U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Transportation Performance Management

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Other FAQs

Key Implementation Dates

Q. What are the dates for the actions to implement transportation performance management?
A. All the key implementation dates for the TPM requirements are included in the implementation timeline.

[ Top ]

Performance Period

Q. What are the dates of the first four-year performance period?
A. The first performance period begins January 1, 2018, and ends on December 31, 2021 with the exception of the CMAQ emissions reduction measure. For that measure, the first performance period begins on October 1, 2017, and ends on September 30, 2021.

Q. When is this period's State DOT baseline performance period report due?
A. The baseline report for the first performance period is due October 1, 2018, for all measures under this final rule.

[ Top ]

Target Setting

Q: When are the State DOT targets due for the first performance period for the measures established in the infrastructure condition (PM2) and the system performance (PM3) measures rules, and when are they reported?
A: State DOTs must establish their targets for these measures (except the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) measure) no later than May 20, 2018, and for the GHG measureno later than September 28, 2018 [23 U.S.C. 150(d)]. The GHG measure became effective September 28, 2017 [82 FR 45179 & 82 FR 22879]. On October 5, 2017, FHWA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to repeal the GHG measure [82 FR 46427]. The target reporting deadline for all measures in the PM2 and PM3 rules, including GHG measure, for the first performance period is October 1, 2018 [23 CFR 490.107(b)(1)(i)].

In establishing their targets, State DOTs must coordinate with MPOs to ensure consistency to the maximum extent practicable [23 CFR 490.105(e)(2)]. The May 20, 2018, and September 28, 2018, State DOT target establishment due dates only apply to the first performance period [23 CFR 490.105(e)(1)]. The coordination process should assist with both MPOs and State DOTs meeting their respective target establishment and reporting deadlines.

Q: Can State DOTs change their targets for the measures in the PM 2 and PM 3 rules?
A: Four-year targets may be adjusted at the mid-point of a Performance Period. 2-year targets may not be adjusted. [23 CFR 490.105(e)]

Q: For those MPOs that serve multiple States, when does their 180-day timeline for the measures in the PM 2 and PM 3 rules start?
A: Per 23 CFR 490.105(f)(1), an MPO has 180 days to establish the MPO targets from the time the respective State DOTs establish their targets for the measures under the PM 2 and PM 3 rules, provided in 23 CFR 490.105(c).

Multistate MPOs have up to 180 days from the time the last State DOT establishes its targets to establish MPO targets. This will allow the MPO to consider all the applicable State targets that impact its metropolitan planning area.

The targets for the traffic congestion measures [23 CFR 490.707(a) and (b)] reported by the State DOTs and MPOs for an urbanized area must be identical [23 CFR 490.105(f)(5)]. If a multistate MPO is required to establish targets for the traffic congestion measures, all applicable MPOs and State DOTs must establish only one 2-year target and one 4-year target for the entire urbanized area for each traffic congestion measure. The MPOs and State DOTs should collectively develop and implement a mutually agreed upon coordination process so that both MPOs and State DOTs meet their respective target establishment and reporting deadlines.

Q: What is a target?
A: 23 CFR 490.101 defines a target as "a quantifiable level of performance or condition, expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time period required by the Federal Highway Administration." A target for a measure is a single numerical value that has the same unit and precision level as its measure.

Q: Who must set targets?
A: Under 23 CFR 490.105, State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to establish targets for applicable national performance measures.

Q: Can declining targets be set?
A: Yes, State DOTs and MPOs may establish constant or declining targets. MAP-21 does not provide FHWA the authority to approve or reject State DOT or MPO established targets.

Targets should be reasonable, based on analysis of trends and projections of future efforts. Targets established in accordance with FHWA's performance measures rules should be considered as interim condition/performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in the State DOTs' and MPOs' transportation plans.

Q: Should aspirational targets be used as performance targets?
A: The FHWA strongly discourages the use of aspirational targets. In 23 CFR 490.101, a target is defined as a quantifiable level of performance or condition, expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time period required by FHWA.

Setting aspirational targets that are not data-driven, realistic, or achievable does not align with the performance management framework or the stated congressional policy to improve project decision-making through performance-based planning and programming. Setting data-driven targets will enable decision makers to utilize resources in ways that will result in increased accountability and transparency by allowing the public to better understand expectations and expenditure results.

