Asset Management and Management of 

Highway Performance 

Peer Exchange 

Publication No. FHWA-HIF-10-006 November 2009 
Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank Steve Gaj, the FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative, and 

Michelle Maggiore of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) for their continued support and technical guidance during this project. We would 

also like to thank Butch Wlaschin of FHWA, Tony Kane of AASHTO, Kirk Steudle of the 

Michigan Department of Transportation, and Neil Pederson of the Maryland State Highway 

Administration for their help in structuring and facilitating the peer exchange. This report is 

based upon work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under contract number 

DTFH61-06-D-00004. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in 

this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

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. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products of 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 

Asset Management and Management of Highway 

Performance - Peer Exchange 

5. Report Date 

November 2009 

6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Author(s) 

Joe Guerre, Kelsey Ahern, and Randy Halvorson 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 

Cambridge, MA 02140 

10. Work Unit No. 

 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-04-D-00014 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Acquisition Management 

400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 4410 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

May 2009-November 2009 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

 

15. Supplementary Notes 

FHWA COTR: Steve Gaj, Office of Asset Management 

16. Abstract 

This report summarizes the proceedings of the Asset Management and Management of Highway 

Performance Peer Exchange hosted by the Federal Highway Administration and the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The peer exchange was held in 

Washington, D.C. on August 17, 2009. 

The peer exchange aimed to continue the dialog on the details of establishing performance measures 

and setting targets for pavement and bridge preservation. Building on the strengths of asset 

management practices related to these assets can help to guide performance management discussions in 

other transportation goal areas. The discussions at the peer exchange may also help to inform 

subsequent work on the next Federal transportation reauthorization bill. 

17. Key Words 

Transportation asset management, performance 

measures 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified 

21. No of Pages 

25 

22. Price 

 

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

Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Peer Exchange Format ...............................................................................1-2

2.0 Status of Current Activities...............................................................................2-1

2.1 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ..........................2-1

2.2 FHWA ..........................................................................................................2-2

2.3 AASHTO......................................................................................................2-3

Standing Committee on Performance Management .............................2-3

CEO Leadership Forum on Performance Management........................2-4

2.4 Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability: 

International Scan .......................................................................................2-5

3.0 Peer Exchange Discussions ...............................................................................3-1

3.1 Pavement Performance Measures ............................................................3-1

3.2 Bridge Performance Measures..................................................................3-2

3.3 Pavement and Bridge Targets...................................................................3-3

What Should Be the Relationship between National and State 

Targets? ........................................................................................................3-3

What Part of the System Should Be Included in the Targets?..............3-3

Should Targets be Based on Trends or Specific Thresholds? ...............3-4

How Should Targets Be Used? .................................................................3-4

3.4 Measuring Performance in Other Goal Areas ........................................3-4

Safety ............................................................................................................3-4

Congestion...................................................................................................3-5

System Operations......................................................................................3-6

Environment................................................................................................3-6

Freight/Economics.....................................................................................3-7

Summary of Lessons Learned from Pavements and Bridges...............3-7

3.5 Implications for Planning and Programming .............................................3-7

3.6 Implementation...........................................................................................3-8

4.0 Next Steps.............................................................................................................4-1

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 

7475-180 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1 Peer Exchange Participants......................................................................1-2

Table 2.1 Prevalence of Performance Targets ........................................................2-4
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1

1.0 Introduction 

This report summarizes the proceedings of the Asset Management and Management of 

Highway Performance Peer Exchange hosted by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO). The peer exchange was held in Washington, D.C. on 

August 17, 2009. 

Transportation asset management is a set of guiding principles and best practice 

methods for making informed resource allocation decisions, and improving 

accountability for these decisions. Performance measures are a fundamental 

building block of any asset management effort. Looking beyond asset management, there is significant interest at the Federal and state levels in improving the 

transparency and accountability of all types of transportation investment 

decisions. Towards that end, a number of organizations and agencies, including 

FHWA, AASHTO, and the U.S. Congress, state departments of transportation 

(DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are working to establish more performance-based transportation programs. While the details of each 

group’s approach may differ, the overall goals of these efforts are consistent: 

• Improve the performance of the nations’ transportation infrastructure; 

• Provide for greater accountability in the decision-making process; 

• Make the best use of limited resources; and 

• Ensure the long-term economic vitality of the nation. 

