Previous Chapter « Table of Contents » Next Chapter
This section summarizes key Federal data requirements and presents an interpretation of these requirements with respect to traffic monitoring.
There are numerous Federal regulations that prescribe or imply data system requirements for Federal lands:
Relevant sections of these Federal regulations are outlined and discussed in the following sections.
Subpart A of this section requires the development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, congestion, public transportation, and intermodal management systems in each State. Subpart A also requires the development of a traffic monitoring system for highways and public transportation facilities and equipment. A traffic monitoring system is defined as "... a systematic process for the collection, analysis, summary, and retention of highway and transit related person and vehicular traffic data" (§ 500.202, 142). Later sections indicate that these traffic monitoring systems should conform to standard industry practices as indicated in 142). Later sections indicate that these traffic monitoring systems should conform to standard industry practices as indicated in several national traffic monitoring guidelines.
Oddly, § 500.104 indicates that a State may elect not to implement any of these systems except for the congestion management system and the traffic monitoring system.
Subpart B of this section details the requirements for the development and implementation of a traffic monitoring system. In § 500.203, the requirements indicate that the "coverage of federally owned public roads shall be determined cooperatively by the State, FHWA, and the agencies that own the roads" (p. 143). The full text of this section is included as appendix A because of its importance.
This section requires the development and implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP). The management systems are intended for use in developing transportation plans and making resource allocation decisions in the Park Road Program transportation improvement program (PRPTIP). The relevant sections of this regulation are included below:
This section establishes the policy for various management systems on Forest Highways, and indicates that the Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, and the respective state DOTs are responsible for implementing these management systems. The management systems include pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion. Traffic information is noted throughout the requirements as an essential element of these management systems.
This section establishes the policy for various management systems on Refuge Roads, and indicates that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Highway Administration are responsible for implementing these management systems. The management systems include pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion. Traffic information is noted throughout the requirements as an essential element of these management systems.
This section establishes the policy for the development and implementation of a comprehensive highway safety improvement program in each State. This section does not specifically mention whether federally-owned roads are to be considered in the highway safety improvement program.
"The HSIP [highway safety improvement program] planning process shall incorporate: (1) A process for collecting and maintaining a record of crash, roadway, traffic and vehicle data on all public roads including for railway-highway grade crossings inventory data that includes, but is not limited to, the characteristics of both highway and train traffic" (§ 924.9, p. 461).
This section establishes the Forest Highway Program within the Federal Lands Highway Program. It also establishes the same requirements for a pavement, bridge, and safety management system.
Included here is an excerpt of 23 USC 204 which outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Lands Highways Program:
"(a) ESTABLISHMENT. -
This section contains the contractor's interpretation of these requirements as well as a discussion of how these requirements could be implemented. The Federal regulations listed in this section are written so general and vague that they are open to widely varying degrees of interpretation. Different stakeholders (e.g., different groups within FHWA, the federal lands management agencies [FLMAs], State DOTs, and regional transportation planning agencies) may interpret these regulations to mean different things, based mostly on their own role in the transportation development process. Therefore, as a general strategy to improve traffic monitoring on Federal lands, the contractor recommends against trying to discern extensive implementation details from these Federal regulations among the many stakeholders.
Instead, the contractor recommends that FHWA FLHD proceed with the recognition that:
23 CFR 500 outlines the requirements for management and monitoring systems within each State. It is implicit within this section that this requirement is for each State DOT, since the State DOT is responsible for the maintenance and management of major highways within the State. In Section 500.203, the regulations indicate that "[c] overage of federally owned public roads shall be determined cooperatively by the State, the FHWA, and the agencies that own the roads" (p. 143). Therefore, this is interpreted to mean that the coverage of federally owned public roads in a State traffic monitoring system is to be determined on a State-by-State basis and must be agreed upon by the State, FHWA, and the applicable FLMAs. In certain States, State DOTs may strongly desire the coverage of federally-owned public roads because these roads could have a significant impact on their statewide transportation system. In other States, State DOTs may not have the interest or resources to include federally-owned public roads because they do not feel this impacts their decisions or planning process.
This section does not specify who must initiate the cooperation, only that the decision must be made cooperatively. My interpretation is that the State and the FLMA are the two primary stakeholders, with FHWA (the Federal Lands Division) playing an intermediary/overseer role. Further, it is my opinion that this intermediary/overseer role should be invoked when FHWA has supporting evidence that highway decision-making could be significantly improved if the State DOT included federally-owned public roads in their management and monitoring systems. For example, if a State DOT is making funding decisions that would be dramatically different if federally-owned public roads were included in the DOT's management system, then FHWA has an obligation to encourage cooperation between the State DOT and FLMAs. However, if the State DOT and Federal land management agencies do not believe that coverage of federally-owned public roads in the State management system will affect decision-making, and FHWA does not have supporting evidence to the contrary, then all agencies should agree that there is little benefit to forcing data sharing where it does not affect decisions.
23 CFR 970 requires the development of several management systems for roads funded under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP). It is clear from the regulations that traffic data (e.g., traffic volumes, vehicle classification, vehicle speeds) play a foundational role in several of the management systems. The regulations indicate that existing data sources may be used. Each of the management systems is defined differently, but the common element is that these management systems are "a systematic process" for making transportation decisions.
Section 970.204 outlines general requirements for the management systems. As with many Federal regulations, these requirements can be interpreted to mean different things to different people. When regulations like these are open to interpretation, my recommendation is to look at common industry practices as a benchmark for what should be implemented. For example, how are other agencies implementing requirements for management systems? How integrated and accessible are these agencies' databases? What level of resources has been provided for data collection, management, and analysis? In this example, one could benchmark the National Park Service management systems against State DOT and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) management system practices.
It is interesting to note that 23 CFR 970 does not explicitly require a traffic monitoring system that supports these management systems. However, in the author's interpretation, the requirement for a NPS traffic monitoring system is implicit since all of these management systems require traffic data as an input.
23 CFR 660 establishes the Forest Highway Program within the Federal Lands Highway Program. It also establishes the same requirements for a pavement, bridge, and safety management system. Similar to 23 CFR 970, 971, and 972, this section, this section does not explicitly require a traffic monitoring system that supports these management systems. However, in the author's interpretation, the requirement for a Forest Highways traffic monitoring system is implicit since all of these management systems require traffic data as an input.
Section 204 of SAFETEA-LU, "Federal Lands Highways Program," indicates that "the Secretary [of Transportation] and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal lands highways program." My interpretation of this language is that there is more discretion in the rigor of management systems implemented within the FLMAs that do not already have specific Federal regulations (like NPS). The key phrase is "to the extent appropriate." For example, a full-blown congestion management system with rigorous data collection may not be appropriate for Federal lands that do not routinely experience congestion. Ultimately, however, the details are left up to the FLMAs and FHWA.
Bill Grants Federal Requirements Seminar 
An introductory webinar to assist local and tribal agencies with applying for transportation funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).
