a corridor with respect 

to pavement and bridges. Health in this context is based on factors that go 

beyond condition. 

These tracks are being coordinated with other Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

projects focused on performance-based transportation programs. 

This study has been divided into three phases. Phase I focused on defining an 

approach for assessing pavement and bridge condition and health. In Phase II, 

the approach was refined and tested via a pilot study on a sample corridor. The 

pilot corridor was I-90 through South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Phase 

III consisted of a national meeting to review the project results with practitioners 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

from across the U.S., and to discuss the preferred methodology and next steps. 

This report documents the proceedings from this national meeting. More 

detailed findings and recommendations from the study can be found in the 

Phase I report and the Final Report. 

1.2 NATIONAL MEETING OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the national meeting were to: 

Present the results of the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment 

Study; 

Solicit feedback on project findings and recommendations, with a particular 

focus on their benefits, potential implementation challenges, and 

recommendations for addressing these issues; and 

Identify critical next steps for advancing national performance measures for 

infrastructure. 

The meeting occurred on October 13, 2011 in Detroit, Michigan. The venue and 

date were selected to coincide with the 2011 AASHTO Annual Meeting hosted by 

the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). The meeting lasted from 

approximately 8:30 am until 4:30 pm with a lunch break. 

FHWA coordinated with AASHTO and invited transportation professionals 

from State DOTs. The invitees included a mixture of executives, engineers, 

planners, and performance management specialists. A list of the over 50 

participants is provided in Appendix A. The participants represented 33 DOT’s, 

FHWA and AASHTO. 

The agenda of the meeting (which is provided as Appendix B) included an 

introductory session, a project overview, a discussion of pilot study results, two 

topic area discussions (Good/Fair/Poor condition ratings and health reporting) 

followed by separate breakout sessions, and a conclusion/wrap-up session. The 

following sections of this report document the findings and discussions that 

emerged during the meeting. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 2-1

2.0 Good/Fair/Poor 

2.1 GOOD/FAIR/POOR PRESENTATION 

Following an introduction to the project, the research team presented findings 

related to the topic area of Good/Fair/Poor condition ratings. The 

Good/Fair/Poor presentation focused on the vision and draft definitions for 

Good/Fair/Poor condition ratings and the results of applying Good/Fair/Poor 

standards to the pilot corridor. Some of the key points of the overview 

presentation include: 

The vision for Good/Fair/Poor condition ratings is for a consistent and 

reliable method that can be applied nationwide. One of the reasons for 

engaging the large group of State DOT representatives at the national 

meeting was to gain a better understanding of where proposed condition 

ratings are consistent or inconsistent with their own approaches and how a 

national approach could impact and inform their decisions. 

The approach first developed qualitative definitions for Good/Fair/Poor 

and then developed quantitative thresholds to place assets into those 

“buckets.” Obtaining feedback on the definitions of Good/Fair/Poor was 

another objective of the meeting. The following proposed definitions were 

presented to the participants and stimulated discussion: 

– Good condition – Pavement and bridge infrastructure that is free of 

significant defects, and has a condition that does not adversely affect its 

performance. This level of condition typically only requires preventative 

maintenance activities. 

– Fair condition – Pavement and bridge infrastructure that has isolated 

surface defects or functional deficiencies on pavements; or minor 

deterioration of bridge elements. This level of condition typically could 

be addressed through minor rehabilitation, such as overlays and patching 

of pavements that do not require full depth structural improvements; and 

crack sealing, patching of spalls, and corrosion mitigation on bridges. 

– Poor condition – Pavement and bridge infrastructure that is exhibiting 

advanced deterioration and conditions that impact structural capacity. 

This level of condition typically requires structural repair, replacement, or 

reconstruction. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

2-2 

These definitions can also be presented in tabular form, as shown in Table 

2.1. 