Discussions regarding performance-based transportation programs have largely 

been organized around goal areas (e.g., preservation, safety, congestion, etc.). 

While existing data resources and analysis capabilities differ significantly 

between the goal areas, the state of practice is relatively more advanced in preservation and safety then in the others. This peer exchange aimed to continue the 

dialog on the details of establishing performances measures and setting targets 

for pavement and bridge preservation. Building on the strengths of asset management practices related to these assets can help to guide performance management discussions in other transportation goal areas. The discussions at the 

peer exchange may also help to inform subsequent work on the next Federal 

transportation reauthorization bill. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

1.1 PEER EXCHANGE FORMAT

A list of peer exchange participants is presented in Table 1.1. Unlike typical peer 

exchanges where agencies present their experience related to a particular topic, 

the Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance Peer Exchange

focused less on presentations and more on lively roundtable discussions. 

Following brief presentations on the status of ongoing performance management 

work by the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee, FHWA, and AASHTO, the peer exchange agenda consisted of 

facilitated discussions covering five topics: 

1. Performance measures for pavements and bridges; 

2. Target setting for pavements and bridges; 

3. Performance measures for other transportation goal areas; 

4. Implications for planning and programming; and 

5. Implementation. 

Table 1.1 Peer Exchange Participants 

Participant Organization 

Kelsey Ahern Cambridge Systematics 

Mara Campbell – Director of Organizational Results Missouri DOT 

Wade Casey – Bridge Management Engineer FHWA 

Scott Christie – Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration Pennsylvania DOT 

Judith Corley-Lay – Pavement Analysis Engineer North Carolina DOT 

Paul Degges – Chief Engineer Tennessee DOT 

Charles Dougherty – Director, Technical Services Division Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission 

Steve Gaj – Team Leader, System Management and Monitoring Team FHWA 

King Gee – Associate Administrator, Office of Infrastructure FHWA 

Joe Guerre Cambridge Systematics 

Randy Halvorson Cambridge Systematics 

Pam Hutton – Chief Engineer Colorado DOT 

Tony Kane – Director of Engineering and Technical Services AASHTO 

Todd Kohr – Director of Highways Policy U.S. House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee 

Jim March – Director, Industry and Economic Analysis Team FHWA 

Michelle Maggiore – Program Director for Planning and Policy AASHTO 

Jim McDonnell – Deputy Program Director for Engineering AASHTO 

1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-3

Participant Organization 

Kathleen Penney – Chief Engineer District DOT 

Neil Pederson – Administrator Maryland State Highway 

Administration 

Ken Petty – Planning Capacity Building Team FHWA 

Nastaran Saadatmand – System Management and Monitoring Team FHWA 

Kyle Schneweis – Project Manager Kansas DOT 

Steve E. Simmons – Deputy Executive Director Texas DOT 

Kirk Steudle – Director Michigan DOT 

Pete Stephanos – Director, Office of Pavement Technology FHWA 

Jienki Synn – Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team FHWA 

Kevin Thompson – State Bridge Engineer California DOT 

Thomas Van – Pavement Management Engineer FHWA 

Bobbi Welke – Southwest Region Engineer Michigan DOT 

Butch Wlaschin – Director, Office of Asset Management FHWA 

Francis Ziegler – Director North Dakota DOT 

The open discussion format of the peer exchange allowed for a free flow of ideas 

among the participants. The remainder of this report summarizes the highlights 

of these discussions. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1

2.0 Status of Current Activities 

2.1 HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

COMMITTEE

Todd Kohr, Director of Highways Policy for the U.S. House of Representatives 

Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee, provided an update on the 

proposed Surface Transportation Authorization legislation. The current draft 

legislation calls for a $450 billion program over six years – dramatically more 

than current funding.1 To build the case for this level of investment, the T&I 

Committee has proposed a shift towards to a Federal transportation program 

that links investment to performance. Centered on the themes of performance 

and accountability, it is anticipated that the final legislation will specify performance measures and targets and hold funding recipients accountable for investment decisions and the impact that those decisions have on achieving national 

goals/objectives. 

