National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 490

[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054]

RIN 2125-AF54

National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

This NPRM is the third in a series of three related NPRMs that together establishes a set of performance measures for State departments of transportation (State DOT) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to use as required by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The measures proposed in this third NPRM would be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) for the purpose of carrying out the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. This third performance measure NPRM also includes a discussion that summarizes all three of the national performance management measures proposed rules and the comprehensive regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to include all three NPRMs.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2016. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by the docket number FHWA-2013-0020 by any one of the following methods:

Fax:

1-202-493-2251;

Mail:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;

Hand Delivery:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions:

All submissions must include the agency name, docket name and docket number or Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2125-AF54). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. The DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to

www.regulations.gov

, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at

www.dot.gov/privacy

.

Docket:

For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov

at any time or to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information: Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028; for legal information: Anne Christenson, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0740, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FHWA has published two additional NPRMs to establish the remaining measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c). The first performance measure NPRM proposed establishment of measures to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and fatalities, both in number and expressed as a rate, on all public roads. On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking. The second performance measure NPRM proposed establishment of performance measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions on the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP. This NPRM, the third performance measure NPRM, focuses on measures for the performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate System, and the CMAQ Program.

This last NPRM includes a discussion that summarizes all three of the rulemakings, both finished and underway, that will establish the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

C.

Incorporating the FAST Act

D. Costs and Benefits

II.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

A. Consultation with State departments of transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Stakeholders

B. Broader Public Consultation

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subparts E and G: Performance Management Measures to Assess Performance of the National Highway System and to Assess the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—Traffic Congestion

2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System

3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background

A. Summary of Related Rulemakings

B. Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions

C. Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements

V. Performance Management Measure Analysis

A. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subparts E and G—System Performance and Traffic Congestion

B. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart F—Freight Movement on the Interstate System

C. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart H—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

D.

Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion

A. Subpart A: General Information, Target Establishment, Reporting, and NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress Determination

B. Subpart E: National Performance Management Measures to Assess Performance of the National Highway System

C. Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System

D. Subpart G: National Performance Management Measures to Assess the

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—Traffic Congestion

E. Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures to Assess the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

a. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program and provides for a framework to support improved investment decisionmaking through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds would make transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make progress toward the following national goals:

1

1

These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance, condition, or emissions.

• Congestion reduction.—To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS.

• System reliability.—To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.

• Freight movement and economic vitality.—To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.

• Environmental sustainability.—To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement MAP-21 performance management requirements. Prior to MAP-21, there were no explicit requirements for State DOTs to demonstrate how their transportation program supported national performance outcomes. State DOTs were not required to measure condition/performance, to establish targets, to assess progress toward targets, or to report condition/performance in a nationally consistent manner that FHWA could use to assess the condition/performance of the entire system. Without States reporting on the above mentioned factors, it is difficult for FHWA to look at the effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program as a means to address surface transportation performance at a national level.

This proposed rule is one of several rulemakings that DOT is or will be conducting to implement MAP-21's new performance management framework. The collective rulemakings will establish the regulations needed to more effectively evaluate and report on surface transportation performance across the country. This rulemaking proposes regulations that would:

• Provide for greater consistency in the reporting of condition/performance;

• Require the establishment of targets that can be aggregated at the national level;

• Require reporting in a consistent manner on progress achievement; and

• Require State DOTs to make significant progress.

State DOTs would be expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to better inform their transportation planning and programming decisionmaking. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid program that would result from this rulemaking would provide FHWA the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding investments. The FHWA is in the process of creating a new public Web site to help communicate the national performance story. The Web site will likely include infographics, tables, charts, and descriptions of the performance data that the State DOTs would be reporting to FHWA.

The FHWA is required to establish performance measures through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas

2

generalized as follows: (1) Serious injuries per vehicle miles traveled (VMT); (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate System; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; (7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) on-road mobile source emissions; (10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) performance of the Interstate System; and (12) performance of the non-Interstate NHS. This rulemaking is the third of three rulemakings that together, will establish the performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess performance in each of these 12 areas.

2

These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance or condition.

This rulemaking seeks to establish national measures for areas 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, in the above list. This NPRM proposes to establish performance measures to assess the performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP; to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ program areas. The two proposed measures to assess performance of the Interstate are (1) Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel, and (2) Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour travel times meet expectations. The two proposed measures to assess performance of the non-Interstate NHS are (1) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable Travel and (2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times meet expectations. The two proposed measures to assess freight movement on the Interstate System are (1) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Time, and (2) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested. The proposed measure to assess traffic congestion is Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per Capita. Lastly, the proposed measure to assess on-road mobile source emissions is Total Tons of Emissions Reduced from CMAQ Projects for Applicable Criteria Pollutants and Precursors.

In addition, this NPRM builds on the framework of the previous performance rulemakings and the process proposed for State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for each of the measures; the methodology to determine whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP or National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) targets (targets for national measures areas 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, in the above list); and the process for State DOTs to use to report on progress toward achieving their targets.

b. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

The first performance rule established measures to be used by State DOTs to assess performance and to carry out the HSIP; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish safety targets; the methodology to determine whether State DOTs have achieved their safety targets; and the process for State DOTs to report on progress toward achieving their safety targets. The second performance rule proposed the

establishment of performance measures to be use by State DOTs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges and to carry out the NHPP.

With this third rule, FHWA proposes the establishment of: Performance measures to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS, traffic congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, and freight movement on the Interstate System; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish targets; the methodology to determine whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP and NHFP performance targets; and the process for State DOTs to report on progress toward achieving their targets. This NPRM includes one general information area (Subpart A) that covers definitions, target establishment, reporting on progress, and how determinations would be made on whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress toward NHPP and NHFP targets. Subparts E through H propose performance measures in four areas: (1) National Highway Performance Program—Performance of the NHS covered in Subpart E; (2) Freight Movement on the Interstate System, covered in Subpart F; and two measures relating to the CMAQ Program: (3) Traffic Congestion covered in Subpart G, and (4) On-Road Mobile Source Emissions, covered in Subpart H.

The FHWA had proposed in the prior performance management NPRMs to establish one common effective date for its three performance measure final rules. While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could be easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures required in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years since the enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure NPRMs (the first performance management NPRM was published on March 11, 2014; the second NPRM was published on January 5, 2015). Rather than waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing the MAP-21 performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase in the effective dates for the three final rules for these performance measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and State DOTs to begin implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules. The FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will also help State DOTs transition to performance based planning.

On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking. With the staggered effective dates, this Rule will be implemented in its entirety before the other two rules are finalized.

Based on the timing of each individual rulemaking, FHWA would provide additional guidance to stakeholders on how to best integrate the new requirements into their existing processes. Under this approach, FHWA expects that even though the implementation for each rule would occur after each final rule is published, implementation for the second and the third performance measure final rules would ultimately be aligned through a common performance period. In the second performance management measure NPRM, FHWA proposed that the first 4-year performance period would start on January 1, 2016. However, FHWA proposes in this NPRM that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2018. This would align the performance periods and reporting requirements for the proposed measures in the second and third performance management measure NPRMs. The FHWA has placed on the docket a timeline that illustrates how this transition could be implemented.

3

However, FHWA seeks comment from the public on what an appropriate effective date(s) could be.

3

FHWA Sample MAP21 Rule Making Implementation and Reporting Dates.

Contents of 23 CFR Part 490

This NPRM proposes to add to Subpart A general information applicable to all of 23 CFR part 490. This section includes requirements for data, target establishment, reporting on progress, and how to determine whether State DOTs have made significant progress toward achieving targets (for applicable measures). Subpart A also includes definitions and clarifies terminology associated with target establishment, reporting, and making significant progress for the performance measures specific to this NPRM. Subparts B, C and D were previously published in separate rulemaking documents.

Subpart B covered the proposed measures for the HSIP (RIN 2125-AF49); Subpart C proposed measures to assess pavement conditions on the NHS and the non-Interstate NHS (RIN 2125-AF53); and Subpart D proposed measures to assess bridge conditions on the NHS (RIN 2125-AF53).

Subpart E proposes a travel time reliability measure and a peak hour travel time measure to assess the performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. Subpart F establishes a travel time reliability measure and a congestion measure to assess freight movement on the Interstate System. Subpart G proposes an excessive delay measure to assess traffic congestion to carry out the CMAQ program. Subpart H proposes measures that will be used to assess the reduction of the criteria pollutants and applicable precursors to carry out the CMAQ program.

Summary of 23 CFR Part 490, Subpart A

In section 490.101, FHWA proposes to add definitions for “attainment area,” “criteria pollutant,” “Highway Performance Monitoring Systems (HPMS),” “freight bottleneck,” “full extent,” “mainline highways,” “maintenance area,” “measure,” “metric,” “Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),” “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” “National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS),” “nonattainment area,” “non-urbanized area,” “reporting segment,” “target,” “Transportation Management Area (TMA),” “Travel Time Data Set,” “Travel Time Reliability,” and “Travel Time Segment,” which would be applicable to all subparts within Part 490.

In section 490.103, FHWA proposes data requirements that apply to more than one subpart in Part 490. Additional proposed data requirements unique to each subpart are included and discussed in each respective subpart. This section proposes the source of urbanized area boundaries as the most recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA approves adjustments to the urbanized area. These boundaries are to be reported to HPMS. The boundaries in place at the time of the Baseline Performance Report are to apply to an entire performance period. Boundaries for the nonattainment and maintenance areas are proposed to be as designated and reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ program. The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs and MPOs use the NPMRDS to calculate the travel time and speed related metrics (a metric means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition that is used to develop the measures defined in this

rule), unless more detailed and accurate travel time data exists locally and is approved by FHWA for use.

The NPMRDS is a dataset based on actual, observed data collected from probes, such as cell phones, navigation units, and other devices, in vehicles that travel along the NHS roadways. The dataset includes travel time information collected from probes that is available at 5 minute intervals for all segments of the Interstate and NHS where probes were present. The advent of readily available vehicle-based probe travel time data in recent years has led to a transformation in information available to the traveler and the ability for State DOTs and MPOs to develop performance measures based on this data. Because travel time data on the entire NHS is available from actual measurements tied to a date, time, and location on specific roadway segments, measuring the performance of the system, freight movement, and monitoring traffic congestion can be much more accurate, widespread, and detailed. The availability of this data also provides the potential to undertake before and after evaluations of transportation projects and strategies. These data requirements are detailed in proposed section 490.103.

The FHWA is proposing State DOTs and MPOs coordinate to develop reporting segments that would be used as the basis for calculating and reporting metrics to FHWA for the measures proposed in Subparts E, F, and G to assess the performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate System, and traffic congestion. It is proposed that these reporting segments must be submitted to FHWA no later than the November 1 before the beginning of each performance period, and the same segments be used for Subparts E, F, and G for the entire performance period.

In section 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for all measures identified in section 490.105(c), which includes proposed measures both in this performance management NPRM and the second performance management NPRM. These requirements are being proposed to implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target establishment provisions to provide for consistency necessary to evaluate and report progress at a State, MPO, and national level, while also providing a degree of flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs.

In section 490.107, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in the reporting targets for all proposed measures identified in both this performance management NPRM and the second performance management NPRM.

Section 490.109 proposes the method FHWA would use to determine if State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP and NHFP targets. Significant progress would be determined by comparing the established target with the measured condition/performance associated with that target. If applicable, State DOTs would have the opportunity to discuss why targets were not achieved or significant progress was not made. For the NHPP and NHFP measures, if FHWA determines that a State DOT fails to make significant progress over each of the biennial performance reporting periods, then the State DOT is required to document in their next biennial performance report, though encouraged to document sooner, the actions they will undertake to achieve their targets.

Summary of Proposed Measures for This NPRM (Subparts E—H)

The NPRM gives details on specific measures, which are proposed to be added to four new Subparts of Part 490 that include:

Subpart E proposes two types of measures that reflect the

Travel Time Reliability

and

Peak Hour Travel Times

experienced by all traffic;

Subpart F proposes two measures that reflect the

Travel Time Reliability

and

Congestion

experienced by freight vehicles;

Subpart G proposes a measure that reflects the amount of

Excessive Delay

experienced by all traffic; and

Subpart H proposes a measure that reflects the

Emission Reduction

resulting through the delivery of projects.

Travel Time Reliability

is being proposed to reflect the consistency in expected travel times when using the highway system by comparing the longer trips experienced by users to the amount of time they would normally expect the trip to take. In Subpart E, the NPRM proposes a reliability measure that compares the longer trip travel times to the time normally expected by the typical user of the roadway. The proposal assumes the system to be “reliable” when the longer travel times are no more than 50 percent higher than what would be normally expected by users. For example, the system would be perceived as unreliable when a 40 minute expected trip would take 60 or more minutes. This proposed measure of reliability only reflects the travel times experienced during the times when the system is used the most, which is proposed to be between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This reliability approach is proposed to establish a measure specific to the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS.