Q: Is there a time extension waiver process if a State DOT doesn't meet the target setting and reporting deadline?
A: No, there's no such process.

Q: Should target establishment involve the public?
A: The Federal transportation planning regulations require public involvement during State and MPO development of the long-range statewide transportation plan (LRSTP), metropolitan transportation plan (MTP), Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Including targets in the LRSTP and MTP and reporting on progress toward achievement of targets with updates to the plans, and reporting in the STIP and TIP(s) on the anticipated effect of the STIP and TIP(s) toward achievement of targets is an integral part of the transportation planning process, especially for the development of LRSTPs, MTPs, STIPs, and TIPs. As such, targets and progress reporting should be included in the public involvement process during the development of the LRSTP, MTP(s), STIP, and the TIP(s). Early and continuous public involvement brings diverse viewpoints and values into the decision-making process. It also ensures that States and MPOs make informed decisions and build mutual understanding and trust with the stakeholders they serve. 23 CFR 450.210, 450.216, 450.218, 450.316, 450.324, and 450.326.

Q. When an MPO is computing performance measures and establishing quantifiable targets, how should the MPO account for those pavement sections, bridges, or travel time segments that cross its metropolitan planning area boundary?
A. For all measures in the second[1] and the third[2] national performance management measure final rules except the CMAQ traffic congestion measures in 23 CFR 490.703, MPOs must establish targets that reflect the metropolitan planning area and that represent the condition/performance of the transportation network or geographic area that are applicable to the measures [23 CFR 490.105(d)(1)]. However, there may be situations where bridges,[3] pavement sections,[4] or travel time segments[5] are only partially contained within a metropolitan planning area boundary. For those situations, the MPO should carefully examine the sections/segments of highway and bridge limits at the metropolitan planning area boundary and develop a consistent delineation method to define clearly whether a pavement section, a bridge, or a travel time segment is accounted for in their pavement and bridge condition measures/targets, Travel Time Reliability measures/targets, and Freight Reliability measure/target. In order to ensure that MPO targets capture the full scope of the transportation network or geographic area that are applicable to the measures, the MPO also should coordinate closely with the relevant State DOT(s) and adjoining MPO(s) in delineation method development. The MPO should use the same delineation method throughout a performance period for consistency.

  • [1] Final Rule on "National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program": Docket No. FHWA-2013-0053, RIN 2125-AF53, Federal Register - Vol. 82, No. 11, Pg. 5886- January 18, 2017: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00550.pdf.
  • [2] Final Rule on "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": Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054, RIN 2125-AF54, Federal Register - Vol. 82, No. 11, Pg. 5970 - January 18, 2017: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00681.pdf.
  • [3] 23 CFR 490.101
  • [4] 23 CFR 490.305
  • [5] 23 CFR 490.101

Q: How do we use trend data to set targets for the first performance period when we only have one year of data (2017) in NPMRDS v2 format?
A: Because of differences in the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS)[1] v1 and v2 data sets (especially the use of path processing on arterials), using multi-year trend data to assist with target setting may not be the best approach for this baseline performance report (i.e., Baseline Performance Period Report due on October 1, 2018), especially the 4-year targets.  Instead, setting a achievable target now based on results of baseline (2017) measures would be the prudent approach, followed by taking advantage of being able to adjust 4-year targets[2] at the time the Mid-Performance Period Progress Report[3] is due (in October 2020). When reporting at the mid-performance period, there will be 3 years (i.e., Calendar Years 2017, 2018, and 2019) of NPMRDS v2 data to use for the trend approach to target setting. Note that January 2017 data was added to the NPMRDS v2 in April 2018, providing a full year of consistent data with which to calculate metrics and measures. For the 1st performance period only, 2-year target reporting is not required for the non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability measure and the Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) measure.[4] However, State DOTs are required to report both 2-year and 4-year targets for Interstate Travel Time Reliability measure and Freight Reliability measure for the 1st performance period in their Baseline Performance Period Report due on October 1, 2018.[5] Furthermore, State DOTs cannot adjust their 2-year targets. Consequently, examining NPMRDS v1 and v2 data sets for 2-year target establishment for the Interstate Travel Time Reliability measure and the Freight Reliability measure may be the best approach.