Table 2.1 Defining Good/Fair/Poor 

Condition Typical Work Required

Good condition Free of significant defects

Condition does not adversely affect its 

performance

Preservation activities

Fair condition Isolated surface defects or functional 

deficiencies on pavements

Minor deterioration on bridge elements 

Minor rehabilitation 

- Pavement overlays and patching

- Bridge crack sealing, patching of 

spalls, and corrosion mitigation 

Poor condition Advanced deterioration

Conditions impact structural capacity 

Structural repair, replacement, or 

reconstruction

This effort built on performance measurement work being conducted by 

AASHTO and FHWA, in particular on NCHRP Project 20-24 (37)G. That 

effort provided detailed definitions of performance measures for bridge and 

pavement condition, as well as other performance areas. The research team 

for this project started with the recommendations from NCHRP 20-24(37) G, 

and developed options for specific measures that could be explored using 

available national data sets. Table 2.2 lists the measures that were addressed 

in the FHWA Infrastructure Health project. The measures are organized into 

tiers, which were defined by AASHTO and documented in NCHRP Project 

20-24 (37)G.1 The tiers are defined as follows: 

– Tier 1 measures are considered complete or nearly complete and ready 

for use at the national level. They meet the criteria of having: 

» General consensus on the measure’s definition, 

» A common or centralized approach to data collection in place, and 

» Established availability of consistent data. 

– Tier 2 measures meet one or two of the above criteria and require further 

work before being ready for deployment. 

– Tier 3 measures are generally still in the proposal stage and require 

further work before being ready for deployment. 

 

1

 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-24(37)G_FR.pdf. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 2-3

Table 2.2 Performance Measurement Options for Good/Fair/Poor 

Addressed During this Study 

Goal Area Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Pavement Preservation IRI Functional Adequacy 

Based on HPMS Distress 

Data

Structural Condition 

Based on Tier 2 Plus 

Deflection Data

Bridge Preservation Structural Deficiency 

(SD)

Structural Adequacy 

Based on NBI Ratings See note 1

Note 1: Although AASHTO has defined a Tier 3 measure based on element-level bridge data, this measure 

was not addressed in this study. 

The pilot study confirmed the readiness of Structural Deficiency weighted 

by deck area as a Tier 1 measure for bridges. 

The pilot study illustrated that a measure of structural adequacy based on a 

weighted average of NBI condition ratings is a viable option for a Tier 2 

measure. 

The pilot study explored the readiness of HPMS data items such as IRI, 

rutting, faulting, and cracking; and compared HPMS and State-maintained 

data to newly collected field data. The study team concluded that IRI 

generally provides a good match with field data despite some temporal 

issues. It also concluded that, though IRI has some limitations, it is the 

measurement most ready for use. The study team also evaluated options for 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 pavement measures listed in Table 2.2, and concluded that 

these measures require significant work before they are ready for 

deployment nationwide. 

During the Good/Fair/Poor presentation, there were several discussion periods 

that gave participants the opportunity for feedback. In addition, the presentation 

was followed by a breakout group exercise to solicit more feedback from 

participants. Participants were separated into four groups and led through a 

facilitated discussion. The feedback from participants from the breakout groups 

as well as the general discussion during the plenary presentation is summarized 

below. 

2.2 DISCUSSION AND COMMON THEMES FROM 

BREAKOUT GROUPS

The following discussion points and common themes emerged as part of the 

larger group dialogue and among the four breakout groups. 

There was general comfort with the concept of a consistent national 

Good/Fair/Poor rating system along the lines of what was proposed in the 

plenary presentation. Participants showed an appreciation for the value of a 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

2-4 

system to assess condition consistently nationwide. Some participants were 

more comfortable applying the proposed approach to pavements than to

bridges. These participants felt a two level scale deficient/non deficient 

might be sufficient for bridges. 

Participants urged caution with prescriptive decisions. While most 

participants were supportive of national level condition definitions for 

planning and for responding to inquiries about infrastructure health, some 

participants expressed concern over the use of national level measurements 

for local/regional decision-making and investment decisions. Participants 

cited the potential for misuse of the condition ratings, such as penalizing 

States that are doing well by redistributing funding to States that are not. 

Another concern expressed regarding prescriptive decisions is that condition 

improvement or treatment strategies may vary from State to State. 

One group urged national condition measurement should remain confined 

to the Interstate Highway System (IHS) for now. One concern raised was 

that the extent of responsibility for non-Interstate highways on the NHS 

varies widely by State. Participants suggested that the IHS also has the best 

data and could serve as an effective platform to refine condition ratings. 