Subpart F proposes a reliability measure to reflect the consistency of travel times on the system as experienced by shippers and suppliers. In this case the measure is a comparison of the longest travel times as compared to the time normally expected for the trip to take. The measure considers travel occurring at all hours of the day since this measure is designed to represent the perception of shippers and suppliers. In addition, this proposed freight movement measure is limited to the reliability of the Interstate System. As with all vehicles, the system is considered to be unreliable when the longest trip takes 50 percent more time than what would be normally expected. “Longer” and “Longest” trip travel times are described in more detail in the discussions of Section 490.505 and 490.607.

Also in Subpart E, as a complement to the reliability measure, the NPRM proposes a measure that evaluates the travel times experienced by all traffic during peak hours of the day. In contrast to the reliability measure which focuses on travel time variability, the peak hour measure is designed to measure the travel time during certain peak hours during the day, and how that compares to the desired travel time for that roadway at that time of day. The desired travel time is defined by the State DOT and MPO. It is expected that the desired time would be based on an analysis of how the roadway operates, its design features, any policy considerations, and how it functions within the larger system. As discussed previously, reliability reflects the consistency of trip time durations (

e.g.,

A user makes a trip every morning that consistently takes 30 minutes). The peak hour travel time measure reflects the actual length of the trip compared to the desired travel time for that trip (

e.g.,

Is the 30 minute trip duration too long for the time of day and the design of the roadway?). The peak hour measure reflects the actual travel times occurring on non-holiday weekdays during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The measure is designed to compare the longest trip time occurring during these hours to the amount of time desired to take the trip as perceived by the entities that operate the transportation system. This measurement approach is applied to the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS in only the largest urbanized areas

in the country (those with a population of 1 million or more). The proposed measure identifies the portions of the system where actual peak hour travel times are no more than 50 percent greater than the desired time to take the trip.

As a complement to the truck reliability measure, in Subpart F the NPRM is proposing a measure that reflects where trucks are experiencing congestion on the Interstate System. This measure identifies the portions of the Interstate System where actual truck travel speeds throughout the year are at least 50 mph. This measure considers use of the system every day throughout the year.

The NPRM includes two proposed measures that would be needed to carry out the CMAQ program. The first is a measure proposed in Subpart G that reflects traffic congestion and the second is a measure proposed in Subpart H that reflects emission reductions through the delivery of CMAQ funded projects.

The proposed traffic congestion measure reflects the total amount of time during the year when highway users have experienced excessive delay. The measure identifies times during the day when vehicles are travelling at speeds below 35 mph for freeways/expressways or 15 mph for all other NHS roadways. The proposed measure is designed to sum the additional travel times weighted by traffic volumes that occur during these excessive delay conditions throughout the year. Additionally, the measure is proposed to be expressed as a rate calculated by dividing the total excessive delay time by the population in the area.

The proposed emission reduction measure reflects the reductions in particular pollutants resulting from the delivery of CMAQ funded projects. The measure focuses on the total emissions reduced per fiscal year, by all CMAQ-funded projects by criteria pollutant and applicable precursors in nonattainment and maintenance areas.

More specific details on each of these measures, including information on the areas where the measure is applicable, are included in both the Performance Management Measure Analysis Section (Section V) and the Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and Proposed Performance Measures Sections (Section VI). In addition, FHWA has developed short fact sheets for each of these measures that will be available on the docket.

c. Incorporating the FAST Act

On December 4, 2015, the President signed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L.114-94; Dec. 4, 2015) into law. For the most part, the FAST Act is consistent with the performance management elements introduced by MAP-21. For convenience, this NPRM will refer to MAP-21 throughout the preamble to signify the fundamental changes MAP-21 made to States' authorities and responsibilities for overseeing the implementation of performance management.

For the purposes of this NPRM, the FAST Act made two relevant changes to the performance management requirements. The first is 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), which relates to the requirement for a significant progress determination for NHPP targets. The FAST Act amended this provision to remove the term “2 consecutive reports.” The FHWA has incorporated this change into this NPRM by removing the term “2 consecutive determinations,” which was proposed in section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), as well as 490.109(f) of the second NPRM, published January 5, 2015, at 80 FR 326. In section 490.109(f) of the second NPRM, FHWA stated that if a State DOT does not achieve or make significant progress for its NHS performance targets for two consecutive reporting periods (4-year period), then the State DOT must document in its Biennial Report the actions it will take to achieve the targets. The FAST Act has changed this. As a result, this NPRM proposes to require State DOTs to take action when they do not make significant progress over one reporting period, which looks back over 2 years. With this change, the significant progress determination is still made every 2 years, but it looks back over a 2-year period instead of a 4-year period.

The second change the FAST Act made is the addition of 23 U.S.C. 167(j), which requires FHWA to determine if a State has made significant progress toward meeting the performance targets related to freight movement, established under section 150(d) and requires a description of the actions the State will undertake to achieve the targets if significant progress is not made. To meet the these requirements, FHWA has incorporated language throughout this NPRM proposing to require the targets established for the measures in section 490.105(c)(6) to be included in the significant progress process and identifying the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve the targets if significant progress is not made. The FHWA has called these the NHFP targets. The NHPP and NHFP use the same process for assessing significant progress and determining if significant progress is made.

d. Costs and Benefits

The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new requirements proposed in this regulatory action. The new requirements represent a change to the current practices of State DOTs and MPOs. The FHWA derived the costs of the new requirements by assessing the expected increase in the level of effort from labor for FHWA, State DOTs and MPOs to standardize and update data collection and reporting systems, as well as establish and report targets.

To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate

4

which varied by the type of laborer needed to perform the activity. Where necessary, capital costs were included as well. Most of these measures rely on the use and availability of NPMRDS data provided by FHWA for use by State DOTs and MPOs. Because there is uncertainty regarding the ongoing funding of NPMRDS by FHWA, FHWA estimated the cost of the proposed rule according to two scenarios. First, assuming that FHWA provides State DOTs and MPOs with the required data from NPMRDS, the 11-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $165.3 million (Scenario 1).

5

Alternatively, under “worst case” conditions where State DOTs would be required to independently acquire the necessary data, the 11-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $224.5 million (Scenario 2). The total 11-year undiscounted cost is approximately 36 percent higher under Scenario 2 than under Scenario 1.

4

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost Index, 2012.

5

In FHWA's first two performance measure NPRMs, it assessed costs over a 10-year study period. Because FHWA is now proposing individual effective dates for each of its performance measure rules rather than a common effective date, the timing of the full implementation of the measures has shifted. Using an 11-year study period ensures that the cost assessment includes the first 2 performance periods following the effective date of the rulemaking, which is comparable to what the 10-year study period assessed in the first two NPRMs. An 11-year study period captures the first year costs related to preparing and submitting the Initial Performance Report and a complete cycle of the incremental costs that would be incurred by State DOTs and MPOs for assembling and reporting all required measures as a result of the proposed rule. The FHWA anticipates that the recurring costs beyond this timeframe would be comparable to those estimated in the 10-year period of analysis.

The FHWA performed three separate break-even analyses as the primary approach to quantify benefits. The FHWA focused its break-even analyses

for (1) enhancing performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS by relieving congestion, and (2) improving freight movement on the value of travel time savings. The FHWA estimated the number of hours spent in congestion needed to be saved by commuters and truck drivers in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. For each of these break-even analyses, FHWA presents results for both Scenario 1 (FHWA provides access to NPMRDS) and Scenario 2 (State DOTs must independently acquire the necessary data). The FHWA focused the third break-even analysis on reducing emissions. The FHWA estimated the reduction in pollutant tons needed to be achieved in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs.

The aforementioned benefits are quantified within the analysis, however, there are other qualitative benefits which apply to the proposed rule as a whole that result from more informed decisionmaking on congestion and emissions-reducing project, program, and policy choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater accountability because MAP-21-mandated reporting would increase visibility and transparency of transportation decisionmaking. The data reported to FHWA by the States would be available to the public and would be used to communicate a national performance story. The FHWA is developing a public Web site to share performance related information. In addition, the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.

The results of the break-even analyses quantified the dollar value of the benefits that the proposed rule must generate to outweigh the cost of the proposed rule. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would surpass these thresholds and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs.

Table 1 displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and benefits calculated for this rule.

Table 1—OMB A-4 Accounting Statement

Category

Estimates

Primary

Low

High

Units

Year

dollar

Discount rate

(%)

Period

covered

Notes

Benefits:

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year)

None

None

None

None

None

None

NA

NA

7

3

NA

NA

Not Quantified.

Annualized Quantified

None

None

None

None

None

None

NA

NA

7

3

NA

NA

Not Quantified.

Qualitative

More informed decisionmaking on freight-, congestion-, and air quality-related project, program, and policy choices; greater accountability due to mandated reporting, increasing visibility and transparency; enhanced focus of the Federal-aid highway program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.

Proposed Rule RIA.

Costs:

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year)

Scenario 1: $15,651,062

Scenario 2: $21,194,462

2012

7

11 Years

Proposed Rule RIA.

Scenario 1: $15,304,231

Scenario 2: $20,760,510

2012

3

11 Years

Annualized Quantified

None

None

None

None

None

None

2012

2012

7

3

11 Years

11 Years

None.

Qualitative

Transfers:

Federal Annualized Monetized ($millions/year)

None

None

None

None

None

None

NA

NA

7

3

NA

NA

None.

From/To

From:

To:

Other Annualized Monetized ($millions/year)

None

None

None

None

None

None

NA

NA

7

3

NA

NA

None.

From/To

From:

To:

Effects:

State, Local, and/or Tribal Government

Scenario 1: $15,271,675

Scenario 2: $21,189,733

2012

7

11 Years

Proposed Rule RIA.

Scenario 1: $14,931,176

Scenario 2: $20,756,223

2012

3

11 Years

Small Business

None

NA

NA

NA

None.

Wages

None

Growth

Not Measured

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym or abbreviation

Term

AADT

annual average daily traffic

AASHTO

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

CAA

Clean Air Act

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

CO

Carbon monoxide

DOT

U.S. Department of Transportation

EO

Executive Order

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FAST Act

Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FPM

Freight Performance Measurement

FR

Federal Register

GHG

Greenhouse gas

HPMS

Highway Performance Monitoring System

HSIP

Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSP

Highway Safety Plan

IFR

Interim Final Rule

LOTTR

Level of Travel Time Reliability

MAP-21

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

MPH

Miles per hour

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCHRP

National Cooperation Highway Research Program

NHFP

National Highway Freight Program

NHPP

National Highway Performance Program

NHS

National Highway System

NHTSA

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NO

X

Nitrogen oxide

NPMRDS

National Performance Management Research Data Set

NPRM

Notice of proposed rulemaking

O

3

Ozone

OMB

Office of Management and Budget

PM

Particulate matter

PRA

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

RIA

Regulatory Impact Analysis

RIN

Regulatory Identification Number

SHSP

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SME

Subject matter experts

State DOTs

State departments of transportation

TMA

Transportation Management Areas

TMC

Traffic Message Channel

TTI

Texas Transportation Institute

U.S.C.

United States Code

VMT

Vehicle miles traveled

VOC

Volatile organic compound

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

This section of the NPRM summarizes DOT's engagement and outreach with the public and with affected stakeholders during the NPRM development process and the viewpoints they shared with DOT during these consultations. Section III includes three sub-sections:

• Sub-section A provides a general description of the stakeholder consultation process;

• Sub-section B describes the broader public consultation process; and

• Sub-section C summarizes stakeholder viewpoints shared with DOT. This sub-section is organized sequentially around the three major measurement focus areas of this rulemaking, including: (1) system performance and traffic congestion measures, (2) freight movement measures, and (3) on-road mobile source emissions measures.

Stakeholder engagement in developing the NPRMs is required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c) to enable DOT to obtain technical information as well as information on operational and economic impacts from stakeholders and the public. State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and private and non-profit constituents across the country participated in the outreach efforts. A listing of each contact or series of contacts influencing the agency's position can be found in the docket.

A. Consultation with State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Other Stakeholders

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly with affected stakeholders (including State DOTs, MPOs, industry groups, advocacy organizations, etc.) to better understand the operational and economic impact of this proposed rule. In general, these consultations included:

• Conducting listening sessions and workshops to clarify stakeholder sentiment and diverse opinions on the interpretation of technical information on the potential economic and operational impacts of implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;

• Conducting listening sessions and workshops to better understand the state-of-the-practice on the economic

and operational impacts of implementing various noteworthy practices, emerging technologies, and data reporting, collection, and analysis frameworks;

• Hosting webinars with targeted stakeholder audiences to ask for their viewpoints through a chat pod or conference call;

• Attending meetings with non-DOT subject matter experts, including task forces, advocacy groups, private industry, non-DOT Federal employees, academia, etc., to discuss timelines, priorities, and the most effective methods for implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; and to discuss and collect information on the issues that need to be addressed or the questions that need to be answered in the NPRMs to facilitate efficient implementation.