  • [1] 23 CFR 490.101
  • [2] 23 CFR 490.105(e)(6), (e)(7)(iii), (e)(8)(vi)(D) and (f)(5)(vi)(C)
  • [3] 23 CFR 490.107(b)(2)
  • [4] 23 CFR 490.105(e)(7)(ii) and 23 CFR 490.105(e)(8)(vi)(B)
  • [5] 23 CFR 490. 107(b)(1)(ii)(A).

Q: What coordination requirements apply to the establishment of MPO targets? New
A: In establishing MPO targets, MPOs are required to coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) to ensure consistency to the maximum extent practicable [23 CFR 490.105(f)(2), 23 CFR 490.209 (d)(1) and 23 CFR 450.306(d)(2)]. The target establishment process for MPOs should be jointly developed, documented, and mutually agreed upon by the State DOT and MPO (See 23 CFR 450.314(h)).

Q: What are the options for MPO Target Establishment for the 5 Safety Measures? New
A: For the safety measures [23 CFR 490.207(a)(1) through (a)(5)]1 the MPOs must establish annual targets by either: (i) agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT target for that performance measure; or (ii) committing to a quantifiable target for that performance measure for their metropolitan planning area [23 CFR 490.209(c)(4)].

If an MPO's metropolitan planning area extends into multiple State boundaries (referred to as a multi-state MPO), that MPO must coordinate with all States involved. If a multi-state MPO chooses to support a State DOT target, it must do so for each State. For example, an MPO with its metropolitan planning area extends into two State boundaries would agree to plan and program projects to contribute to two separate sets of State DOT targets (one for each State) [23 CFR 490.209(d)(2)]. If a multi-State MPO decides to establish its own safety target, the MPO would establish the target for its entire metropolitan planning area.  Please see "Metropolitan Planning Organization Safety Performance Measures Fact Sheet"2 for more details on MPO target establishment requirements for safety measures.

  • 1 (1) Number of fatalities; (2) Rate of fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); (3) Number of serious injuries; (4) Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT; and (5) Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries.
  • 2 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/mpo_factsheet.cfm.

Q: What are the options for MPO Target Establishment and Target Adjustment of 4-year targets for the Non-Safety Measures? New
A1: For the following 11 measures, as provided by 23 CFR 490.105(f)(3), the MPOs must establish 4-year targets by either: (i) Agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT target for that performance measure; or (ii) Committing to a quantifiable target for that performance measure for their metropolitan planning area.

  • Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition [23 CFR 490.307(a)(1)]
  • Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Poor condition [23 CFR 490.307(a)(2)]
  • Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition [23 CFR 490.307(a)(3)]
  • Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition [23 CFR 490.307(a)(4)]
  • Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition [23 CFR 490.407(c)(1)]
  • Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition [23 CFR 490.407(c)(2)]
  • Percentage of person-miles traveled on the Interstate that are reliable [23 CFR 490.507(a)(1)]
  • Percentage of person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable [23 CFR 490.507(a)(2)]
  • Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index [23 CFR 490.607]
  • Total Emission Reductions for applicable criteria pollutants [23 CFR 490.807] and for those MPOs that do not meet the criteria under 23 CFR 490.105(f)(6)(iii).1

For these 11 measures, if an MPO had established its 4-year target by agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT target, and the State DOT adjusts that 4-year target, then the MPO has an option, within 180 days, to report to the State DOT whether it will either: (i) agree to plan a program of projects so that they contribute to the adjusted State DOT target; or (ii) commit to a new quantifiable target for that performance measure for its metropolitan planning area [23 CFR 490.105(f)(1) and (f)(3)].

If an MPO establishes its own 4-year target by committing to a quantifiable target for one or more of these 11 measures, then the MPO may adjust its target in a manner that is collectively developed, documented, and mutually agreed upon by the State DOT and MPO.  This is regardless of whether a State DOT adjusts its 4-year target in the State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report or not [23 CFR 490.105(f)(8)].

A2: For the 11 measures in A1 only, if an MPO's metropolitan planning area extends into multiple State boundaries (referred to as a multi-state MPO), that MPO has the option to choose different target establishment options (either agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT target or committing to a quantifiable target) for the portion of the metropolitan area within each State [23 CFR 490.105(f)(4)(i)].  For example, if a metropolitan planning area of an MPO is located within two States (e.g., "State A" and "State B"), that MPO could establish their target for a measure by: agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the "State A" target for the portion of metropolitan planning area within "State A," or committing to a quantifiable target for the portion of their metropolitan planning area within "State B."  Note, although multi-state MPOs could exercise their target establishment options provided for the 11 measures, FHWA emphasizes that all MPOs are required to coordinate with relevant State DOTs in MPO target establishment regardless of which options MPOs choose in target establishment [23 CFR 490.105(f)(2)].