Some participants expressed concern over consistency with State efforts.

Participants felt it was important for FHWA to recognize that States may 

have existing condition definitions in place that vary from the proposed 

national model. Some felt that, while there is a need to assess nationwide 

condition, State-by-State differences should also be recognized. For example, 

States may use four classes for condition definition. Another concern was 

that there are significant differences in pavement needs based on climate. 

FHWA and AASHTO representatives stressed that the intention was not to 

replace existing State systems but to work towards a national standard that 

could be used for multistate assessment. 

One approach that was suggested for dealing with the issue of different State 

rating systems and the need for a consistent national rating system was to 

develop a methodology for translating individual State rating systems into 

the national Good/Fair/Poor ratings while allowing States to continue to use 

their systems at the State level. 

Participants felt Good/Fair/Poor condition ratings present an opportunity 

to tell the story of needed investment. Participants discussed opportunities 

for the definitions to communicate customer needs, infrastructure needs, and 

ultimately the story of investment needs for the transportation system. 

Participants felt there is an opportunity to use Good/Fair/Poor results as a 

communication tool for outreach to the general public as well as 

transportation policy decision-makers. One option for improving the 

message of the study would be to describe needs in economic terms and 

emphasize job creation. Another option would be to include images of 

Good/Fair/Poor and to describe the type of work typically done and why it 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 2-5

is done. Participants noted additional opportunities to coordinate with State 

efforts to communicate pavement information. 

Participants stressed the importance of connecting with the customer.

While the intended audience for the Good/Fair/Poor definitions is

transportation practitioners, participants noted that any national information 

would eventually make its way to elected officials and the public. It was 

therefore suggested that communication tools should ultimately address 

customer expectations and resonate with the general public. For example, in 

addition to an engineering-based definition of pavement condition, it may be 

valuable to understand what the customer would define as “good.”

Understanding and reflecting the customer perspective was recognized as a 

potential opportunity to develop more understandable condition ratings and 

to use them more effectively as a communication tool. One specific concern 

related to connecting with the customer was that the terms “fair” and “poor”

may both sound bad to a customer. It was emphasized that in 

communications with the general public, it is important to not misrepresent 

data and make them aware of the limitations of the data. 

There was a desire to find measures that would indicate the adequacy of 

condition over time or the timeframe when condition might deteriorate 

significantly, as opposed to a snapshot of condition at one time.

Participants acknowledged that measures that could flag approaching 

condition problems may not be fully ready for use (e.g. they are in Tiers 2 

and 3). However, they noted the importance of developing these measures 

moving forward. The concern was expressed that there may be major events 

occurring, such as a large number of bridges or miles of pavement headed 

towards deficiency, that are not captured in a snapshot yet require proactive 

planning and investment. A trend line or a measure of remaining service life 

might help address this issue. 

There was general consensus that, while IRI is ready and available for use 

as a pavement condition rating, it does not tell the whole story of pavement 

condition. Some participants expressed a lack of confidence in IRI as the 

only condition indicator, especially if used to determine where investment is 

needed. They noted that the key limitation of IRI is that it measures ride 

quality rather than a full set of pavement condition distresses. A Functional 

Condition Index (FCI) for pavements involving cracking, rutting, and/or 

faulting may provide a better indication of pending issues, though the 

limitation of HPMS only collecting these data on a sample panel makes it 

challenging to use them nationally. One group felt the near-term goals of 

FHWA and AASHTO should include moving forward with IRI but 

continuing to develop a measure of structural adequacy such as an FCI. 

Some participants mentioned the important role of cracking in their own 

assessments. Surface friction was also suggested as an important measure for 

safety purposes. Participants felt that an FCI should be calibrated to the 

customer experience. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

2-6 

Participants were interested in learning more about the purpose of the 

Good/Fair/Poor system. There was some desire for FHWA to provide 

greater clarification on the use of national condition definitions and ratings 

would be used and particularly the types of decisions they might influence. 

Participants felt it was important to acknowledge the limitations of the 

condition ratings. The condition ratings address physical infrastructure 

issues but do not address broader performance issues including capacity, 

operational and safety concerns. These broader performance factors must 

also be considered in determining investment needs. Disclaimers should be 

emphasized when using condition ratings. 