B. Broader Public Consultation

It is DOT's policy to provide for and encourage public participation in the rulemaking process. In addition to the public participation that was coordinated in conjunction with the stakeholder consultation discussed above, DOT provided opportunities for broader public participation. The DOT invited the public to provide technical and economic information to improve the agency's understanding of a subject and the potential impacts of rulemaking. This was done by providing an email address (

performancemeasuresrulemaking@dot.gov

) feature on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site to allow the public to provide comments and suggestions about the development of the performance measures and by holding national online dialogues and listening sessions to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance measures, standards, and policies. The DOT also conducted educational outreach to inform the public about transportation-related performance measures and standards, and solicited comments on them.

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(A), FHWA will “provide States, metropolitan planning organizations, and other stakeholders not less than 90 days to comment on any regulation proposed by the Secretary . . .” During the notice and comment period, FHWA plans to hold public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these NPRMs, including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the public. However, all comments regarding the NPRM must be submitted in writing to the rulemaking docket.

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

This section summarizes some of the common themes identified during the stakeholder outreach. It is important to note that some of the stakeholder comments related to more than one topic. In that case, the comments were placed under the theme most directly affected. The three themes include:

• Subparts E and G: Performance Management Measures to Assess Performance of the National Highway System and for Assessing Traffic Congestion.

• Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and

• Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions.

1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subparts E and G: Performance Management Measures To Assess Performance of the National Highway System and For Assessing Traffic Congestion

The FHWA separated the stakeholder comments on the performance and congestion measures into four general areas, listed below and the comments are summarized in each of those areas.

• Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Approaches

• Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Calculation Methods

• Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles

• Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges

a. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on System Performance and Traffic Congestion Measurement Approaches

Stakeholders provided input to DOT on many different measure approaches for assessing either performance on the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP or assessing traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ program. In general, stakeholders' suggested approaches fell within the following categories:

•

Speed and Traffic Flow-based Approaches

—Some stakeholders suggested continued use of traffic flow-based performance measures already widely in use by transportation agencies. They suggested several variations on traffic flow-based approaches including use of “Level of Service” classifications described in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, volume to capacity ratios, or actual vehicle speeds relative to free-flow speeds. Some stakeholders noted that data to support these measure approaches is widely available.

•

Spatial and Temporal Extent of Congestion-based Approaches

—Some stakeholders suggested that the spatial or temporal extent of congestion should be used as the basis for measuring performance. Suggestions included measures of the portion of system segments exceeding acceptable travel times and measures of how traffic and freight in a corridor are balanced across parallel roads and other modes. For a temporal-based measure, stakeholders suggested that this information could be used to help plan strategies for moving traffic from more congested to less congested routes or find the best ways to increase corridor capacity.

•

System Throughput Efficiency and Vehicle Occupancy-based Approaches

—Some stakeholders suggested throughput or vehicle occupancy-based measures of performance. Variations of throughput and vehicle occupancy measures suggested by stakeholders included the quantity of vehicles, goods, or people per lane hour or vehicle occupancy rates. Stakeholders described “spillover” benefits from improving throughput efficiency or vehicle occupancy including fewer crashes, lower emissions, and lower demand for infrastructure. Some stakeholders, however, noted that access to or availability of throughput or occupancy data for non-highway modes is a challenge.

•

Travel Time-based Approaches

—Many stakeholders suggested that travel time should be used as the basis for measuring performance. They offered many variations for characterizing travel time performance including “travel time per person,” “travel time per vehicle,” “travel delay per person,” “travel delay per vehicle,” and “percent of commutes less than 30 minutes,” as well as use of these metrics to create planning time, travel time, travel slowness, or travel reliability indices. Some stakeholders also noted that travel time-based approaches might be adaptable for use in measuring transit, pedestrian, or bicycle system performance as data collection methods improve in the future. Many stakeholders who indicated support for travel time-based approaches stressed the importance of travel time reliability as a parameter that transportation users value highly. Some stakeholders who favored travel time-based approaches suggested that travel time measures are particularly relevant because travel time generally varies more than travel distance and it can be

influenced by State DOTs' and MPOs' operations practices.

•

Accessibility and Trip Generation-based Approaches

—Many stakeholders indicated a preference for accessibility measures over travel time-based measures as a basis for measuring performance. Several stakeholders indicated a concern that travel time-based measures emphasize mobility and may encourage dispersed land use patterns; whereas accessibility measures would emphasize ease of access to transportation options and consideration of where trips are generated. Stakeholders suggested many variations for characterizing accessibility or trip generation including “vehicle trip rate per household,” “transportation efficiency based on distance,” “miles traveled per employee,” “vanpool passenger mileage,” “number of employment locations reachable during rush hour within the travel time of the average commute,” “average home to work commute time,” “number of households able to reach businesses during off-peak hours within a reasonable time,” or “time required to go from place to place.” Some proponents of accessibility measures also suggested these measures may encourage greater consideration of non-auto travel modes like transit, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, and bicycling or options like telecommuting that tend to be more practical on systems with greater accessibility.

b. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Calculation Methods

Stakeholders provided considerable input to DOT on detailed aspects of measure calculation methods. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the following categories:

•

Geographic Focus for Measures

—Some stakeholders suggested performance measures should focus only on major corridors or in urbanized areas. They noted that current practice emphasizes corridor-level analysis and that the impact of heavily congested corridors may be masked by system-wide measures that include mostly uncongested system elements. Other stakeholders suggested that measures should focus on optimizing overall system performance rather than facility performance, with “system” being defined to include multimodal facilities as well as highways. Some stakeholders, however, suggested measures should be geographically scalable so that they can be used either on individual facilities or at a system-wide level.

•

Temporal Focus for Measures

—Some stakeholders suggested that performance measures should place particular emphasis on peak period travel to maximize productivity of roads during peak periods by minimizing congestion, reducing growth in VMT, and using the most cost‐effective methods to move people and goods. Other stakeholders suggested measures should generally be scalable on a temporal basis so they can be evaluated based on variable periods of time, such as individual hours, or grouped into peak periods.

•

Travel Time Measurement Options

—Stakeholders offered several suggestions for developing effective travel time-based measures:

—

Selection of Travel Time Percentiles for Travel Reliability Index

—Some stakeholders suggested that when formulating a travel reliability index, the 85th or 90th percentile travel time should be used rather than the 95th percentile because the highest percentile travel times may be outliers that do not reflect the impacts of day-to-day operations strategies on the system.

—

Use of Travel “Slowness” as an Index

—Some stakeholders suggested that reversing the widely used travel time index creates a more understandable metric by expressing congestion in terms of how slowly traffic is moving rather than in terms of how long trips take; they suggested, as an example, that describing a facility or system as operating at two-thirds of its desired performance (66.6 percent) is more understandable than saying it has a travel time index of 1.50.

—

Threshold Times for Travel Indices

—Some stakeholders suggested that free flow speed is appropriate to use in calculating travel time-based indices. Other stakeholders indicated that free flow or posted speeds are unrealistic because State DOTs lack resources to achieve free flow conditions across their networks. “Maximum throughput” speed was suggested by some stakeholders as an alternative to free flow speed which they indicated is usually 70 to 85 percent of free flow but varies by facility.

—

Travel Time Data Collection

—Some stakeholders suggested collecting origin and destination travel time data via techniques such as license plate surveys for vehicles or for other modes by riding bicycle or transit corridors to collect data.

•

Methods for Improving Accuracy of Vehicle Occupancy Counts

—Some stakeholders who supported vehicle occupancy-based measures suggested use of a combination of technology-based data collection methods for improving the consistency of vehicle occupancy data, such as automated video image processing or in-vehicle technologies like seat belt detectors, and survey or counting techniques, such as manual field counts, home interviews, transit rider counts, census survey questions, or trip generation studies at employment centers. Stakeholders noted that occupancy data collection can be costly and may not need to be comprehensive to provide reasonable estimates.

•

Use Census and American Community Survey Data

—Some stakeholders suggested U.S. Census data could be used to examine performance, including information on commuting contained in the Census. Other stakeholders also suggested DOT could work with the Census to develop self-monitoring technologies, like Global Positioning Systems (GPS), or to build on the model of the American Community Survey and develop a continuous data collection resource for more detailed commuting information. Some stakeholders suggested developing standardized survey templates for communities to use for their own travel surveys.

c. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles

Stakeholders provided DOT with input on general principles for selecting measures. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the following categories:

•

Measures Should Be Simple To Understand

—Many stakeholders suggested that measures should be simple for the general public to understand, with some further suggesting that travel time-based measures, particularly travel reliability, are well understood by the general public.

•

Measures Should Rely on Readily Available Data

—Some stakeholders suggested that measures should not include burdensome data collection requirements and that data collection and analysis requirements should be flexible and relevant to community needs. Some stakeholders noted that investment is needed in resources such as analysis tools and reporting mechanisms and guidance to make performance measures meaningful and useful.

•

Measures Should Reflect MAP-21 National Goals

—Some stakeholders suggested that DOT should select a set of measures that reflect MAP-21 national goals that benefit from reducing congestion while providing safer, more

sustainable transportation systems that increase accessibility.

•

States Should Be Allowed To Select Measures

/

Avoid “One-Size-Fits-All” Measures

—Some stakeholders suggested that selection of measures should be at the discretion of the State DOT or MPO, with Federal requirements focusing on monitoring and reporting of States' measures. It was also suggested that performance measures should not follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach and should allow for flexibility. Stakeholders noted that agencies have many options for improving traffic conditions, not only by adding capacity, but also by improving operations or reducing travel demand, and agencies' choices will depend on unique constraints determined by available funding, physical geography, and regional priorities. Stakeholders suggested that FHWA should allow agencies to tell their “story” via customized measures that reflect the unique strategies they use to manage congestion. Other stakeholders suggested that differences in data availability from place to place will preclude standardization and reasoned that FHWA should allow variation in measures because this will ensure agencies begin to assess performance.

•

Ensure Standardization of Measures

—Some stakeholders suggested that although allowing use of different measures is appealing because it gives flexibility to States, it will also make national-level analysis difficult. Based on this reasoning, these stakeholders concluded that measures should be standardized.

•

Avoid Measures That Cause Policy Bias

—Some stakeholders suggested that the choice of measures (

e.g.,

per vehicle mile or per capita) will influence how communities prioritize projects. For example, these stakeholders explained that policy decisions may be different if the measure is based on per vehicle mile crashes or per capita crashes because reporting changes in crashes per vehicle mile fails to reflect reductions in total vehicle mileage.

•

Measures Should Capture Wider Impacts

—Some stakeholders suggested that performance metrics should capture the effects of transportation investments on economic growth, efficient land use, environment, and community quality of life, and should support development of wider choices for solving congestion.

•

Measures for Individual Modes

—Some stakeholders suggested metrics should measure performance across transportation modes as a way to encourage development of multimodal transportation solutions. Other stakeholders expressed interest in measures that allow direct comparison of the benefits and costs of all modes (

e.g.,

transit, transportation demand management, road construction, system management). Stakeholders noted that if such metrics were pursued, they should consider the full extent of externalities in the calculation of costs. In particular, some stakeholders suggested that travel time-based measures should take into account all parts of a trip (walking, parking, driving, transit, etc.) to reflect overall transportation network performance.

•

Measures Should Establish Minimum Acceptable Performance Levels

—Some stakeholders suggested that performance measures should help transportation agencies identify where corridors fall below minimum performance levels and help communities identify alternatives that allow them to reach that minimum performance level.

•

Distinguish Between Congestion and Reliability

—Some stakeholders noted a distinction between recurrent congestion and travel time reliability, noting that agencies typically have limited control over recurrent congestion that is caused by physical capacity constraints. On the other hand, stakeholders explained that reliability can be influenced by efficient management of non-recurring incidents. A focus on reliability, according to these stakeholders, would give agencies credit for operational improvements that may improve travel time reliability but do not necessarily increase capacity.

d. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges

Stakeholders provided DOT with input on perceived measurement challenges. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the following categories:

•

Travel Time-based Measures Do Not Capture System Accessibility Benefits

—Some stakeholders expressed concern that reliance on travel time-based measures alone may penalize densely developed communities that offer high levels of accessibility but not necessarily shorter travel times.

•

Measures Should Recognize That Reducing Congestion Is Impractical in Some Regions

—Some stakeholders suggested that measures should acknowledge that, in fast growing areas, the rate of congestion growth can only be slowed down, not reversed.