Recognizing that performance management is not a one-size-fits-all approach, 

the T&I Committee’s proposed legislation calls for a partnership between 

Federal, state, and local governments, and a mixture of Federal and state agencyspecific targets. Also, the proposed legislation reflects an understanding that the 

state of practice in preservation and safety is more advanced than in other goals 

areas. For example, in the area of preservation, Congress would specify 

performance measures and set minimum performance thresholds. State DOTs 

would then work with the FHWA to develop 1) agency-specific targets that are at 

least as high as the national standards, and 2) an investment strategy for 

achieving the targets. Accountability would be based on the implementation of 

the established investment strategy. The legislation would provide flexibility for 

allocating resources in a manner required to achieve the established targets, and 

for adjusting the targets in the case of inadequate funding availability or 

emergencies. In other areas, such as freight, national measures and targets 

would not yet be established. 

The proposed legislation can be found on the T&I Committee’s web site, 

http://transporation.house.gov. The Committee is aware that its proposal is a 

starting point and invites feedback from the transportation community. One of 

the outstanding issues relates to the timeframe for implementation. For example, 

 

1 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, The 

Surface Transportation Act of 2009: A Blueprint for Investment and Reform Executive 

Summary, Presented by Chairman James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member John L. Mica, 

Chairman Peter A. DeFazio, and Ranking Member John J. Duncan, Jr., June 18, 2009. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

the current draft calls for each state to establish preservation targets within 6 

months after the legislation is enacted. Relying on expertise from others, the 

draft released in June 2009 will continue to be revised and modified in the 

coming months. 

2.2 FHWA 

Jim March from the FHWA Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs presented 

an overview of FHWA’s ongoing performance management activities. These 

activities include: 

• Internal Assessment of Program and Implementation Options – Recognizing the political imperatives that will likely incorporate performance and 

accountability into Federal transportation programs. FHWA is conducting 

an assessment of internal implications associated with implementing a 

performance-based program. 

• Broad-Based Research Program – FHWA also is conducting two research 

studies related to performance management. The first, titled Framework for

Implementing a Performance-Based Federal – Aid Highway Program, is a shortterm effort focused on developing a framework for a performance-based 

Federal transportation program. The second, titled Performance-Based 

Management of Federal-Aid Highway Programs, has a longer timeline, and will 

provide more technical details on performance management issues. This 

effort will include an assessment of performance management in other 

Federal programs (such as education) and other countries, and explore the 

relationships between benefit/cost analysis and performance management. 

• Recent International Scan – FHWA participated in a recent international 

scan to learn more about how several advanced countries use performance 

management to achieve performance results (this effort is described in more 

detail below). 

• Technical Assistance to Congressional Committee Staff – FHWA provided 

technical assistance to the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee staff in drafting the authorization legislation described above and 

has also provided technical assistance to staff of the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee. 

• Participation in AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance 

Management – FHWA participates in the activities of the AASHTO Standing 

Committee on Performance management and its task forces (these efforts are 

described in more detail below). 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3

2.3 AASHTO 

Tony Kane, AASHTO Director of Engineering and Technical Services, provided 

an update on AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Performance Management 

(SCOPM), summarized the proceedings of the recent CEO Leadership Forum on 

performance management, and presented the findings of the international scan 

on the linkage between transportation performance and accountability. 

Standing Committee on Performance Management 

The SCOPM is divided into eight task forces, one for each of AASHTO’s six goal 

areas (safety, preservation, congestion, systems operations, environment, and 

freight/economics) as well as for planning and programming and comparative 

measures. Kane presented a status report on each task force. 

• Safety – The Safety Task Force recommends that fatalities (reported as a 

three or five-year moving average) be used as the safety measure, and that 

each state set aggressive targets to help achieve a national goal of halving 

fatalities in two decades, with a long-term vision of zero fatalities. 

• Preservation – The Preservation Task Force has recommended three measures – present serviceability index (PSI) or remaining service life, international roughness index (IRI), and percent of structurally deficient bridges 

(weighted average by deck area). While there is discussion of establishing 

national goals for the Interstate and rest of the National Highway System 

(NHS), a national goal has not yet been recommended. 