Also note that the MPO target establishment option for the 11 measures is different from MPO target establishment options for safety measures where a multi-state MPO must choose either agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT target of each State within the metropolitan planning area or committing to a quantifiable target for the entire metropolitan planning area for establishing a target for a safety measure [23 CFR 490.209(d)(2)].

A3: For the following measure, the applicable MPOs, under 23 CFR 490.105(f)(6)(iii), must establish quantifiable 2- and 4-year targets for their metropolitan planning area. Applicable MPOs are those serving a Transportation Management Area (TMA) with a population over 1 million that contain a designated nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).2<

  • Total Emission Reductions for applicable criteria pollutants [23 CFR 490.807 and 490.105(f)(6)(iii)]

If an applicable MPO under 23 CFR 490.105(f)(6)(iii), elects to adjust its quantifiable 4-year target for the Total Emission Reductions measure, then the MPO must adjust its target in a manner that is collectively developed, documented, and mutually agreed upon by the State DOT and MPO [23 CFR 490.105(f)(8)].  This is regardless of whether a State DOT adjusts its 4-year target(s) for the Total Emission Reductions measure at the mid-performance period or not.

A4: For the following two CMAQ traffic congestion measures, the applicable MPOs, under 23 CFR 490.105(f)(5)(i) and (ii), must work with the State DOT to establish a single unified 2-year target and a single 4-year target for the entire applicable urbanized area.  The State DOT(s) and MPO(s) must report identical targets for each applicable urbanized area [23 CFR 490.107(c)(3)(ii)(A) and 23 CFR 490.105(f)(5)(iii)(B)].  Any adjustments made to 4-year targets by an MPO or State DOT must be collectively developed and agreed upon by all State DOTs and MPOs that include any portion of the NHS in the respective urbanized area applicable to the measure [23 CFR 490.105(f)(8)].

The two CMAQ traffic congestion measures are:

  • Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita [23 CFR 490.707(a)]
  • Percent of non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Travel [23 CFR 490.707(b)]
  • 1 Any part of a designated nonattainment and maintenance area within the metropolitan planning area overlaps the boundary of an urbanized area with a population more than 1 million in population, as of 1 year before the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
  • 2 23 CFR 490.107(c)(3) – the applicable MPOs also must develop a CMAQ performance plan as required by 23 U.S.C. 149(l).

Q. A metropolitan planning area boundary change during a performance period could impact how an established MPO target compares to actual measured condition/performance of a metropolitan planning area during the performance period.  How should MPOs account for metropolitan planning area boundary changes during a performance period? New
A: The actual measured condition/performance of a metropolitan planning area should be based on the most current metropolitan planning area boundary. When MPOs establish their targets, they should consider anticipated metropolitan planning area changes, and how the changes when made will influence the outcome of performance measures.

[ Top ]

Planning Requirements

Q. When are States and MPOs required to include:

  • the performance elements outlined in 23 CFR 450.216(f) and 450.324(f)(3-4) in the long-range statewide transportation plan (LRSTP) and metropolitan transportation plan (MTP)?
  • a discussion in the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) and the transportation improvement program (TIP) as to the effect of the programmed investments toward achieving performance targets as required in 23 CFR 450.218(q) and 450.326(d)?

A. Two years from the effective date of each rule establishing performance measures and after the publication date of the planning rule, planning documents must meet the Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) requirements of the planning rule and the performance measure rules.

[23 CFR 450.226 and 450.340]

Q. What modifications to the STIP/TIP would require State/MPO compliance with the requirements listed in the first Planning Requirements question?
A. In order for FHWA and FTA to approve any amendments or an update to the STIP/TIP (or take action on a conformity determination of the TIP), the PBPP requirements must be met on or after the dates described in the response to the first Planning Requirements question. [23 CFR 450.226 and 450.340]

Q. What modifications to the LRSTP or MTP would trigger State/MPO compliance with the requirements listed in the first Planning Requirements question?
A. On or after the dates described in the response to the first Planning Requirements question, States and MPOs may only adopt a LRSTP or MTP that has been developed using the performance-based planning requirements in the planning regulations. [23 CFR 450.226 and 450.340]

Q. What must be included in the LRSTP and MTP in order to comply with the requirements of 23 CFR 450.216(f) for States and 23 CFR 450.324(f)(3-4) for MPOs? How much of this information is needed at the end of the transition period for each of FHWA's performance measures rules?
A. States and MPOs must include a description of the individual performance measures and targets for those measures for LRSTPs or MTPs adopted on or after the dates described in the response to the first Planning Requirements question.