•

Some Measures May Favor Adding Road Capacity Over Non-Auto Solutions to Congestion

—Some stakeholders expressed concerns about measure approaches they think are more likely to encourage road capacity additions that generate sprawl and are expensive to maintain, versus alternative solutions such as transit, carpools, bicycling, telework, or shifting work hours. Measurement approaches for which this concern was raised included measures that emphasize travel time per mile or vehicle speeds. Other stakeholders suggested that land use is a stronger influence on decisions to add road capacity than travel time or vehicle speeds.

•

Target Setting for Congestion Is Premature

—Some stakeholders suggested that system (congestion) performance measurement is one of the least mature and least robust measurement areas in transportation and that developing consistent data sets and understanding the patterns, causes, and trends in congestion is more important than establishing targets. Stakeholders suggested that a set of realistic performance targets should be determined locally (State and region) only after trend data and explanatory variables have been collected, analyzed, and made available for multiple years, thus creating a transition period or phased implementation of congestion related MAP-21 performance measurements.

•

System-wide Measures Do Not Support Project-Level Decisionmaking

—Some stakeholders expressed concern that national-level measures of performance are not sufficient to guide specific investments because they are not sensitive enough to capture the results of specific strategies and projects.

2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures To Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System

Freight movement is multidimensional and includes a variety of public and private stakeholders with unique perspectives. In addition to the public participation and stakeholder consultation described in Section III.A., of this NPRM, DOT held listening sessions with representatives of the freight stakeholder community from the private and public sectors. Outreach to stakeholders through these sessions provided valuable information for FHWA to consider in developing the proposed measures. The major themes collected from each session and relevant academic research are detailed below.

Freight Roundtable

The FHWA held a Freight Roundtable event that brought together membership of the Freight Policy Council, a group of the executive leadership in each

operating administration at DOT, with multimodal industrial representatives and State and local leaders. Discussion was focused on freight planning and performance measurement. Panelists representing the freight community provided insights into both planning and measurement practices, issues, needs, and opportunities. Major themes of the subsequent discussion focused on multimodal measurements including reliability, trip time, access, safety, accident recovery, and economic measures. Predominant measure suggestions included reliability and travel time, which were described by a majority of attendees as the most valuable to the freight system user in the movement of goods.

State-Level Stakeholders

The FHWA held a listening session for State-level stakeholder organizations as these organizations have followed MAP-21's development and DOT's implementation activities and will have responsibility for reporting on the measures. These State-level stakeholders have advocated transportation-related policies and developed a significant amount of transportation research and findings that have contributed to the performance measure discussions surrounding MAP-21 implementation. Their suggestions included measures such as travel time, reliability, and bottleneck identification. Specifically, participants described travel time, reliability and speed as important to understand economic efficiency. Concern was expressed regarding data collection, cost, and burden to the States. Additionally, participants noted concern about external factors that are harder to measure or consider, as well as a lack of control over measures for safety or economics, where States do not want to be evaluated because they have little control in how to influence the measure. There was some discussion on targets and thresholds, noting that measuring speed and travel time against posted speed would be challenging due to regulators on trucks that limit speed, and variations in external factors would need to be considered by States in setting targets.

In addition to the listening session, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) performed a comprehensive analysis of the MAP-21 provisions and wrote a letter that contained recommendations approved by their membership for the MAP-21 Performance Measure Rulemaking. Other stakeholders and individuals provided recommendations as well. These letters are all posted on the docket for review. For freight movement on the Interstate, these recommendations included the following:

• National level performance measures may not be the same performance measures State DOTs would use for planning and programming of transportation projects and funding.

• National level performance measures should be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, timely, and simple.

• National level performance measures should focus on areas and assets where State DOTs have control.

• The initial set of national-level performance measures should build upon existing performance measures, management practices, data sets, and reporting processes.

• National level measures should be forward thinking to allow continued improvement over time.

• Messaging the impact and meaning of the national-level measures to the public and other audiences is vital to the success of this initiative.

• Flexibility in target setting to allow States to set their own thresholds and targets.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Regional Organizations

Like State-level stakeholders, MPO and regional organization freight representatives provided input in the MAP-21 outreach process for freight movement on the Interstate performance measures. In a listening session held with these representatives, key themes were consideration of hours of service for truck operators, economic efficiency, job creation measures, environmental measures, congestion, travel speed, and reliability. These stakeholders also identified information from shippers as necessary for interpreting the user perspective. Representatives supported travel time and reliability as most critical for measurement and indicated that these measures were most important for businesses in their regions.

Additional regional organization stakeholders, representing both urban and rural areas, further called for consistency in the adoption of measures that could best describe the freight system while considering differences in mode, geography, locations of freight facilities, and practices. Additional concerns were related to how to adapt freight performance measures to current measures that may not provide the correct picture of freight movement even though they are good measures for passenger transport or some other function. Finally, representatives supported measures that identified reliability and the refinement and use of data for measuring reliability on freight corridors.

Trucking Industry and Freight Business Stakeholders

The FHWA held listening sessions with stakeholders representing a subset of the freight industry, primarily trucking, whose performance would be measured as part of this rule. These stakeholders represent various parts of the flow of goods from origin to destination and depend on the freight system for on-time deliveries of goods. More specifically, these stakeholders include professional truckers such as corporate drivers, owner-operators, and retired truckers, representatives of trucking companies, shippers, and related businesses.

The main comments received from these stakeholders related to truck parking, highway average speeds, bottlenecks, safety, oversize and overweight inconsistencies, tolls, and delay. Average speed was important to stakeholders because it provided drivers and industrial planners with the information they needed to plan routes and delivery schedules. Stakeholders identified reliability as important because it provides the driver with the flexibility to plan routes and deliveries by knowing what to expect at what time. One participant noted that it is very difficult for a driver to say that average speed is more important than travel time or reliability—this depends on time of day or where the driver needs to go. The participant gave examples where he could drive in and out of a metropolitan area without issue at one time of day but have significant delays at other times. Time of day and other external factors were said to be important when measuring performance.

Some shipper and business owner comments, as well as those of their own drivers, suggested that performance measures for freight include safety, travel time, hours of service, trends of delay, speeds, and connections to other modes or access. They said time was critical because travel times are useful in planning deliveries. Further, measuring trends of delay could help identify better opportunities for route plans. These stakeholders noted that bottlenecks, speed, and travel time information were important to measure and further, identified speed as a useful measure for determining bottlenecks.

In April 2013, FHWA sought clarification from stakeholders on

comments made during the listening sessions, specifically on measure thresholds and target setting. In subsequent outreach, the American Trucking Association, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and AASHTO primarily reiterated previous comments that, in developing the measure, FHWA should balance the public and private perspective by providing flexibility to States for assessing freight movement and developing a measure that would be useful to the freight industry.

a. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Approaches

Freight stakeholders provided diverse perspectives on approaches for assessing freight movement on the Interstate System including the use of measures based on accessibility, delay, speed, safety, parking availability, bottleneck identification, accident recovery, consistency in oversize/overweight vehicle practices, tolling practices, hours-of-service for truck operators, environmental impacts, and economic impacts. A common theme was the importance of speed, reliability, and travel time measures to freight system users because they can use this information to plan freight movements.

b. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges

Stakeholders provided input to DOT on the following perceived measurement challenges:

•

Avoid Additional Burden for Agencies

—Stakeholders expressed concern regarding the cost and burden to the States of freight data collection.

•

Lack of Control Over Performance Outcomes

—Some stakeholders noted concern about measuring and influencing external factors, such as safety and economic impacts, where agencies have little control over measure results.

•

Freight Measures are not the same as Broader System Performance Measures

—Some stakeholders expressed concern that broad system-level measures of performance may not adequately represent freight conditions.

c. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Methods

Stakeholders provided input to DOT on detailed aspects of measure calculation methods. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the following categories:

•

Use of “Posted Speed” in Performance Measures

—Some stakeholders noted that posted speed is not a satisfactory baseline for performance measures because of the use of embedded governors or speed control devices companies install on trucks that limit speed and variations in other external factors.

•

Reliability Thresholds

—Stakeholders supported the use of a reliability measure as it is universally used and understood among transportation agencies and freight representatives. Reliability is often measured in the form of an index such as a Planning Time Index or Buffer Index, which both express a ratio of the worst travel time compared to a free flow, normal day, or average travel time. Freight stakeholders supported the numerator of a measurement index to be defined as the 95th percentile because it represents the higher degree of certainty for on-time arrival that freight stakeholders use in their route planning and deliveries. Understanding the gap between normal travel time and the 95th percentile will help to work toward operational and capital strategies that will improve reliability. Improving freight reliability is critical for freight stakeholders as it lessens transportation costs associated with delay. Travel times above a 95th percentile are usually attributed to unique and outlying circumstances, such as a major accident or event that significantly shuts down the roadway.

•

Measure Definitions

—Stakeholders mentioned research by the National Cooperation Highway Research Program (NCHRP), including NCHRP Report 20-24 (37)G Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance Measures, that defines “average speed” as the average speed of trucks over a 24-hour period and “Reliability” as the ratio of the 95th percentile travel time to mean segment travel time.

d. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles

Stakeholders provided DOT with some general principles for selecting measures. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the following categories:

•

Flexibility in Measurement Approaches

—Some stakeholders suggested that national requirements for performance measurement should be flexible enough to allow for variation in regional and State geographic characteristics and modal options.

•

National Measures May Not Match State DOT's Measures

—National-level performance measures may not be the same performance measures State DOTs would use for planning and programming of transportation projects and funding.

•

Measures Should Address Issues that State DOTs Control

—National-level performance measures should focus on areas and assets where State DOTs have control.

•

Measures Should Build on Past Experience

—Stakeholders emphasized that the initial set of national-level performance measures should build upon existing performance measures, management practices, data sets, and reporting processes.

•

Measures Should Allow Improvement Over Time

—Stakeholders suggested that national-level measures should be forward thinking to allow continued improvement over time.

•

Measures Should be Accompanied by Communication

—Stakeholders suggested that messaging the impact and meaning of the national-level measures to the public and other audiences is vital to the success of this initiative.

•

Flexibility in Target Setting

—Stakeholders suggested that there should be flexibility in target setting to allow States to establish their own thresholds and targets.

•

Specificity, Simplicity, and other General Characteristics

—Stakeholders advocated for specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely national level performance measures. Additionally, stakeholders advocated for simplicity, arguing that measures should be simple and easy to understand.

3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

Stakeholders provided DOT with input on data collection and reporting related to on-road mobile source emissions. Suggestions generally fell in the following categories:

•

Consistency with Current CMAQ Reporting Requirements and Practices

—Some stakeholders suggested that on-road mobile source emissions measures should be consistent with current CMAQ program reporting requirements and practices because quantification of CMAQ project-related emissions reductions is already required under 23 U.S.C. 149. Stakeholders emphasized that any new performance data and reporting should be consistent with and build upon current practice.

•

Avoid Imposing Burdens on Areas in Attainment

—Some stakeholders suggested new measures should not burden those parts of the country with monitoring when none is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). It was noted that States without nonattainment areas are exempt from the burden of developing sophisticated emissions

analysis tools and should not be required to do so going forward.

•

Geographic Applicability of Reporting

—Some stakeholders suggested that emissions reporting should be limited solely to large urbanized areas where air quality planning efforts are focused and most CMAQ funding is directed. Other stakeholders suggested reporting also should include small urban areas.

•

Emissions Reporting Methods

—Stakeholders suggested various analytic and empirical methods for performance measurement:

—

Consistency with EPA or California Emissions Models

—Performance measures should be consistent with emissions modeling tools developed by EPA (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator—MOVES)

6

and the California Air Resources Board (EMFAC).

7

6

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator—MOVES:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.

7

California Air Resources Board (EMFAC):

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles.

—

Applicability of EPA-recommended Sustainable Transportation Measures

—The EPA's “Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures” is a helpful resource for developing on-road mobile source emission reporting approaches.

—

Applicability of Envision Tomorrow ArcGIS Tool

—Envision Tomorrow,

8

which is an extension for ArcGIS, could be a helpful tool for creating land-use scenarios and assessing their environmental and other impacts.

8

Envision Tomorrow:

http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/about-envision-tomorrow/.

—

Region-specific Fleet Information

—MPOs may wish to consider using region specific fleet mix information when calculating emissions.

•

Agency Emissions Data Capabilities

—Some stakeholders cautioned that State DOTs and MPOs vary in their capabilities to collect, replicate, and report data on an annual basis.

•

Emissions Reporting should Include Greenhouse Gases

—It was suggested that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be tracked since GHGs are correlated with fuel use and air toxins.

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background

The cornerstone of MAP-21's Federal-aid highway program transformation is the transition to a performance and outcome-based program. As part of this transformation, and for the first time, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds make transportation investments to achieve individual targets that collectively make progress toward national goals.

The MAP-21 provisions that focus on the achievement of performance outcomes are contained in a number of sections of the law that are administered by different DOT agencies. Consequently, these provisions require an implementation approach that includes a number of separate but related rulemakings, some from other modes within DOT. A summary of the rulemakings related to this proposed rule is provided in this section and additional information regarding all related implementation actions is available on the FHWA Web site.