There was a general consensus on the need for better data collection 

standards and protocol. Participants acknowledged the limitations of IRI 

and other existing data collected for HPMS. There are insufficient data to 

generate RSL for bridges from the NBI. With pavements, there is an 

opportunity to improve cracking data if a sustained effort is adopted (similar 

to what occurred with IRI over the past decade). One group highlighted the 

need to build on the work that has previously addressed data collection 

needs for performance measurement, such as projects completed by NCHRP. 

However, some participants noted that most States already have significant 

data collection efforts, so a national system should either be based on existing 

data or improved data collection opportunities rather than adding additional 

data requirements. One participant noted that many States still conduct 

windshield surveys and that this data collection option should be considered. 

There are opportunities to coordinate with other national projects.

Participants discussed the need to continue to coordinate further work on the 

measures across FHWA, AASHTO, and NCHRP efforts. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 3-1

3.0 Infrastructure Health 

3.1 INFRASTRUCTURE HEALTH PRESENTATION

In the afternoon session of the national meeting, the Research Team presented 

findings related to the infrastructure health component of the project. This 

presentation included an introduction to the goals of the infrastructure health 

task, a demonstration of a sample health reporting tool applied to the I-90 pilot 

study corridor, and conclusions and lessons learned from the infrastructure 

health exercise. Key points of the overview presentation included: 

The objective of the health assessment is to provide FHWA with a means 

to examine the overall health of specific, multistate corridors and to 

respond to requests for information. FHWA receives many requests for 

updates on multistate corridor health for diverse purposes. 

The health reporting tool is designed to present an overview of several 

critical factors rather than a single number or grade for an entire corridor.

The analogy that was used for the health reporting tool was a visit to the 

doctor. When visiting the doctor one does not receive a single health score, 

but rather an in-depth discussion of several health indicators to present a 

comprehensive picture. As such, the health reporting tool relies on several 

metrics including Good/Fair/Poor, age, remaining service, traffic volumes, 

etc. 

Two key reporting elements are used in the health tool: green/yellow/red 

indicators of health, and red flags which indicate a warning or area 

meriting additional review. Together these mechanisms are intended to 

give the reviewer an understanding of the general overall health of a 

corridor, the critical issues the corridor may be facing, and to direct the 

reviewer’s attention to those areas of greatest concern. 

The health reporting tool includes three levels of detail: a dashboard level, 

a summary level, and a technical level (for both pavements and bridges).

The dashboard level contains broad findings without specific technical 

details and is suitable for broad review and to be shared with nontransportation experts. The summary level contains greater technical details 

and is suitable for review of some detailed statistics of corridor health. The 

technical level contains very detailed technical findings and presentation of 

statistics intended for detailed review. The tool is intended to support 

varying levels of review from intense technical analysis to a broad 

understanding. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

3-2 

During the infrastructure health presentation, there were a few discussion 

opportunities. Also, as before, the presentation was followed by a breakout 

group exercise to solicit more feedback from participants. Participants were 

separated into four groups and led through a facilitated discussion. The 

membership of the four groups remained the same for the morning and 

afternoon breakout sessions. The feedback from participants from the breakout 

groups as well as the general discussion during the plenary presentation is 

summarized below.

3.2 DISCUSSION AND COMMON THEMES FROM 

BREAKOUT GROUPS

The following discussion points and common themes emerged as part of the 

larger group dialogue and among the four breakout groups. Several of the 

themes of the health reporting discussion closely mirror the discussion of the 

condition ratings presented in the previous section. 

Several of the participants felt that the health reporting example appeared 

to be an effective communication tool for FHWA’s use. Some felt there is 

an opportunity to use the health reports to tell the story of infrastructure 

needs and return on investment. Several participants found the dashboard 

interface useful. One group recommended that FHWA proceed forward on 

developing the health reporting tool, but recognize the potential issues 

associated with national level health reporting. Participants expressed that 

the ultimate use of the tool will determine their willingness to support it. 

Participants were interested in clarity on possible uses for the health 

reporting tool. FHWA responded by highlighting the examples of using the 

tool including: 

– Assessing health for multistate corridors and freight corridors; and 

– Making regional comparisons and looking beyond State borders. 