• Congestion – The Task Force has considered many performance measures 

related to congestion, but is having difficulty identifying one measure that 

suits all states. 

• System Operations – Establishing consensus on recommended systems 

operations measures will require more discussion with the states. However, 

metrics, in general, include those that quantify travel time reliability. The 

System Operations Task Force expects that two or three measures will be 

desirable. Functional class will be an important consideration to account for 

the distinction between urban and rural operational differences. 

• Environment – While work is still underway in this area, the Environment 

Task Force expects a measure of green house gases (GHG) to be recommended for the environment goal area. 

• Freight/Economics – The Freight/Economics Task Force is considering several candidate measures. However, the measures and measurement techniques require additional refinement before recommendations can be made. 

• Planning and Programming – The Planning and Programming Task Force is 

developing a definition of performance-based planning and programming 

that aims to deliver on the targets set at the national and state levels. This 

Task Force will develop a draft methodology that will revolutionize the 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

2-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

current multimodal long-range planning and short-range programming 

processes of state DOTs and MPOs to deliver programs that will make 

progress toward achieving national (and state) goals and objectives. 

• Comparative Measures – The Comparative Measures Task Force will publish 

comparative reports on pavement and safety shortly. Additional results on 

bridges and incident management will be available early 2010. Development 

of comparable measures in the areas of congestion, environment, and 

freight/economics, as well as emerging areas like livability and sustainability, still requires considerable effort. 

CEO Leadership Forum on Performance Management 

In April 2009, AASHTO, FHWA, and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) 

sponsored a CEO Leadership Forum on Performance Management at the 

University on Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies. The purpose of the 

event was to exchange best practices and experiences in performance management, identify strategic challenges, and develop research and action plans. Based 

on the Forum discussion and results of a survey conducted prior to the Forum 

(Table 2.1), there was consensus among Forum participants that states are ready 

to implement performance measures for pavements, bridges, and safety, but less 

ready in other areas. A report summarizing the Forum proceedings, including 

presentations and resulting action plans, will be published shortly. 

Table 2.1 Prevalence of Performance Targets 

Results of CEO Forum Survey 

Goal Area Measures Only 

Measures and 

Targets Neither 

Preservation 3 17 1 

Freight/Economics 6 1 14 

Safety 4 17 0 

Congestion 8 9 4 

System Operations 6 9 6 

Environment 5 7 9 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5

2.4 LINKING TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY: INTERNATIONAL SCAN

In the summer of 2009, a panel of United States transportation professionals 

traveled to Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to learn 

how these countries have incorporated performance management into their surface transportation programs. 

The scan team found asset management to be an integral part of transportation 

programs in each country visited. Asset management is considered a viable 

model for managing pavement, bridges, safety features, and traffic hardware, as 

well as for operating highways (e.g., maintaining average journey to work time 

or reliability of the system). The scan team identified several examples of asset 

management tools and techniques that can potentially inform practices in the 

United States. These include more inclusive costs and benefits in benefit/cost 

analysis and “value for money” analysis; greater reliance on economic/financial 

accounting techniques by transportation agencies during discussions with treasury departments; and the use of risk analyses to make investment tradeoffs 

between and within asset classes. 

Overall, the scan team found that performance management is an accepted, but 

evolving approach to the business of transportation. In each country accountability through performance measures have been built into the transportation 

program. In every case, performance management followed a learning curve 

that resulted over time in fewer measures and in more emphasis being given to 

performance trends rather then specific targets. A full report of the scan findings 

will be published shortly. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1

3.0 Peer Exchange Discussions 

The original intent of the peer exchange was to focus on the technical details of 

performance measures and the target-setting process. However, given the 

potential implications of a performance-based program in terms of agency 

accountability and the allocation of transportation resources, the discussions 

quickly moved to broader policy-level issues. Several overarching themes 

emerged from these discussions: 

• There is an important distinction between performance-driven decisions and 

performance-influenced decisions. Performance measures are not the end 

result. The end result is the ability to show that transportation investments 

decisions are being made with an understanding of their implications on 

system performance and established goals. This is a critical point because it 

underscores the importance of the transportation planning and programming 

process as the vehicle to deliver on desired outcomes. 