9

9

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.

A. Summary of Related Rulemakings

The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements will be presented through several rulemakings. As a brief summary, these rulemaking actions are listed below and should be referenced for a complete picture of performance management implementation. The summary below describes the main provisions that DOT plans to propose for each rulemaking. The DOT has sought or plans to seek comment on each of these rulemakings.

1. First Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule (FR Vol.81 No.50),

10

Focused on Highway Safety

10

National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety Improvement Program, 81 FR 13882 (Published on March 15, 2016) (codified at 23 CFR part 490).

a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP

b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid highway program

c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of targets

d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing

e. Discuss how FHWA intends to implement MAP-21 performance-related provisions.

2. Second Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule (RIN: 2125-AF53),

11

Focused on Highway Asset Conditions.

11

National Performance Management Measures Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program, 80 FR 325 (proposed January 5, 2015) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 490).

a. Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS pavements and bridges

b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid highway program

c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of targets for NHPP

d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing

e. Minimum standards for Interstate System pavement conditions.

3. Third Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule, Focused on Assessing Performance of the NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and CMAQ (This NPRM)

a. Propose and define national measures for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures and are not discussed under the first and second measure rules, which includes the following: National Performance Measures for Performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate National Highway System; CMAQ—Traffic Congestion; CMAQ—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions; and Freight Movement on the Interstate System

b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid highway program

c. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing

d. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of targets for NHFP as well as the NHPP

e. Provide a summary of all three performance measures rules (Table 2 below lists all proposed measures and the entire Part 490 is in the docket).

Table 2—Summary of Rulemakings To Implement the National Performance Management Measure Rules

Rulemaking

23 CFR Part 490 section

Proposed performance measure

Measure applicability

Safety PM Final Rule

490.207(a)(1)

Number of fatalities

All public roads.

Safety PM Final Rule

490.207(a)(2)

Rate of fatalities

All public roads.

Safety PM Final Rule

490.207(a)(3)

Number of serious injuries

All public roads.

Safety PM Final Rule

490.207(a)(4)

Rate of serious injuries

All public roads.

Safety PM Final Rule

490.207(a)(5)

Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries

All public roads.

Infrastructure PM NPRM

490.307(a)

Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition

The Interstate System.

Infrastructure PM NPRM

490.307(a)(2)

Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in in Poor condition

The Interstate System.

Infrastructure PM NPRM

490.307(a)(3)

Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition

The non-Interstate NHS.

Infrastructure PM NPRM

490.307(a)(4)

Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition

The non-Interstate NHS.

Infrastructure PM NPRM

490.407(c)(1)

Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition

NHS.

Infrastructure PM NPRM

490.407(c)(2)

Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition

NHS.

System Performance PM NPRM

490.507(a)(1)

Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel

The Interstate System.

System Performance PM NPRM

490.507(a)(2)

Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable Travel

The non-Interstate NHS.

System Performance PM NPRM

490.507(b)(1)

Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour travel times meet expectations

The Interstate System in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million.

System Performance PM NPRM

490.507(b)(2)

Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times meet expectations

The non-Interstate NHS in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million.

System Performance PM NPRM

490.607(a)

Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Time

The Interstate System.

System Performance PM NPRM

490.607(b)

Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested

The Interstate System.

System Performance PM NPRM: CMAQ -traffic congestion

490.707

Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita

The NHS in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million in nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program.

System Performance PM NPRM: CMAQ—On-road mobile source emissions

490.807

Total tons of emissions reduced from CMAQ projects for applicable criteria pollutants and precursors

Projects financed with CMAQ funds in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for one or more of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program.

4. Update to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN: 2125-AF52)

12

12

Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 79 FR 31784 (proposed June 2, 2014) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 450).

a. Supporting national goals in the scope of the planning process

b. Coordination between States, MPOs, and public transportation providers in selecting FHWA and public transportation performance targets

c. Integration of elements of other performance-based plans into the metropolitan and statewide planning process

d. Discussion in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs section documenting how the programs are designed to achieve targets

e. New performance reporting requirements in the Metropolitan transportation plan.

5. Updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations (FR Vol.81 No.50)

13

13

Highway Safety Improvement Program, 81 FR 13722 (published on March 15, 2016).

a. Integration of performance measures and targets into the HSIP

b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) updates

c. Establishment of Model Inventory of Roadway Element Fundamental Data Elements

d. HSIP reporting requirements.

6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset Management Plan Rule (RIN: 2125-AF57)

14

14

Asset Management Plan, 80 FR 9231 (proposed on February, 20, 2015)(to be codified at 23 CFR part 515).

a. Contents of asset management plan

b. Certification of process to develop plan

c. Transition period to develop plan

d. Minimum standards for pavement and bridge management systems.

7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20)

15

15

The FTA published their Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated items 7 and 8, on October 3, 2013. This ANPRM may be found at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf

a. Define state of good repair and establish measures

b. Transit asset management plan content and reporting requirements

c. Target establishment requirements for public transportation agencies and MPOs.

8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20)

16

16

Ibid.

a. Define transit safety standards

b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements.

9. Highway Safety Grant Programs Rule (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Interim Final Rule

17

(IFR), RIN: 2127-AL30, 2127-AL29)

17

23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway Grant Programs, Interim Final Rule, 78 FR 4986 (Jan. 23, 2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 1200).

a. Highway Safety Plan (HSP) contents, including establishment of performance measures, targets, and reporting requirements

b. Review and approval of HSPs.

B. Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions

The FHWA organized the many performance-related provisions within MAP-21 into six elements as defined below:

•

National Goals

—Goals or program purpose established in MAP-21 to focus the Federal-aid highway program on specific areas of performance.

•

Measures

—Establishment of measures by FHWA to assess performance and condition in order to carry out performance-based Federal-aid highway programs.

•

Targets

—Establishment of targets by recipients of Federal-aid highway funding for each of the measures to document expectations of future performance.

• Plans—Development of strategic and/or tactical plans by recipients of Federal-aid highway funding to identify strategies and investments that will address performance needs.

•

Reports

—Development of reports by recipients of Federal funding that would document progress toward the achievement of targets, including the effectiveness of Federal-aid highway investments.

•

Accountability

—Requirements developed by FHWA for recipients of Federal funding to use to achieve or make significant progress for targets established for performance.

The following provides a summary of MAP-21 provisions, as they relate to the six elements listed above, including a reference to other related rulemakings that should be considered for a more comprehensive view of MAP-21 performance management implementation.

1. National Goals

The MAP-21 sec. 1203 establishes national goals to focus the Federal-aid highway program. The following national goals are codified at 23 U.S.C. 150(b):

•

Safety

—To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.

•

Infrastructure condition

—To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.

•

Congestion reduction

—To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS.

•

System reliability

—To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.

•

Freight movement and economic vitality

—To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.

•

Environmental sustainability

—To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

•

Reduced project delivery delays

—To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.

These national goals will largely be supported through the metropolitan and statewide planning process, which is discussed under a separate rulemaking (RIN: 2125-AF52) to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR part 450.

2. Measures

The MAP-21 requires the establishment of performance measures, in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, that would do the following:

• Carry out the NHPP and assess the condition of pavements on the Interstate System and the NHS (excluding the Interstate System), the condition of bridges on the NHS, and performance of the Interstate System and NHS (excluding the Interstate System);

• Carry out the HSIP and assess serious injuries and fatalities per VMT and the number of serious injuries and fatalities;

• Carry out the CMAQ program and assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions; and

• Assess freight movement on the Interstate System.

The MAP-21 also requires the Secretary to establish the data elements necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a performance-based approach.

18

18

23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1)

The FHWA proposed to issue three rulemakings in sequence to implement the measures for the areas listed above. The first rulemaking, issued as a NPRM on March 11, 2014 and published as a final rule on March 15, 2016, focused on the performance measures, for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP, to assess the number of serious injuries and fatalities and serious injuries and fatalities per VMT. The second NPRM focused on the measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges, and this third NPRM proposes measures for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).

The FHWA had proposed in the prior performance management NPRMs to establish one common effective date for its three performance measure final rules. While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could be easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures required in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years since the enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure NPRMs (the first performance management NPRM was published on March 11, 2014; the second NPRM was published on January 5, 2015). Rather than waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing the MAP-21 performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase in the effective dates for the three final rules for these performance measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and State DOTs to begin implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules. The FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will also help State DOTs transition to performance based planning.

On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking. With the staggered effective dates, the Rule will be implemented in its entirety before the other two rules are finalized.

Based on the timing of each individual rulemaking, FHWA would provide additional guidance to stakeholders on how to best integrate the new requirements into their existing processes. Under this approach, FHWA expects that even though the implementation for each rule would occur as each final rule is published, implementation for the second rule would ultimately be aligned with the third rule through a common

performance period. In the second performance management measure NPRM, FHWA proposed that the first 4-year performance period would start on January 1, 2016. However, FHWA proposes in this NPRM that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2018. This would align the performance periods and reporting requirements for the proposed measures in the second and third performance management measure NPRMs. The FHWA has placed on the docket a timeline that illustrates how this transition could be implemented. However, FHWA seeks comment from the public on what an appropriate effective date(s) could be. Additional information on the approach to establish performance measures for the Federal-aid highway program can be found on FHWA's Transportation Performance Management Web site.

19

19

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/schedule.cfm

.

The MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum levels for the condition of pavements for the Interstate System necessary to carry out the NHPP, which was proposed in the second rulemaking.

20

In addition, MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum standards for State DOTs to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems, which FHWA proposed in a separate rulemaking to establish an Asset Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57) for the NHS.

21

20

23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).

21

23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).

Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional measures to assess public transportation performance.

22

These measures, which would be used to monitor the state of good repair of transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, would be addressed in two separate rulemakings led by Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

22

49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.

In regard to the Federal Lands Transportation Program, FHWA anticipates working with eligible Federal entities to establish performance measures.

3. Targets

The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program

23

and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these measures where applicable.

24

The first NPRM proposed the process for State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety performance targets, and was published as a final rule on March 15, 2016. The second NPRM and the third Federal-aid highway measure NPRM discusses similar target establishment requirements for State DOTs and MPOs as they relate to the measures discussed in the respective proposed rules. Additionally, State DOTs and MPOs are required to coordinate when selecting targets for the areas specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) in order to ensure consistency in the establishment of targets, to the maximum extent practical.

25

A separate rulemaking to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN 2125-AF52) at 23 CFR 450 discusses this coordination requirement.

23

23 U.S.C. 150(d).

24

23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).

25

23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).

Further, MAP-21 requires State Highway Safety Offices to establish targets for 11 core highway safety program outcome measures in the State HSP, which NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final Rule,

26

and for recipients of public transportation Federal funding and MPOs to establish state of good repair and safety targets.

27

Discussions on these target establishment requirements are not included in this NPRM. Rather, DOT will discuss those target establishment requirements in the subsequent rulemakings to implement these respective provisions.

26

23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs, Interim final rule, 78 FR 4986 (January 23, 2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 1200). An eleventh core outcome measure for bicycle fatalities was added after the publication of the Interim Final Rule and is available at

http://www.ghsa.org/html/resources/planning/index.html

.

27

49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.

4. Plans

A number of provisions within MAP-21 require States and MPOs to develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions require: State DOTs to develop an Asset Management Plan;

28

State DOTs to update their SHSP;

29

MPOs serving large TMAs in areas of nonattainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan;

30

MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan;

31

and State DOTs and MPOs to include a discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as to how the program would achieve the performance targets they have established for the area.

32

In addition, State DOTs are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan

33

to document planned activities and investments with respect to freight. This rulemaking does not discuss any requirements to develop or how to use these plans, with the exception of some discussion of the CMAQ Performance Plan. Rather, a discussion on the development and use of these plans will be included in the respective rulemakings or guidance to implement these provisions. More information on the required plans and the actions to implement the statutory provisions related to plans can be found on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.

34

28

23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2).

29

23 U.S.C. 148(d).

30

23 U.S.C. 149(l).

31

23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).

32

23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).

33

MAP-21, sec. 1118.

34

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm

.

5. Reports

The MAP-21 sec. 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial reports to FHWA on the condition and performance of the NHS, the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in a State DOT's asset management plan for the NHS, progress in achieving targets, and ways in which a State DOT is addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks.

35

The FHWA proposed in the first NPRM that safety progress be reported by State DOTs through the HSIP annual report and not in the biennial report required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM, under Subpart A, discusses the 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement. The 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement would apply to all of the non-safety measures for the Federal-aid highway program (

i.e.,

the measures proposed in this NPRM and in the second Performance Measure NPRM).