In addition to including performance measures and targets in the LRSTP or MTP, States and MPOs must each include a system performance report at the time of adoption. That report must include an evaluation of system performance with respect to the performance targets. Note that in the systems performance report in the LRSTP, States must also describe progress achieved by the MPOs in meeting the MPO performance targets in comparison with system performance recorded in previous reports. [23 CFR 450.216(f)(2); 23 CFR 450.324(g)] For MPOs that voluntarily elect to develop multiple scenarios when developing the MTP, the MPO must conduct an analysis as part of the systems performance report on how the preferred scenario has improved the conditions and performance of the transportation system and how changes in local policies and investments have impacted the costs necessary to achieve the identified performance targets. [23 CFR 450.324(f)(4)(ii)]

The progress description should include the information that is available at the time of the plan adoption, such as information that has been reported as part of the reports required under 23 CFR 490.107. With subsequent adoptions of LRSTP and MTPs, States and MPOs must continue to include a system performance report. These reports must describe the progress of the MPOs in meeting the performance targets in comparison with system performance recorded in previous years.

Q. Can a State use the information reported to FHWA to meet the biennial reporting requirements of 23 CFR 490.107 to also meet the LRSTP reporting requirements of 23 CFR 450.216(f) and vice versa?
A. Yes. States (and MPOs that choose to adopt and support State targets) are encouraged to coordinate and rely on the same information for reporting on progress, and, where possible, use the information reported to FHWA by the States to meet the biennial reporting requirements of 23 CFR 490.107 and to also meet the LRSTP reporting requirements of 23 CFR 450.216(f) (and vice versa). Note that all States are subject to two reporting requirements, both of which must be met: a system performance report required by 23 CFR 450.216(f)(2) and a biennial performance report required by 23 CFR 490.107.

Q. Can a State and MPO use the information reported to FTA's National Transit Database (NTD) on transit asset conditions and state of good repair performance targets?
A. Information on transit asset conditions as reported by providers of public transportation to the National Transit Database (NTD) will not be available until October 2019. Transit agencies must provide this information directly to their States and MPOs.

Q. How much detail must the State or MPO include in the STIP/TIP to discuss "to the maximum extent practical" the effect of the STIP/TIP on the achievement of targets in order to meet the requirements of 23 CFR 450.218(q) for States and 23 CFR 450.326(d) for MPOs?
A. States must describe in the STIP how the program of projects in the STIP contributes to achievement of the performance targets identified in the LRSTP or other State performance-based plan(s), linking investment priorities to those targets. Similarly, MPOs must describe in the TIP how the program of projects contributes to achieving the MPO's performance targets in the MTP, linking investment priorities to those targets. This assessment should be a written narrative included in the documents.

The narrative descriptions in the STIPs and TIPs should include a description of how the other performance based planning and programming documents are being implemented through the STIP and TIPs. For example, the narrative should describe how the objectives, investment strategies, performance measures and targets from the asset management plans, strategic highway safety plan (SHSP), highway safety improvement program (HSIP), freight plan, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Performance Plan(s) [23 U.S.C. 149(l)], Congestion Management Process (CMP), and other performance based plans are being implemented through the program of projects in the STIP or TIP. The narrative should specifically describe these linkages and answer these questions: Are the projects in the STIP and TIPs directly linked to implementation of these other (performance based) plans? How was the program of projects in the STIP/TIP determined? Does the STIP/TIPs support achievement of the performance targets? How does the STIP/TIP support achievement of the performance targets? Are the STIP/TIPs consistent with the other performance based planning documents (asset management plans, SHSP, HSIP, freight plan, CMAQ Performance Plan, CMP, etc.)? How was this assessment conducted? What does the assessment show?