• When establishing performance measures and targets, it is important to be 

clear about which portions of the network (Interstate, NHS, functional class, 

etc.) are being reported on and which will be considered in target setting. An 

important first step in the development of a national performance management framework is to identify those assets that are of national importance. 

• Establishing a national performance-based program must take into account 

the differences between the nation’s urban and rural areas. Each area may 

require a unique set of performance measures and/or targets. 

• The needs of each state differ and are evolving (e.g., growth versus maintenance). An alternative to holding all states accountable for achieving the 

same targets, is to require them to develop investment strategies that can be 

shown to be consistent with national goals, and then to hold them accountable for implementing the agreed-upon strategies. The states participating in 

the peer exchange felt that this approach would help alleviate many of the 

concerns and challenges described below. 

3.1 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Pavement ride quality, as measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI), 

is the only measure of pavement condition collected by all state DOTs. Given its 

commonality, IRI is a logical first choice for measuring and reporting pavement 

performance. However peer exchange participants discussed two significant 

issues with the use of IRI as a national performance measure – inconsistency in 

how IRI data are collected and an inability for IRI to be used to understand the 

overall structural condition of a pavement. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Within a given agency, the participants felt that measurements of IRI tend to be 

consistent. (A contrasting example was provided the Maryland DOT, which saw 

overall IRI improve after it purchased a new data collection vehicle.) However 

they felt that there is less consistency in IRI among state agencies. Examples of 

sources of discrepancies cited include the use of different equipment to collect 

IRI data, and different protocols regarding which portions of the highway to 

included in the measurements (e.g., some states include bridge approaches, 

others do not). Tightening HPMS reporting requirements over time may help to 

improve consistency and comparability among states. Given current comparability issues, however, there was discussion on the appropriate data used to 

measure pavement performance. For example, no consensus was reached on 

whether pavement performance data should come from the national HPMS 

database or from state pavement management systems. 

The participants agreed that ride quality does not provide a complete picture of 

pavement condition. They suggested that a measure of structurally adequacy in 

addition to ride quality would provide a more comprehensive assessment of 

pavement performance. However, there is no common or consistent measure of 

structural adequacy used by state DOTs. Some states measure present serviceability (PSR), while others measure remaining service life or combine structural 

adequacy and ride quality into a single overall measure. Regardless of which 

performance measures are used to report on pavements, the participants agreed 

that decisions on pavement investments should be based on the best technical 

data available, which will vary among states. 

3.2 BRIDGE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Structural deficiency is the most common measure used for reporting bridge 

condition. The SCOPM Preservation Task Force has recommended percent of 

structurally deficient bridges, weighted by deck area as a common measure. 

Unlike many of the other goal areas, the data required to report this is readily 

available from the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. 

The peer exchange participants provided the following recommendations 

regarding the measurement of bridge condition: 

• Expand beyond percent structurally deficient bridges (weighted average by 

deck area) and use a measure that helps to identify deteriorating bridges 

before they become deficient. Having two thresholds (for example, those 

required to define the boundary between good, fair, and poor) would allow 

agencies to develop strategies that combine preventive maintenance, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction. 

• Consider two measures of structural deficiency – one that includes bridges 

that are structurally deficient solely because of their deck rating and one that 

does not. The use of two measures reflects the fact that bridges that are 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-3

deficient because of deck area may have a lower priority than bridges with 

superstructure or substructure deficiencies. 

• In addition to percent structurally deficient bridges (weighted average by 

deck area), consider adding a count of fracture critical bridges as a measure. 

This measure would result in a different prioritization of bridges then an 

approach that considered only structural deficiency. 

3.3 PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE TARGETS

Defining performance targets is a key step in establishing a performance-based 

Federal-Aid Highway Program. The peer exchange participants discussed a 

variety of challenges and offered potential solutions to establishing performance 

targets for pavements and bridges. 

What Should Be the Relationship between National and State 

Targets? 

The discussion of performance targets focused largely on who should be responsible for setting the targets. Should targets be legislated by Congress, set nationally by the U.S. DOT, or individualized by state? While no resolution was reached 

on this issue, there was significant discussion around the following approach: 

• Establish national goals; 

• Require states to establish targets and develop an investment strategy for 

achieving them; 

• Require states to illustrate how the investment strategy will help achieve the 

national goals; and 

• Hold states accountable for implementing the strategy. 