35

23 U.S.C. 150(e).

Additional progress reporting is required under the CMAQ program, Metropolitan transportation planning, elements of the Public Transportation Act of 2012, and the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2012. Also, State DOTs should include a system performance report in their statewide transportation plan. These reporting provisions are discussed in separate rulemakings and guidance and are not discussed in this rulemaking, with the exception of some reporting required by MPOs as part of the CMAQ program.

6. Accountability

Two provisions within MAP-21, specifically 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) under the NHPP and 23 U.S.C. 148(i) under the HSIP, and one provision within FAST Act (Section 1116 codified at 23 U.S.C. 167(j)) under NHFP require the State DOT to undertake actions if significant progress is not made toward the achievement of State DOT targets established for these respective programs. The FAST Act Section 1406 modified the NHPP significant progress language and added language for the NHFP. Accordingly, for NHPP and NHFP, if the State DOT has not achieved or made significant progress toward the achievement of applicable targets in a single FHWA biennial determination, then the State DOT must document in its next biennial report the actions it will take to achieve the targets.

Please note that FHWA proposes in section 490.109(e) that FHWA would consider a State DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of an NHPP or NHFP target when either: (1) The actual condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State DOT established target; (2) or the actual condition/performance is better than the State DOT identified baseline of condition/performance. So the term “achieved or made significant progress” is synonymous with the term “made significant progress” throughout this NPRM. This provision is discussed in the second performance measure NPRM and in this NPRM.

For the HSIP, if the State DOT does not achieve or make significant progress for its HSIP safety targets, then the State DOT must dedicate a specified amount of obligation limitation to safety projects and prepare an annual implementation plan.

36

The first performance measure NPRM discussed this provision, and it is codified in the final rule that covers the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking published on March 15, 2016.

36

23 U.S.C. 148(i).

In addition, MAP-21 requires that each State DOT maintain a minimum condition level for Interstate System pavement and NHS bridge conditions. If a State DOT falls below either standard, then the State DOT must spend a specified portion of its funds for that purpose until the minimum standard is exceeded.

37

This provision was discussed in the second performance measure NPRM, which proposed pavement and bridge performance measures for the NHS.

37

23 U.S.C. 119(f).

The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact that State DOTs can have on performance outcomes within the State and that State DOTs need to consider this uncertainty in their establishment of targets. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to consult with relevant entities (

e.g.,

MPOs, local transportation agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies, tribal governments) as State DOTs establish targets, so they can better identify and consider factors outside of their direct control that could impact future condition/performance.

Further, MAP-21 includes special safety rules to require each State DOT to maintain or improve safety performance on high risk rural roads and for older drivers and pedestrians.

38

If the State DOT does not meet these special rules, which contain minimum performance standards, then it must dedicate a portion of HSIP funding (in the case of the high risk rural road special rule) or document in their SHSP actions it intends to take to improve performance (in the case of the older driver and pedestrian special rule). Guidance on how FHWA will administer these two special rules is provided on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.

39

38

23 U.S.C. 148(g).

39

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm

and

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guideolder.cfm

.

C. Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements

The FHWA will implement the performance requirements within section 1203 of MAP-21 in a manner that results in a transformation of the Federal-aid highway program so that the program focuses on national goals, provides for a greater level of accountability and transparency, and provides a means for the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. In this regard, FHWA plans to implement these new requirements in a manner that will provide Federal-aid highway fund recipients the greatest opportunity to fully embrace a performance-based approach to transportation investment decisionmaking that does not hinder performance improvement. In this regard, FHWA carefully considered the following principles in the development of proposed regulations for national performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c):

• Provide for a National Focus—focus the performance requirements on outcomes that can be reported at a national level.

• Minimize the Number of Measures—identify only the most necessary measures that will be required for target establishment and progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to one or no more than two per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).

• Ensure for Consistency—provide a sufficient level of consistency, nationally, in the establishment of measures, the process to establish targets and report expectations, and the approach to assess progress so that transportation performance can be presented in a credible manner at the national level.

• Phase in Requirements—allow for sufficient time to comply with new requirements and consider approaches to phase in new approaches to measuring, target establishment, and reporting performance.

• Increase Accountability and Transparency—consider an approach that would provide the public and decisionmakers a better understanding of Federal transportation investment returns and needs.

• Consider Risk—recognize that risks in the target establishment process are inherent and that many factors, outside the control of the entity required to establish the targets, can impact performance.

• Understand that Priorities Differ—recognize that targets need to be established across a wide range of performance areas and that performance trade-offs would need to be made to establish priorities, which would be influenced by local and regional needs.

• Recognize Fiscal Constraints—provide for an approach that encourages the optimal investment of Federal funds to maximize performance but recognize that, when operating with scarce resources, performance cannot always be improved.

• Provide for Flexibility—recognize that the MAP-21 requirements are the first steps that will transform the Federal-aid highway program to a performance-based program and that State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders will be learning a great deal as implementation occurs.

The FHWA considered these principles in this and previous NPRMs and encourages comments on the extent to which the approach to performance measures set forth in this NPRM supports the principles discussed above.

Federal Technical Assistance

The FHWA is committed to providing stewardship to State DOTs and MPOs assisting them as they take steps to

manage and improve the performance of the highway system. As a Federal agency, FHWA is in a unique position to utilize resources at a national level to capture and share strategies that can improve performance. The FHWA is prepared to dedicate resources at the national level to provide on-site assistance, technical tools and guidance to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them in making more effective investment decisions. It is FHWA's intent to be engaged at a local and national level to provide resources and assistance from the onset to identify opportunities to improve performance and to increase the chances for full State DOT and MPO compliance of new performance related regulations. The FHWA technical assistance will include activities such as conducting national research studies, developing analytical modeling tools, identifying and promoting best practices, preparing guidance materials, and developing data quality assurance tools. The FHWA encourages comments on how it can help maximize opportunities for successful implementation.

V. Performance Management Measure Analysis

This section of the NPRM summarizes the process FHWA used to consider potential performance measures, including alternate data sources and potential measures. The FHWA's analysis was based on consideration of viewpoints from several sources including:

• Knowledge of technical experts within DOT and FHWA on the current state of practice for measuring system performance, freight movement, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions;

• Information provided by external stakeholders received directly or captured as part of organized stakeholder listening sessions;

• Information provided by external stakeholders received indirectly through informal contact such as telephone calls, email, or letters; and

• Measures that have been recommended and documented in nationally recognized reports such as the assessment of measurement readiness documented in the 2011 final report for NCHRP Project 20-24(37)G, “Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance Measurements.”

Compared with the two previous NPRMs in this series, the measurement areas covered by this NPRM are more varied from State to State; consequently, stakeholders' consensus about approaches for measuring performance is inconsistent. To aid its analysis of alternate measurement options for this NPRM specifically, FHWA relied on an expanded set of qualitative criteria (which supplement the assessment factors/criteria utilized in the other performance measure NPRMs) to ensure that a set of measures established through this rulemaking would allow for:

• A national performance story to be communicated in a credible and reliable manner;

• State DOTs and MPOs to consider their unique expectations of desirable performance;

• The potential for use across multiple surface transportation modes;

• One core set of data to be used to assess system performance, traffic congestion, and freight movement; and

• The potential utilization of new data as technology progresses.

Section V includes three sub-sections, which describe FHWA's assessment of measures using the expanded set of criteria as well as the assessment factors and criteria used in the two previous performance measure NPRMs:

• Sub-Section A—Analysis and assessment of potential data sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring system performance and traffic congestion;

• Sub-Section B—Analysis and assessment of potential data sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring freight movement, and

• Sub-Section C—Analysis and assessment of potential data sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring on-road mobile source emissions.

Also, each sub-section below describes FHWA's evaluation of the measures using a common methodology to identify gaps that could impact successful implementation of proposed performance measures.

A. Selection of Measures for Subparts E and G—System Performance and Traffic Congestion

This sub-section describes FHWA's analysis of data types, sources, and measurement methods to support potential measures. We also include a brief history of, and lessons learned from, FHWA's research on congestion and reliability performance measures. Lastly, this sub-section describes FHWA's assessment of proposed measures including: (1) Percentage of system providing for reliable travel times; (2) percentage of system providing where peak hour travel times meet expectations; and (3) annual excessive delay per capita.

System Performance and Traffic Congestion Data Types and Sources Considered by FHWA

The FHWA considered several potential data sources for use in measuring system performance and traffic congestion including travel speed and time data, travel volume data, vehicle throughput data, and other trip information on data.

Travel Speed or Travel Time Data

—Many State DOTs, MPOs, local agencies, and travel corridor partnerships make use of vehicle speed and travel time data sets to manage system operations or report performance. The FHWA recognizes that travel time or speed does not provide information on the purpose of trip, trip origin and destination, transportation mode, or occupancy rates. However, FHWA has been working to advance the quality of this data. One way FHWA has done this is by acquiring and making available to State and local governments a national travel time data set, the NPMRDS, to support national, State, and local system performance and congestion reporting, research and analysis needs. At this time, FHWA finds that the NPMRDS is the only national travel speed and travel time data source available to State DOTs and MPOs that could reliably support all the performance reporting needs of this rulemaking.

Traffic Volume Data

—All State DOTs report annual average daily traffic (AADT) for all Federal-aid eligible roadways to FHWA's HPMS database. All State DOTs also voluntarily provide monthly counts of AADT to FHWA, which FHWA uses to produce monthly national traffic volume trend information.

40

The FHWA believes, however, that traffic volume data offers an incomplete picture of either system performance or traffic congestion because it lacks information about traffic volume by specific times of the day, and because volume counts are based on information collected at a limited number of locations. As these weaknesses do affect the accuracy or value of volume counts, FHWA concluded that volume data would be a poor choice as the sole data source for measuring system performance or traffic congestion.

40

FHWA Traffic Volume Trends:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm.

Traffic Throughput Data—

Some researchers and practitioners have used data on the total number of vehicles or persons passing through a specific

location during a defined time period to measure system performance and/or traffic congestion. The FHWA believes that performance throughput data is not widely available at a national level nor is it routinely measured on a system-wide basis in States. However, we seek comment on the use and availability of performance throughput data.

To measure throughput on the NHS would require near constant vehicle count/volume data that does not exist today except for a very limited number of locations (usually those locations where HPMS requires reporting of volume). Person count data, which would be used for measuring person throughput, is typically based on vehicle occupancy which is typically reported as an average based on surveys (including the U.S. Census) or as a set multiplier to vehicles (

e.g.,

1.1 occupants per vehicle), although limited counts at single locations on roadways are often undertaken. Classification of vehicles data (for assigning person trips) is also available in a very limited number of locations and would be required for measuring the number of people in buses or vans, for example.

The FHWA concludes that an almost complete lack of data availability makes throughput data impractical as a measure of performance. The FHWA recognizes, however, that improvements in traffic data collection technologies could offer the potential to measure throughput on a system-wide basis in the future.

Other/Trip Information

—The FHWA also considered various alternative data types related to trip characteristics that offer insights on system performance and traffic congestion such as typical travel times, trip purpose, and trip origin and destination information. This data is generally collected using surveys, such as the American Community Survey, or regional travel surveys produced by MPOs that sample a statistically representative portion of all travelers. Although surveys of this kind can provide valuable information to help plan and manage transportation demand, FHWA believes the information captured could not easily be used to support a national performance measure because these surveys are administered infrequently and are not referenced to specific locations.

A summary of FHWA's analysis of the viability of various data types to support national measures to assess system performance and traffic congestion is provided in Table 3 below:

Table 3—Summary Assessment of Data Types for Use in Support of National Measures To Assess System Performance and Traffic Congestion

Information source

National data source available?

Update frequency

Granularity

Considered for the proposed rule?

Speed or Travel Time

Yes

Monthly

Roadway segment

Yes.

Traffic Volume

Yes

Annual

Roadway segment

Yes.

Throughput

No

Varies

Specific Corridors

No.

Trip Information

Yes

Annual

Regional

No.

Based on the discussion in this section, FHWA considered use of travel time, speed, or traffic volume data to support measures for system performance and traffic congestion.

Request for comments: FHWA recognizes limitations in the availability of data could be resolved in the future with technology advancement. The FHWA seeks comments on potential data sources and technologies related to system performance and traffic congestion measures, including:

1.

Trip Information Data:

The FHWA is seeking comments on approaches for gathering travel, trip origin and destination, transportation mode, or occupancy rates information on a routine and system-wide basis.

2.

Throughput Data:

The FHWA is seeking comment on approaches for gathering throughput data for traffic congestion that would capture the total number of travelers passing through segments that make up a full system on a regular basis.

3.

Survey Data:

The FHWA recognizes that survey data available today offers only limited application to the development of performance measures; technologies available to capture large volumes of data on the movement of people could provide the potential to capture trip-related information that could be useful in managing transportation performance. The FHWA is seeking comment on approaches that can be used to capture trip-related information on a more routine and system-wide basis.