Q. How do States and MPOs meet the requirements of 23 CFR 450.314(h) to document the jointly agreed-upon written provisions on coordination as a result of the transition dates described in the response to the first Planning Requirements question?
A. The MPO(s), State DOT(s), and operators of public transportation must jointly agree and develop the written provisions. The provisions covering the FHWA and FTA performance measures are due on the same schedules as shown in the response to the first Planning Requirements question above. The regulation provides flexibility for establishing these written provisions. The provisions may be included as part of the metropolitan planning agreements or documented in some other form as cooperatively determined by the MPO(s), State(s), and operators of public transportation. The FHWA and FTA expect that there will be documentation demonstrating that the written provisions were cooperatively developed, such as a document signed by the MPO(s), State DOT(s), and operator(s) of public transportation; an action by the agency boards adopting the written provisions; or some other equivalent action such as a Memorandum of Understanding or a Memorandum of Agreement. The written provisions must document how information will be cooperatively developed and shared related to five key elements of PBPP:

  1. transportation performance data,
  2. the selection of performance targets,
  3. the reporting of performance targets,
  4. the reporting of performance to be used in tracking critical outcomes for the region of the MPO, and
  5. the collection of data for the State asset management plan for the NHS.

At the discretion of the MPO(s), State(s), and operators of public transportation, one agreement may be developed for each of the performance measure areas (or group of performance measures) or one agreement may be developed covering all the performance measure areas. The jointly developed MPO, State, and public transit operator written provision(s) could be done at one time prior to the end of the first phase-in period, or phased-in based on the schedule described in the response to the first Planning Requirements question.

[ Top ]

Bridge

Q. To what bridges does the rule apply?
A. The final rule applies to all bridges carrying the NHS, including bridge on- and off-ramps connected to the NHS.

Q. What are the bridge condition performance measures?
A. The measures are:

  • Percentage of NHS bridges by deck area in Good condition
  • Percentage of NHS bridges by deck area in Poor condition

Q. How are Good and Poor conditions calculated?
A. The measure is the percent of deck area classified as good and poor, using National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings for Deck, Superstructure, Substructure, and Culvert. Condition is determined by the lowest rating of these items. If the lowest rating is greater than or equal to 7, the bridge is classified as good; if it is less than or equal to 4, the bridge is classified as poor. Deck area is computed using NBI Structure Length and Deck Width or Approach Roadway Width (for some culverts). (Bridges rated below 7 but above 4 will be classified as fair; there is no related performance measure.)

Q. How are border bridges counted?
A. The deck area of all border bridges counts toward both State DOTs' totals.

Q. When do State DOTs establish bridge targets?
A. Two- and four-year statewide targets for the first Performance Period must be established by May 20, 2018. The State DOTs will report these targets in the Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1, 2018. The State DOTs have the option to adjust four-year targets in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, due October 1, 2020.

Q. Can additional bridge targets be established?
A. Yes, State DOTs may establish additional targets for urbanized/non-urbanized areas. However, these optional (or additional) targets do not replace the statewide targets.

Q. How should State DOTs establish bridge targets?
A. State DOT targets should be determined from asset management analyses and procedures and reflect investment strategies that work toward achieving a state of good repair over the life cycle of assets at minimum practicable cost.

Q. When do State DOTs have to report bridge targets?
A. The first reporting of 2-year and 4-year targets is due to FHWA by October 1, 2018, when the Baseline Performance Period Report is due.

Q. When are the first MPO bridge targets due?
A. Within 180 days after the State DOT(s) target is established, MPOs can decide to support the relevant State DOT(s) 4-year target or establish their own, quantifiable targets.

Q. What happens if more than 10 percent of the total deck area of a State DOT's NHS bridges is classified as structurally deficient for three consecutive years?
A. The State DOT must obligate and set aside NHPP funds for eligible projects on the NHS.

[ Top ]

Pavement

Q. What are the pavement condition performance measures?
A. The measures are:

  • Percentage of Interstate pavements in Good condition
  • Percentage of Interstate pavements in Poor condition
  • Percentage of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Good condition
  • Percentage of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition

Q. When are State DOTs required to begin collecting pavement data that meets the new data collection requirements (a full-extent IRI, Rutting, Cracking %, Faulting, and Inventory data conforming to the updated HPMS Field Manual)?
A. The dates are:

  • January 1, 2018: State DOTs are required to collect data for Interstate pavements.
  • January 1, 2020: State DOTs are required to collect data for the non-Interstate NHS pavements.