This approach would place emphasis on a performance-based process (or 

investment strategy) rather then on specific target values. In the context of preservation, an investment strategy might include the amount of money that will be 

spent on preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction activities 

over the next six years. Participants discussed how Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans could be used a model for other goal areas such as pavement and bridge 

preservation. They noted similarities between these plans and the approach 

described above. 

What Part of the System Should Be Included in the Targets? 

Establishing appropriate national targets requires a recognition of which part of 

the system is truly in the national interest. Participants suggested that the 

national highway system (NHS) represents the country’s core assets. They also 

noted that establishing targets for facilities beyond those determined to be of 

national interest would increase the number of local agencies required to be 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

vary by highway function or by geography. For example, some states assign 

higher priorities to roadway that serve as school routes, truck routes or evacuation 

routes; and establish different performance standards for urban and rural areas. 

Should Targets be Based on Trends or Specific Thresholds? 

Participants discussed the use of “percent improvement” as the basis for performance targets, with the idea that every year agencies should show steady 

improvement. However, several participants suggested that while this trend 

approach works well for safety, a threshold-oriented approach would be preferred for preservation. Establishing a common goal based on specific thresholds 

for good/fair/poor would provide agencies with the option to maintain a steady 

state once an adequate level of performance was achieved. It was noted that not 

all states would need or want to increase the condition of their pavement or 

bridges after achieving a minimum threshold. In addition, agencies would be 

less justified in increasing targets once customers are satisfied with the current 

condition. 

How Should Targets Be Used? 

Peer exchange participants noted that performance targets hold significant 

promise for helping agencies communicate what can and can not be accomplished with existing funding levels. They also discussed how targets could be 

used to help the public and elected officials understand the implications of 

increasing or decreasing transportation budgets. 

However, the participants raised several concerns regarding the potential use of 

performance targets to influence the allocation of Federal funds. For example, 

they discussed the importance of equity considerations, and noted potential 

similarities to previous donor state disputes. They also discussed the potential 

for unintended consequences such as rewarding agencies that perform poorly. 

Finally, they noted that additional data improvements and greater confidence in 

technical models would be needed if targets were to be used as the basis for 

accountability and funding allocation. 

3.4 MEASURING PERFORMANCE IN OTHER

GOAL AREAS

Safety 

Similar to highway preservation, performance measurement in the safety area is 

more advanced than the other goal areas. Participants noted that in preparing 

the required Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), all states have moved 

toward a performance-based approach by developing goals and performance 

measures related to safety. AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Highway Traffic 

and Safety has developed 14 specific safety categories with measures and targets. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5

AASHTO’s SCOPM Safety Task Force has recommended annual fatalities as an 

appropriate performance measure for assigning a national goal and target. 

Based on their earlier discussions related to pavement and bridge performance, 

peer exchange participants identified the following recommendations for establishing safety performance measures: 

• Less is more. The international scan found that many safety programs 

started out very prescriptive, but were relaxed over time. Participants felt a 

small set of measures would improve the overall success of a performancebased program. 

• Acknowledge differences among the states. AASHTO will soon be 

releasing a comparative study of safety in all 50 states. The report highlights 

differences in state laws, organization structures, and legislative requirements related to safety. Given these differences and the fact that each state 

would be starting from a different performance baseline, participants suggested that all states should not be held to the same short-term targets. 

Congestion 

The SCOPM Congestion Task Force has found identifying and building consensus 

on a set of performance measures to be difficult. Based on the earlier pavement 

and bridge discussions, participants offered the following recommendations for 

the congestion goal area: 

• Start by defining which portion of the system is covered. In establishing 

the scope of congestion measures, participants noted to the need to consider 

data and technical capabilities. For example, evaluating congestion on key 

Interstate corridors would be easier than evaluating congestion on NHS local 

connectors. They also noted that congestion is a very different issue in urban 

areas then in rural areas. 