System Performance and Traffic Congestion Measures Considered by FHWA

The FHWA identified and considered a variety of approaches to express travel time, speed, or traffic volume data as measures of system performance or traffic congestion including travel delay, a travel time index, travel time, travel time reliability, or Level of Service. A summary of how these suggestions and approaches were considered by FHWA is provided below:

Travel Delay-Based Measure

—Delay is typically a corridor or system-level indicator of additional travel time or slower travel speed when compared to the desired time or the desired speed of travel; it is easily understood by transportation users and is meaningful, expressed in terms of lost time, for all modes of surface transportation. The FHWA finds that many operating agencies use delay metrics to report on and manage system performance; however, the definition of delay varies among agencies. The FHWA acknowledges that delay measures do not capture system performance attributes in terms of shorter trips or better access to destinations and modal options, which may occur at the expense of greater delay. For example, transportation priorities in a region may focus on land use decisionmaking that concentrates populations, resulting in reduced speeds but improving access to destinations and modal options. The FHWA considered these concerns in the design of measures based on delay.

Travel Time Index Measure

—A travel time index compares actual travel time for a road segment (typically during the peak period) relative to a reference travel time. The FHWA finds that travel time indices are widely used to report on and manage system performance and traffic congestion. As with delay metrics, FHWA acknowledges that travel time indices do not capture system attributes in terms of shorter trips or better access to destinations and mode options, which may occur at the expense of greater delay. Recognizing that a free-flow speed-based reference travel time may not support regional and local planning policies, FHWA believes it is appropriate for individual State DOTs and/or MPOs to establish reference travel times that support local priorities for certain types of measures.

The FHWA believes that the use of an index provides an effective means to normalize travel times so that the performance can be evaluated across different roadway segments and used to calculate a national performance measure.

Travel Time-Based Measure

—A measure calculated using a travel time-based metric would report actual travel times for origin-destination pairs rather than comparing actual travel time to a reference travel time. The FHWA believes that use of travel time by itself as a metric or measure would be difficult for the public to understand without also knowing the associated origin-destination information. The FHWA believes that the use of an index that compares actual travel time to expected travel time is more meaningful to the public.

Travel Time or Speed Reliability Measure

—This measure would compare the longest travel time or slowest speed that occurs during a specified time frame to a reference travel time or speed for a transportation facility. A reliability measure is an indication of the extra time a traveler must add to their trip in order to have a high degree of certainty that they will arrive at their destination on time. The FHWA finds that travel time reliability measures are widely used to report on and manage system performance. The FHWA also notes two important refinements that strengthen travel time reliability measures: (1) Some agencies exclude the top 20 percent of longest travel times throughout the year because these travel times typically are due to extreme events that are beyond an agency's control and should not be considered in the assessment of overall system performance; and (2) The reference travel time used in a reliability measure often reflects travel time associated with typical or average travel speeds rather than the time associated with free flow travel speeds.

Level of Service-Based Measure

—Some transportation agencies assess the performance of their highways by comparing existing traffic volume to the capacity for which those highways are designed in a measure that is typically referred to as the Level of Service. This approach assumes that as traffic volume reaches the capacity of the system, performance is reduced. However, FHWA believes that an agency can often use operations strategies such as ramp metering or High Occupancy Vehicle lanes to avoid or reduce performance impacts as traffic volume approaches capacity. The FHWA also believes that data on traffic volume information is not sufficiently available on all segments of roadways at all times of the day to use as the only basis for the development of national performance measures.

Impact-Based Measures

—Some transportation agencies and planning organizations use measures to report the estimated impacts of increased travel times or reduced travel speeds such as wasted fuel, the value of lost time, or commuter stress levels. The FHWA finds, however, that the information to support such measures is not directly measurable, thereby requiring the use of algorithms that would be difficult to develop in a reliable manner.

A summary of FHWA's analysis of the different approaches for expressing travel time, travel speed, and/or traffic volume considered as part of its efforts to develop measures to assess system performance and traffic congestion is provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4—Summary of Assessment of Approaches for Expressing Travel Time, Travel Speed, and Traffic Volume

Approach

Level of stakeholder interest

Considered for the proposed rule?

Considerations

Delay

Mixed

Yes

Travel Time as an Index

Low

Yes

Use of an agency defined threshold.

Travel Time

Mixed

No

Travel Time Speed Reliability

High

Yes

Consider non-recurring congestion tied to extreme events.

Level of Service

Low

No

Impacts

Very Low

No

FHWA Congestion and Reliability Performance Measure Research and Analysis

The FHWA has been researching performance measures for congestion, mobility, and reliability for over 10 years. The Urban Congestion Report

41

and Freight Performance Measurement (FPM)

42

have focused on producing performance measures from a variety of sources over the years. Initially, FHWA's research calculated travel times from speed data derived from sensors in or along the roadway, including loop detectors, side-fired radar detectors, video detection, etc. The FHWA research then developed a variety of measures that could be used for trend analysis, such as the Planning Time Index (95th percentile travel time versus free flow travel time) that focuses on the variability (or reliability) of travel day to day, and hours of congestion (hours of day where travel on freeways is under 45 mph), among other measures. The measures were aggregated from roadway sections up to urbanized area-wide measure as well as national measures.

41

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/.

42

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/perform_meas/#fhwa.

Two issues identified through this research are important to understanding the ultimate approach FHWA proposes for the MAP-21 performance measures related to congestion and system reliability. First, the advent of readily available vehicle-based probe travel time data in recent years has led to a transformation of traveler information and performance measure development. Vehicle-based probe travel time data is derived from in-vehicle, GPS-based probes, including track fleet management devices, navigation units, and cell phones that report location information and time. The travel times are either derived directly from speed data provided or calculated based on a probe's trip progress (deriving speeds from the amount of time taken to travel between two locations and the distance between the two locations). Because data on the entire NHS is available from actual measurements tied to a date, time, and location on specific roadway segments, congestion performance measurement can be much more accurate, widespread, and detailed. This data also provides the potential to undertake before/after evaluations of transportation projects and strategies.

Since the passage of MAP-21, the FHWA acquired vehicle-based probe travel time data from a private vendor

for the entire NHS, and acquired the rights for State DOTs and MPOs to also use the data. The data set, the NPMRDS, delivers travel time data, averaged every 5 minutes of every day of the year every month. Travel times are reported for freight-only and for all traffic, which includes all probe data available (passenger, freight, fleet, taxis, etc.).

The second issue FHWA identified is that aggregating measures up to a national level provides important national trend information but has limited direct correlation to how money is being spent on road improvements that may actually affect changes in the measure. The FHWA has been advocating the use of performance measures at a local level as best practice in recent years. Operating and planning agencies can better understand how a project affects performance on a section of roadway or how a facility or corridor operates during peak periods or weather events using local performance measures, rather than aggregating measure up to a regional, State, or national level.

Applicability of Measures

The FHWA analysis of measures included applicability of measures to the transportation network or geographic area. Section 1203 of MAP-21 directed FHWA to establish measures for States to use to assess the performance of the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS. For assessing performance of the non-Interstate NHS, FHWA believes it is important that at least one of the selected measures relate to the entire NHS. Since system reliability is identified as one of the National Goals (23 U.S.C. 150(b)(4)), FHWA decided it was appropriate to establish a reliability-based measure for the entire NHS. Accordingly, the NHPP Performance of the System reliability measure is calculated for the entire NHS.

Another important component of System Performance is congestion, and typically, but not exclusively, the worst congestion occurs on high-volume roads in urbanized areas. The FHWA thought it was important to capture this type of congestion in a measure so that urbanized areas would be able to monitor and address congestion issues. The Peak Hour Travel Time measure was developed to provide this information, limiting the reporting to the largest urbanized areas (over 1,000,000 in population). In selecting this measure, FHWA considered the national goal of congestion reduction, which asks to achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS. 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(3). The FHWA believes the Peak Hour Travel Time measure is consistent with this national goal. The Peak Hour Travel Time measure also gives agencies in the affected urbanized areas the ability to relate their measure to their NHS roadway operational and investment policies by allowing them to set the “Desired Peak Period Travel Time” on their NHS roadways.

Consistent with the purpose of the CMAQ program to fund transportation projects and programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in areas designated as nonattainment and maintenance, FHWA believes that the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure should apply to nonattainment and maintenance areas and relate to the goals of the CMAQ Program (to improve air quality and relieve congestion). To reduce the burden on some States DOTs and MPOs and to focus on areas where typically the worst congestion occurs, like the System Performance congestion measure, FHWA chose to limit this measure to urbanized areas over 1,000,000 in population as well, since those agencies typically have more capability and experience in assessing traffic congestion. In addition, these areas are the same areas where MPOs will need to report on the CMAQ measures as part of a performance plan under 23 U.S.C. 149(l). Similar to the System Performance congestion measure, FHWA also chose a measure that would be consistent with the national goal of congestion reduction.

Based on a thorough review of data, measure definitions, calculation methods, applicability, and national goals, FHWA identified three potential measures to assess system performance and traffic congestion that deserved further consideration including: Percentage of system providing for reliable travel times; percentage of system where peak hour travel times meet expectations; and annual excessive delay per capita.

The FHWA analyzed these proposed measures for system performance and traffic congestion in tandem as part of this rulemaking so they would provide (1) a complete national picture of system reliability; (2) a focus on urbanized area peak hour congestion; and (3) a focus on the worst traffic delays in air quality nonattainment areas and maintenance areas. In addition, FHWA ensured that the proposed measures (and related metrics) were defined so that their methodologies could be applicable at the same segment, corridor, facility, or other level, resulting in fine grain performance information suitable for supporting the investment decisionmaking process at the statewide, metropolitan, and local levels. Finally, FHWA focused on using as much actual, observed data as is available to develop these measures. Together, these three measures provide a comprehensive picture of system performance, reliability and traffic congestion nationwide, both on the entire NHS and with a focus on areas that typically have the worst congestion.

Assessment of Proposed Measures for Subparts E and G (System Performance and Traffic Congestion)

The FHWA used a common methodology of 12 criteria to assess the appropriateness of each measure for national use and the readiness to implement the performance measure accurately and reliably.

• (A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive performance outcomes?

• (A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership with key stakeholders?

• (A3) Can the measure accommodate changes in the future?

• (A4) Can the measure be used to support investment decisions, policy making, and target establishment?

• (A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends?

• (A6) Is collection, storage, and reporting of measure data feasible?

• (B1) Timeliness

• (B2) Consistency

• (B3) Completeness

• (B4) Accuracy

• (B5) Accessibility

• (B6) Data Integration

Each performance measure, as used in current practice, was assessed against the 12 criteria using the following three ratings for each criterion.

• Green Rating—Criterion is fully met for the candidate measure

• Yellow Rating—Criterion is partially met for the candidate measure and work is underway to fully meet it the criterion

• Red Rating—Criterion is not fully met or no work is underway or planned that would allow the criterion to be met

The FHWA used the results of this assessment to identify gaps that FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of the measures in this NPRM. The rulemaking docket contains a description of the methodology used for this assessment. Table 5 below summarizes the results of the assessment for the proposed performance management measures for system performance and traffic congestion.

Table 5—Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures for System Performance and Traffic Congestion

Assessment factor

Percentage of system providing for reliable travel

Percentage of system where peak hour travel times meet

expectations

Annual hours of excessive delay per capita

(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive performance outcomes?

G

G

Y

(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership with key stakeholders?

Y

Y

Y

(A3) Is the measure maintainable to accommodate changes?

G

G

G

(A4) Can the measure be used to support investment decisions, policy making and target establishment?

G

G

G

(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends?

G

G

G

(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to collect, store, and report data in support of the measures been considered?

G

G

G

(B1) Timeliness

G

G

G

(B2) Consistency

G

G

G

(B3) Completeness

Y

Y

Y

(B4) Accuracy

G

G

G

(B5) Accessibility

G

G

G

(B6) Data Integration

G

G

G

The factors that were assessed at a green level for the proposed measures were considered by FHWA in its choice of approach for system performance and traffic congestion measures. The FHWA also considered the factor assessed at yellow (B3—completeness) for all three measures as probe data is available on most of the NHS, but there are still some times of day and locations where data is not consistently available via the NPMRDS data set that FHWA is requiring for use for these measures. The FHWA believes that over time, as more probe data sources are added to the data set, that missing travel times will be minimized.

The FHWA proposal outlined in this NPRM attempts to address some of the gaps that exist today for the lower rated factors so that, when the new requirements are implemented, the measures result in an improved assessment rating, thereby better supporting national programs. In particular, FHWA factored the following considerations in its decision:

• Criterion A1—recognize that the Traffic Congestion measure (Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita) should ideally reflect the movement of all travelers and the performance of all modes. As proposed, the measure may not capture modal options or better accessibility. The FHWA is seeking comment on methods that can be used reliably to achieve this outcome.