Q. What are the dates for submitting data that meets the new pavement conditions data collection requirements?
A. The dates are:

  • April 15, 2019, and each April 15 thereafter: State DOTs submit the first Interstate data that conform to the final rule.
  • June 15, 2021, and each June 15 thereafter: State DOTs submit the non-Interstate NHS pavement data that conform to the final rule.

Q. For how much of the NHS must a State DOT establish targets?
A. State DOTs must establish targets, regardless of ownership, for the full extent of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS.

Q. When must State DOTs establish pavement targets?
A. Targets must be established by May 20, 2018. The State DOTs have the option to adjust 4-year targets in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, due October 1, 2020.

Q. When must State DOTs report pavement targets?
A. The first reporting of targets (4-year statewide Interstate targets and 2- and 4-year statewide non-Interstate NHS targets) is due to FHWA by October 1, 2018, when the Baseline Performance Period Report is due.

Q. When are the initial MPO targets due?
A. Within 180 days after the State DOT(s) target is established, MPOs can decide to support the relevant State DOT(s) 4-year target or establish their own, quantifiable targets.

Q. How will significant progress toward pavement condition targets be determined for the first Performance Period?
A. The FHWA will not make a determination of significant progress toward 2-year Interstate System targets with the Mid Performance Progress Report for the 1st Performance Period (due October 1, 2020). The actual 2-year condition will become the baseline condition for the first performance period. For non-Interstate NHS pavement IRI-based targets, FHWA will make a determination of significant progress at the midpoint and end of the first performance period.

Q. What happens if FHWA determines a State's Interstate pavement condition falls below the minimum level for any given year?
A. The State DOT must obligate a portion of the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and transfer a portion of its Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to address Interstate pavement conditions. The required obligation and transfer are in legislation and repeated in the published rule.

Q. 23 CFR 490.313(b)(4)(i) requires that total mainline lane-miles of missing, invalid, or unresolved sections for the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS must be limited to no more than 5 percent of the total lane miles. Does the 5% allowance apply to the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS separately or combined?
A. The 5% limit for the total lane-miles of missing, invalid, or unresolved data applies separately to Interstate System pavement data and non-Interstate NHS pavement data.

As specified in 23 CFR 490.313(b)(4), FHWA will determine whether a reported pavement section in HPMS has missing, invalid, or unresolved data by extracting the data contained within the HPMS on June 15 each year[1] that represents conditions from the prior calendar year for Interstate System pavement conditions. Also, as specified in 23 CFR 490.313(b)(4), FHWA will determine whether a reported section in HPMS has a missing, invalid, or unresolved data by extracting the data contained within HPMS on August 15 of the year in which the significant progress determination is made that represents conditions from the prior year for targets established for non-Interstate NHS pavement condition measures.[2]

Accordingly, FHWA must determine whether missing, invalid, or unresolved data exceeds 5.0% for the Interstate System every year[3] and must separately determine whether missing, invalid, or unresolved data exceeds 5.0% for the non-Interstate NHS every 2 years.[4] In addition, FHWA will separately determine whether a State DOT has insufficient data.[5] If FHWA determines a State DOT has insufficient data for the Interstate System (i.e., missing, invalid, or unresolved data exceeds 5.0% for the Interstate System), then FHWA will determine that the State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of the Interstate System pavement targets. Similarly, if FHWA determines a State DOT has insufficient data for the non-Interstate NHS, (i.e., missing, invalid, or unresolved data exceeds 5.0% for non-Interstate NHS), then FHWA will determine that the State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of the non-Interstate NHS pavement targets.

As provided in 23 CFR 490.313(b)(4)(i), the total mainline lane-miles of missing, invalid, or unresolved sections do not include sections classified as bridges (Structure_Type data item in the HPMS is coded as 1); or sections that have an unpaved surface or an "other" surface type (the Surface Type data item in the HPMS is coded as 1 or as 11).[6] Please refer to the document "FHWA Computation Procedure for the Pavement Condition Measures" for more details.[7]