• Provide for flexibility in defining measures. Participants noted that no two 

states measure and report congestion the same way. States have varying 

definitions of congestion, standards on what is acceptable, and motivations 

for improving or not improving their congestion levels. Therefore, they discussed the potential to use agency-specific measures, rather than look for 

common national measures. 

• Consider moving away from national targets. Participants discussed the 

potential of considering congestion performance at the regional or local level 

rather then at a national level. They also discussed the idea of focusing on 

adherence to a performance-based congestion management process, rather 

than on the achievement of specific measure targets. 

• Incorporate benefit/cost analysis. Participants discussed the importance of 

benefit/cost analysis in the congestion management process. They suggested 

that a performance-based congestion program should encourage agencies to 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

3-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

identify projects that will provide the greatest value rather then focus on a 

worst-first approach. 

System Operations 

Although the systems operations goal area covers a wide range of activities and 

investments such as snow removal, incident management, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS), peer exchange participants noted that that Federal funds 

are spent primarily on ITS-related projects. As a result, they suggested that 

national measures for system operations focus on performance results that are 

affected by this type of investment. Furthermore, since ITS projects are aimed at 

congestion, some participants wondered if the systems operations goal area 

should be folded into the congestion goal area. 

The participants also noted that Federal operations investments should be targeted to that part of the system that most influences the national interest, such as 

the Interstate system and/or NHS. 

After discussing difficulties related to operations data and analysis (e.g., difficulties in calculating travel time reliability), the conversations focused on the potential for capital investment decisions for systems operations to be based more on 

benefit/cost analysis then specific performance measures. For example, before 

making decisions about where to invest capital operations funds, agencies could 

evaluate the costs and benefits of potential projects in a “Strategic Highway ITS 

Plan.”

Environment 

The candidate measures proposed by the SCOPM Environment Task Force 

include greenhouse gas emissions, climate change adaptation cost, and storm 

water runoff best practices. Peer exchange participants suggested that some 

measure of energy consumption be added to the list. They also discussed: 

• A desire to keep environmental performance measures simple; 

• The potential to focus on a performance-based environmental management 

process rather then specific performance targets; 

• Difficulties in contributing green house gases to the appropriate source (e.g., 

vehicles or fixed industry); and 

• A preference for sustainability measures that highlight the positive impacts. 

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program 

adopted by the U.S. Green Building Council was cited as an example of allocating credit for incorporating certain environmentally sustainable elements 

into a project. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-7

Freight/Economics 

The peer exchange participants discussed significant challenges in this goal area 

related to multimodal and multi-owner considerations. Similar to other goal 

areas, they noted the importance of benefit/cost analysis for improving national 

freight and economics performance. 

The participants then commented on several of the candidate measures under 

consideration. For example, some felt that the measure related to heavy train 

track capacity would require an accurate system inventory that would be challenging to collect and maintain. Others suggested that border crossing time is 

more of a transportation security consideration than a transportation capacity 

issue, and may not be an appropriate freight performance measure. Finally, participants noted that while the goal area is labeled as “freight/economics” the 

candidate list of measures in Table 2.1 focus on freight, and suggested that the 

list be expanded to include other aspects of economic performance. 

Summary of Lessons Learned from Pavements and Bridges 

In summary, lessons learned from the discussions of pavement and bridge performance that can influence the discussion in other goal areas include: 

• When it comes to performance measures, less is more; 

• Clearly define the goals and objectives for any specific goal area before establishing performance measures and targets; 

• Define which components of the highway system are in the national interest 

to identify where national targets may be appropriate; 

• Understand data limitations and establish how/which data can be used to 

evaluate national performance; 

• Allow for flexibility in how states implement measures; 

• Explore further the role of benefit/cost analysis in improving national performance with limited resources; and 

• Consider focusing on implementation of a performance-based strategy rather 

then achievement of specific targets as the basis for accountability. 

3.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

The transportation planning and programming process is the critical mechanism 

for achieving desired system performance. In this way, performance measures 

and targets should be applied to make decisions and allocate resources at the 

programmatic level. The SCOPM Planning and Programming Task Force, with 

members of the Standing Committee on Planning, is working to define the key 

elements of performance-based planning and programming and begin to 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

3-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

understand where states need to improve to achieve progress toward desired 

outcomes across goal areas. The Task Force is addressing questions such as: 

• What is the outcome of the process – a list of projects, some other type of 

strategy, something else? 