Participants expressed concerns over the misuse/misunderstanding of the 

health reports by the general public. It was noted that the publishing of 

red/yellow/green indicators could create issues with media or politicians 

that take the simple view that a red indicator as unacceptable. Participants 

noted that it tends to be difficult to keep the findings of such tools private. 

Some participants were concerned that the national health reporting may 

indicate a roadway was “red” even though their own more detailed reporting 

did not and they would be forced to explain the difference. Another issue in 

interfacing with the public could be that the public tends to view all data as 

“real-time” when in reality there is a significant delay between collection and 

health reporting. Therefore, the data collection dates should be clearly 

communicated. Another possible source of confusion in communications 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 3-3

with the public is use of the term “health,” which can often refer to the 

physical health of transportation users. 

Some participants expressed concerns over the use of health reporting to 

drive investment decisions. While many participants acknowledged the 

need for such a tool to help FHWA, some expressed fear that incorrect or 

prescriptive uses may drive poor project decisions. For example, participants 

suggested that the FHWA Division offices may be tempted to micro-manage 

State decisions and priorities based on the health reports. Another concern 

expressed by some participants was the comparison of States to a national 

average and to each other. They felt the tool would not adequately recognize 

the many factors at the State level which would influence the outcomes of the 

health reports and make comparisons misleading. Several participants 

mentioned that their agencies have existing mechanisms to access the health 

of their networks and would likely not use a national level health reporting 

tool. 

Participants identified opportunities to expand the health reporting to 

include additional elements such as safety and congestion. Some 

participants felt health reporting should go beyond physical infrastructure to 

address other factors of interest to reviewers. Some felt the term health is 

misleading unless the tool expands beyond physical infrastructure. One 

group mentioned a successful data model used for the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) where 14 key measures were 

selected and the NHTSA worked closely with States to develop the data 

collection processes. 

Participants were interested in seeing more trend analysis where possible 

in the health reporting tool. As with the condition ratings, participants 

emphasized the need to review a trend rather than a snapshot in order to 

have an effective understanding of investment needs. 

Some participants felt that the emphasis of the health reporting should be 

at the summary level rather than the highway segment level. Some of the 

concerns described above could be addressed by removing the detailed map 

and by listing corridor averages and percent distributions. 

There were some recommendations for improvements to the health 

reporting mechanisms. Some participants expressed concern that longer 

corridors will always tend towards the “yellow” indicator, being neither good 

nor poor. They also mentioned a potential to link the indicators to State 

performance targets. There were several comments regarding opportunities 

for greater complexity in the tool but also several comments urging that the 

tool be kept simple and straightforward. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

 4-1

4.0 Workshop Conclusions 

Following the health reporting discussion, the research team provided a brief 

presentation on the next steps of the project. The presentation focused on some 

of the opportunities identified as part of the study, including the opportunities to 

advance data and measures for both pavements and bridges through this project 

and other new and ongoing efforts. 

FHWA thanked the participants and highlighted some of the key themes of the 

meeting including the need for FHWA to be careful in explaining their 

motivations for this work, the need to think about communicating condition and 

health externally, and opportunities to build on project findings through other 

project work in advance of reauthorization. 

AASHTO leadership commented on their support for the study and the need to 

tell the story of transportation system needs and not allow others to tell the story 

for the group. 

Finally, the meeting moderator summarized some key messages from 

throughout the day, including: 

Viewing a national reporting program as an opportunity to tell the story of 

transportation system needs; 

The importance of continual improvements to the national data sets, which 

are the foundation for all of the measures being investigated by FHWA and 

AASHTO; 

The importance of viewing measurement and reporting efforts from the 

perspective of the traveling public; and 

The need to remember the ultimate goal of performance management which 

is to improve transportation decision making. 