• Criterion A2—recognize that a national measure is not in place for either system performance or traffic congestion and no national pilot studies have been conducted. However, FHWA and many State DOTs and MPOs have developed their own system performance/congestion measures and these were considered in developing the national measures.

The specifics of these proposals are described in the Section-by-Section portion of this proposed rule.

B. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart F—Freight Movement on the Interstate System

This sub-section describes the FHWA's analysis of a range of data types and sources and measurement methods to support potential freight movement-related measures and describes FHWA's assessment of two proposed measures including: (1) Percent of Interstate System mileage meeting the goal for reliability; and (2) percent of Interstate System mileage considered uncongested (by speed). The FHWA assessed both these proposed measures in terms of appropriateness as national measures and readiness for implementation.

The FHWA selected reliability and average speed measures because they offered the best understanding of freight performance at the national level and had the widest support from stakeholders. The FHWA seeks to refine the use of freight-related measures in the future and broaden measures and data sources that can better inform future policy, programming, and investment decisions and provide a multimodal consideration of freight flow.

Freight Movement Data Types and Sources Considered by FHWA

The FHWA recognizes that the efficient movement of freight is important to the Nation's economy. Efficiency is hindered by slow speeds and unreliable travel times caused by congested highways. For the freight industry, slow and unreliable travel results in diminished productivity by reducing the efficiency of operations, increasing costs of goods, increasing fuel costs, reducing drivers' available hours for service, and reducing equipment productivity. Reducing highway congestion could produce important benefits for the freight industry and contribute to our Nation's growing economy. Solutions must address the long-term and short-term freight needs and depend on participation from both the public and private sectors to fully understand performance and develop strategic solutions.

Historically, congestion data collection efforts focused exclusively on commuting in urbanized areas. To improve availability of freight data, FHWA launched the FPM program in 2002. This program collects truck travel-time data on major freight-significant corridors, intercity pairs along those corridors, and major U.S. international land-border crossings. Data are collected from embedded probe technology in approximately 600,000 trucks and are used to provide a range of performance measures including but not limited to travel times, speeds, congestion points, incident analysis, and diversions. Although FPM itself is not a system improvement, it is a mechanism for collecting and analyzing data to assist national, State, regional, and local transportation agencies in better measuring and managing highway transportation system performance. The availability of FPM data has the potential to inform future investment decisions that produce benefits of regional and national significance.

The FPM program complements other efforts by FHWA to monitor and measure urban congestion. Combining FPM data with urban congestion data such as HPMS data, economic data from the Freight Analysis Framework, and other relevant data provides a more complete picture of surface transportation system performance and identifies areas where performance could be improved. To provide a comprehensive understanding of freight performance in concert with passenger and total traffic congestion and performance, FHWA procured the NPMRDS in 2013, which provides travel times for all traffic, passenger, and freight with an archive of data beginning in October 2011. The FPM probe data is the freight data that is included in the NPMRDS travel time data. States and MPOs are currently using this data set to develop performance measures and support freight planning and other transportation plans. This data set allows a more comprehensive understanding of congestion for all types of traffic through the calculation of speed, reliability, and travel time on corridors with significant freight movement. As mentioned above, there is widespread support among stakeholders for these types of measures (

e.g.,

speed, reliability, travel time). However, FHWA recognizes that a true picture of freight performance must reflect the multimultimodal nature of freight. In addition to efforts to implement the performance requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150, FHWA expects to continue work currently underway with other modes and public and private freight stakeholders to develop new data opportunities and create additional measures to provide a multimodal and economic assessment of freight. These efforts would further an understanding of freight performance that will support other freight-related provisions within MAP-21 such as freight planning. This work, in addition to FHWA's current efforts for the FPM program, will provide a clearer picture of the total supply chain and goods movement system so that improvements can be even more precisely targeted.

Freight Movement Measures Considered by FHWA

The FHWA focused its evaluation of measures for 23 U.S.C. 150 for freight movement on Interstate on its significant research and leadership in FPM development through the FPM program, and stakeholder input. The FHWA recognizes that freight performance is best depicted by a series of measures to provide a comprehensive picture of freight movement. Stakeholders discussed multimodal measures and suites of measures to show performance in all aspects of freight movement. As the measures required for this rulemaking are only for freight movement on the Interstate System, FHWA is addressing stakeholder requests for multimodal and multiarea measures through other MAP-21 freight requirements such as freight planning and the development of a Freight Conditions and Performance Report (see MAP-21, Section 1115). An additional factor in FHWA's assessment was the varying practices for FPM among stakeholders, including State DOTs and MPOs, resulting in a lack of national consistency on data and measurement. After considering the ongoing research in this area and stakeholder support for FHWA's FPM efforts, FHWA believes that its proposed use of a nationally consistent data set is the most consistent, efficient, and reliable means of understanding Interstate freight movement at the local, State, and national levels.

Assessment of Proposed Measures for Subpart F (Freight Movement)

The FHWA identified two proposed measures: (1) Percent of Interstate System mileage meeting the goal for reliability; and (2) percent of Interstate System mileage considered uncongested (by speed). The two measures proposed by FHWA were evaluated, based on existing state-of-practice, using the assessment process described in Section V.A of this section. Table 6 includes a summary of this assessment.

Table 6—Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures Relating to Freight Movement

Assessment factor

Percent of

interstate system

mileage meeting goal for reliability

Percent of

interstate system

mileage uncongested

(by speed)

(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive performance outcomes?

G

G

(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership with key stakeholders?

G

G

(A3) Is the measure maintainable to accommodate changes?

G

G

(A4) Can the measure is used to support investment decisions, policy making and target establishment?

G

G

(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends?

G

G

(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to collect, store, and report data in support of the measures been considered?

G

G

(B1) Timeliness

G

G

(B2) Consistency

G

G

(B3) Completeness

Y

Y

(B4) Accuracy

G

G

(B5) Accessibility

G

G

(B6) Data Integration

G

G

Legend:

G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.

The measures proposed by FHWA were considered against the criteria presented in Table 6. For all of the assessment factors except completeness, FHWA ranked these measures as “green.” The FHWA considered the measures against all of the criteria and weighed public and private stakeholder input along with FHWA's experience in applying the measures. These measures were determined to be the two measures that most appropriately met all of the assessment factors and provide a comprehensive assessment of performance for freight so that public and private decisionmakers can identify policy and operational improvements for goods movement. The FHWA considered the measures to be “yellow” for completeness only because they are proposed to rely on data from the NPMRDS, which has limited missing data that could impact the ability to conduct a complete assessment of

freight movement on the Interstate. While a robust data set, the NPMRDS does exhibit limitations, especially with missing travel time data when no probe passes a location in a 5-minute period (referred to as 5-minute bins). For the freight data, the NPMRDS uses a sample of approximately 600,000 trucks. The probes that are used to derive travel times in the NPMRDS generally provide national coverage. However, there are some areas of the Nation where there are fewer trucks or no truck activity reported. When this occurs, these bins would not be reported in the NPMRDS, and are missing from the dataset. The FHWA's internal assessment has demonstrated that, even with the missing data, the measures could still be calculated because the measures are based on annual averages. There are not enough missing 5 minute bins to make calculating the measure impossible. The FHWA recognizes the need to improve the completeness of the data and continues to work to improve this data set and include more trucks. It is expected that the truck sample will grow exponentially in coming years and over time the addition of more probe sources will reduce missing travel times.

C. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart H—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

The following section includes an overview of the factors FHWA considered in the selection of a proposed measure for the assessment of on-road mobile source emissions as required to administer the CMAQ program under 23 U.S.C. 149. (The previous section discusses proposed measures for Traffic Congestion to carry out the CMAQ program.) The FHWA wants the measure established through this rulemaking to:

• Meet CMAQ program performance requirements in 23 U.S.C. 149 and 150.

• Be mindful of existing emissions reduction reporting practices and data sets, thereby minimizing any additional burden on State DOTs and MPOs.

• Apply to CMAQ-funded projects instead of focusing on one project type (

e.g.,

highways or transit).

• Apply to CMAQ-funded projects only in areas designated as nonattainment and maintenance for pollutants applicable to the CMAQ program (ozone (O

3

), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM)) versus all areas.

The FHWA received viewpoints on suggested measures as discussed above in Section III, Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach. In addition, FHWA considered measures in use today to report on-road mobile source emissions reduction estimates. After consideration, FHWA identified four possible measures for preliminary consideration:

(1) Emission Reductions by Pollutant

—A measure of the estimated emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects within a nonattainment or maintenance area. The emissions reductions would be calculated by pollutant and their applicable precursors.

(2) Estimated Emission Reductions of CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative to Total Emission Reductions of the Nonattainment or Maintenance Area

—A measure that expresses the emissions reduced by CMAQ projects as a percentage of total emission reductions. Total emission reductions are calculated by taking the difference between the estimated emissions of all transportation projects and the total allowable emissions (

i.e.,

emissions budget) within the nonattainment or maintenance area.

(3) Estimated Emissions Reduction of CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative to Total Emissions of the Nonattainment or Maintenance Area

—A measure that expresses the emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects as a percentage of total emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance area. Total emissions would be obtained from the regional emissions estimates prepared for the conformity determination for the nonattainment or maintenance area.

(4) Cost Effectiveness of CMAQ Projects

—A measure that compares the total amount of CMAQ funds spent in an area to estimated emissions reduced by those CMAQ projects.

Assessment of Potential Measures for Subpart H

The FHWA assessed the four potential on-road mobile source emission measures based on state-of-practice among States and MPOs and using the 12 criteria described in Section V.A. Table 7 below summarizes the results of this assessment.

Table 7—Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures for On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

Assessment factor

Emission

reductions by

pollutant

Estimated

emission

reductions of CMAQ-funded projects relative to total emission

reductions of

the area

Estimated

emission

reductions of CMAQ-funded projects relative to total emissions of area

Cost effectiveness of CMAQ projects

(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive performance outcomes?

G

G

G

G

(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership with key stakeholders?

G

R

R

R

(A3) Is the measure maintainable to accommodate changes?

G

G

G

G

(A4) Can the measure be used to support investment decisions, policy making and target establishment?

G

Y

Y

G

(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends?

G

G

G

G

(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to collect, store, and report data in support of the measures been considered?

G

Y

Y

Y

(B1) Timeliness

Y

Y

Y

Y

(B2) Consistency

Y

Y

Y

R

(B3) Completeness

Y

Y

Y

R

(B4) Accuracy

G

Y

Y

R

(B5) Accessibility

G

G

G

R

(B6) Data Integration

Y

R

R

R

Legend:

G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.

Based on the assessment summarized above and the additional principles described in this section, FHWA concluded that the last three measures were not suitable because they did not provide useful information for establishing targets, were not developed with key stakeholders, or in the case of cost effectiveness, data was not readily available. The measure that best fits the criteria established by FHWA was emissions reduction by pollutant. With respect to this measure, FHWA considered the following:

• Criterion B1—Measure recognizes that emissions are estimated, not measured, based on the expected benefit from building the project. Collecting emissions data on a project-by-project basis through vehicle probing or another means would be cost prohibitive and would take years to collect useable data.

• Criteria B2 and B3—Measure recognizes that no consistent method is being used across the country to estimate CMAQ project emission reductions and that although quantitative emissions analyses of air quality impacts is expected for almost all project types, qualitative assessments are acceptable when it is not possible to accurately quantify emissions reductions (

i.e.,

public education, marketing and other outreach efforts). The FHWA is conducting a number of research studies to develop tools to assist with consistency and completeness of emissions estimates, for those project types where it is possible to quantify emissions, but these tools will take time for FHWA to develop.

• Criterion B6—While the CMAQ Public Access System does include estimated emissions reductions by pollutant by project for each MPO and State that receives CMAQ funds, this database is not integrated with performance-related data such as a spatial component. Work is underway to improve and increase the functionalities of the database to support the performance planning activities.

The FHWA is proposing this approach to define the on-road mobile source emissions measure in a manner that is consistent with and reflects the various methods used today by State DOTs and MPOs to calculate on-road mobile source emissions and is consistent with the information received from stakeholders. The specifics of this proposal are described in the Section-by-Section portion of this proposed rule.

D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure

The FHWA is seeking comment on whether and how to establish a CO

2

emissions measure in the final rule. The FHWA received input through stakeholder listening sessions and various letters (available in the docket) suggesting that DOT add a GHG emissions measure because GHGs are correlated with fuel use and air toxins. One group of commenters specifically asked for a carbon emissions measure for mobile sources. However, it is clear that reducing CO

2

emissions is critical and timely. On-road sources account for over 80 percent of U.S. transportation sector GHGs. In an historic accord in Paris, the U.S. and over 190 other countries agreed to reduce GHG emissions, with the goal of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2050.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human activity is changing the earth's climate by causing the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and other human processes.

43

Transportation sources glob

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.