• Should both short- and long-term needs be considered? 

• Does the current long-range transportation planning process allow for performance-based planning? If not, what must be done differently? 

• How should agencies evaluate and prioritize projects that impact multiple 

goal areas and how can/should/will tradeoffs be made between goal areas? 

• Do agencies have the tools and flexibility needed to evaluate transportation 

plans and programs to understand the outcomes of packages of investment 

decisions? 

• Since the planning and programming process is tied to budget constraints, 

what agency targets are appropriate when revenues are uncertain? 

Answering these types of questions and developing the definition of 

performance-based planning and programming will require coordination with 

the other SCOPM task forces, as well as with Federal, state, and local agencies. 

To advance the discussion in this area, FHWA and AASHTO are sponsoring a 

performance-based planning and programming executive round table to coincide with the 2009 AASHTO Annual Meeting. 

3.6 IMPLEMENTATION

Peer exchange participants noted that moving transportation investment 

decision-making towards a performance-driven, outcome-based system will 

require a dramatic culture shift among implementing agencies at all levels. They 

also discussed that finding common ground in the general frustration of existing 

practices could help in building support for this type of change. For example, a 

performance-based approach could allow agencies to refocus on the projects and 

programs that matter most and de-politicize some day-to-day investment decisions. That said, the peer exchange discussions recognized that elected officials 

are ultimately responsible for transportation investment decision-making. 

Performance measures can and should influence these decisions, but they are not 

the sole driver of decisions. 

Participants discussed the following three key challenges to implementation: 

1. Tradeoff Analysis – What tools and techniques are available to help 

decision-makers evaluate and prioritize relative priorities between goal 

areas? Once the overall transportation budget is fixed, increasing performance in one area often requires decreasing it in another. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-9

2. Consistency and Comparability – The lack of consistency and comparability 

among the states is a major hurdle for allocation formulas that aim to distribute Federal funds based on national performance measures and targets. 

3. Data Management Systems – Greater confidence in data quality and analytical capabilities is required before agencies will be comfortable being held 

accountable for achieving specific targets. 

They also discussed the importance of establishing a realistic timeframe for 

incremental implementation. It was noted that even if the process is not perfect 

at the outset, it is important to start somewhere and pledge to refine and expand 

over time. For example, documenting asset management processes would 

enable agencies to illustrate that they are taking an objective approach to 

decision-making, and that investments are being used in a manner that will lead 

to improved system performance. Strategic Highway Safety Plans were also 

cited as a good example of a performance-based program that is working. The 

transition to performance management occurs when agencies start making decisions that are informed by their implication on system performance. Peer 

exchange participants felt that currently, it is possible for agencies to take greater 

strides in the more advanced areas of preservation and safety, and that lessons 

learned in these goal areas can be applied to the others. 
Asset Management and Management of Highway Performance 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-1

4.0 Next Steps 

Throughout the peer exchange, participants identified and discussed a number 

of unknowns, unresolved issues, and barriers related to the implementation of 

performance-based transportation programs. However, they also recognized the 

significant benefits of performance management and identified several practical 

ideas for moving forward. They also recommended that the findings from the 

peer exchange documented above be incorporated into the following ongoing 

efforts: 

• Subsequent work by the SCOPM tasks forces on finalizing recommended 

measures and national goals; 

• FHWA’s research effort on Performance-Based Management of Federal-Aid 

Highway Programs; and 

• Planning for the “Executive Roundtable for Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming,” which occurred on October 23, 2009 as part of the AASHTO 

2009 Annual Meeting. 

Finally, the participants strongly recommended that an initial set of targeted, 

national performance measures be finalized as soon as possible. Once this step is 

complete, the discussions can shift fully to how the measures will be used within 

a performance management framework. In planning for subsequent exchanges 

on this topic, organizers should be aware of the natural tendency for the discussions to shift towards the difficulties and potentially significant institutional 

changes involved in implementing a national performance-based transportation 

program. Performance measures are the foundation for performance management. By focusing first on specific measures, agencies can begin to make real 

progress without waiting for all the issues regarding the use of the measures to 

be resolved.