 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

Appendix 

 A-1

A. Meeting Participants 

Last Name First Name Agency

Alexander Angela Georgia DOT

Baker Laura Alaska DOT

Barton John Texas DOT

Blades Douglas FHWA

Bremmer Daniela Washington DOT

Brown Lloyd AASHTO

Burch Ted FHWA

Campbell Mara Missouri DOT

Christie Scott Pennsylvania DOT

Cole Tom Idaho DOT

Conrad John CH2MHILL

Corley-Lay Judith North Carolina DOT

Degges Paul Tennessee DOT

Farhoumand Kazem Rhode Island DOT

Fredrick Gregg Wyoming DOT

Gaj Stephen FHWA

Gatz Tim Oklahoma DOT

Gee King FHWA

Gee Stan New York DOT

Gibson Terry North Carolina DOT

Grasser Daniel Wisconsin DOT

Hammond Paula Washington DOT

Hardy Matt AASHTO

Healy Roger Alaska DOT

Henkel Tim Minnesota DOT

Huft David South Dakota DOT

Johnson Greg Michigan DOT

Jorgenson Russ FHWA

Kohrs Sandi Colorado DOT

Land Rick California DOT

Larkin-Thomason Tracy Nevada DOT

Lewis Mike Rhode Island DOT

Majors Dana Kansas DOT

Morin Pat Washington DOT

Nelson Cathy Oregon DOT

Nichols David Missouri DOT
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

Appendix 

A-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Last Name First Name Agency

Orsbon Ben South Dakota DOT

Park Randy Utah DOT

Patterson Mike Oklahoma DOT

Perkins - Smith Debra Colorado DOT

Peters Randy Nebraska DOT

Petros Katherine FHWA

Pope Cory Utah DOT

Reagan Brian Missouri DOT

Saadatmand Nastaran FHWA

Savoie Richard Louisiana DOT

Schiess Greg Florida DOT

Selmer John Iowa DOT

Simmons Doug Maryland DOT

Slater Gregory Maryland DOT

South Jeffrey Illinois DOT

Stephanos Peter FHWA

Steudle Kirk Michigan DOT

Walsh John South Carolina DOT

Walus Kendal Virginia DOT

Winter David FHWA

Wlaschin Butch FHWA

Wresinski David Michigan DOT

Zainhofsky Scott North Dakota DOT

Zanto Lynn Montana DOT

STUDY TEAM

Groeger Jonathan MACTEC/AMEC

Guerre Joe Cambridge Systematics

Louch Hugh Cambridge Systematics

Neumann Lance Cambridge Systematics

Simpson Amy MACTEC/AMEC

Van Hecke Sam Cambridge Systematics
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

Appendix 

 B-1

B. Meeting Agenda 

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 

Workshop Registration 

8:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. 

Plenary Session 1 

Welcome and Introductions 

Workshop Goals and Objectives: Lance Neumann, Cambridge Systematics

Welcome from FHWA: Butch Wlaschin, FHWA 

Welcome from AASHTO: Paula Hammond, Washington State DOT 

Q & A 

Project Overview 

Joe Guerre, Cambridge Systematics 

Q & A 

Pilot Study Results 

Jonathan Groeger, MACTEC

Q & A 

10:15 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. 

Break 

10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 

Breakout Session 1 

The objective of these breakouts is to gather feedback on the benefits, challenges, and 

opportunities for a national performance measurement approach, focusing on the 

condition of the National Highway System. Groups will be led through a facilitated 

discussion. Participants will be pre-assigned to groups. There will be four breakout 

groups each following the same list of questions. 
National Meeting on the FHWA Highway Infrastructure Health Assessment Study 

Appendix 

B-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

11:30 p.m. to 12:15 p.m. 

Reports from Breakouts

Each group leader will have 10 minutes to present key points from their breakout 

session. 

12:15 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. 

Lunch 

1:00 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. 

Plenary Session 2 

Infrastructure Health Introduction and Demo 

Hugh Louch, Cambridge Systematics 

Q & A 

1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. 

Breakout Session 1 

The objective of these breakouts is to gather feedback on the benefits, challenges, and 

opportunities reporting on bridge and pavement health. Groups will be led through a 

facilitated discussion. Participants will be pre-assigned to groups. There will be four 

breakout groups each following the same list of questions. 

2:45 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 

Break 

3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Workshop Wrap-up

Reports from Breakouts 

FHWA and AASHTO comment on what they heard 

Workshop moderator summary, implementation considerations, and next steps 

Final Q & A 

4:30 p.m. 

Workshop adjourn
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Operations (HOP) 

Mail Stop: E86-205 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590