  • [1] 23 CFR 490.317(b)
  • [2] 23 CFR 490.109(d)
  • [3] 23 CFR 490.313(b)(4) and 23 CFR 490.317(b)
  • [4] 23 CFR 490.109(d) and 23 CFR 490.313(b)(4)
  • [5] 23 CFR 490.109(e)(4)
  • [6] 23 CFR 490.313(f)(1)
  • [7] Sections 2.3 and 2.4 in "FHWA Computation Procedure for the Pavement Condition Measures, April 2018" (FHWA-HIF-18-022): https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/guidance/hif18022.pdf

Q. What are "phase-in" requirements and "transition" provision for the Pavement Condition Measures? How are those two different?
A. The "phase-in" requirements apply to the two Interstate Pavement Condition Measures, whereas the "transition" provision applies to the two non-Interstate NHS Pavement Condition Measures. The reasons for the "phase-in" requirements and the "transition" provision in the first performance period are directly related to: (1) pavement data collection and data submittal requirements under 23 CFR 490.309; and (2) the availability of data at the time of State DOT target establishment and reporting. Both the "phase-in" and "transition" for the four Pavement Condition Measures apply to the first performance period only.

Under the "phase-in" requirements in 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs do not report 2-year targets and baseline conditions for the two Interstate Pavement Condition Measures in the Baseline Performance Period Report due on October 1, 2018 [23 CFR 490.107(b)(1)]. And, since 2-year targets are not required, FHWA will not make a determination of significant progress toward the achievement of those targets [23 CFR 490.109(e)(3)]. The actual 2-year condition reported in the Mid Performance Period Progress Report will be used as the baseline condition for the two measures.

The "transition" provision for the data related to the two Non-Interstate NHS Pavement Condition Measures in 23 CFR 490.313(e) is needed because the first "full distress and IRI" data collection cycle for the non-Interstate NHS doesn’t start until 2020. This has impacts on all three biennial reports in the first performance period. For these two measures, baseline data as required by 23 CFR 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B), and overall condition (i.e., Good, Fair or Poor) of pavement sections will be rated using only the IRI values (or Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) values, where applicable) for the first performance period [23 CFR 490.313(e)]. IRI only is to be used whenever possible. PSR can only be used where IRI data collection may not be possible (i.e., road sections where speed is less than 40 mph). In the second performance period, overall condition for Non-Interstate Pavements will be based on full distress and IRI.

See FHWA’s guidance document titled The "phase-in" requirements and the "transition" provision for the Pavement Condition Measures for a complete discussion of these topics.

[ Top ]

Travel Time Reliability

Q. How do the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability measures differ?
A. They differ in implementation approach for the first performance period. State DOTs will provide a Baseline Performance Period Report by October 1, 2018, that will include two-and four-year targets for the Interstate system, but only a four-year target for the non-Interstate NHS. The State DOTs have the option to adjust four-year targets in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, due October 1, 2020. There is no requirement for State DOTs to report baseline condition/performance or two-year targets for the non-Interstate NHS before the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. This will allow State DOTs to consider more complete data.

Q. How is NHS travel time reliability defined?
A. For purposes of the measures, Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) is defined as the ratio of the 80th percentile travel time of a reporting segment to a "normal" travel time (50th percentile), using data from FHWA's free National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) or equivalent. Data are collected in 15-minute segments during all time periods other than 8 p.m.-6 a.m. local time. The measures are the percent of person-miles traveled on the relevant NHS areas that are reliable.

Q. What are person-miles for purposes of NHS travel time reliability?
A. Person-miles take into account the users of the NHS. Data to reflect the users can include bus, auto, and truck occupancy levels. The final rule changes the weighting of the Travel Time Reliability measures from system miles to person-miles; this change provides opportunities to capture overall occupancy factors from national surveys. The FHWA believes the person-miles concept is an appropriate way to measure reliability for investment decision making as it is more sensitive to congestion than system miles.

[ Top ]

Freight Movement

Q. How will freight movement be assessed?
A. Freight movement will be assessed by a Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index. Reporting is divided into five periods: morning peak (6-10 a.m.), midday (10 a.m.-4 p.m.) and afternoon peak (4-8 p.m.) Mondays through Fridays; weekends (6 a.m.-8 p.m.); and overnights for all days (8 p.m.-6 a.m.). The TTTR ratio will be generated by dividing the 95th percentile time by the normal time (50th percentile) for each segment. Then, the TTTR Index will be generated by multiplying each segment's largest ratio of the five periods by its length, then dividing the sum of all length-weighted segments by the total length of Interstate. [23 CFR 490.511 and 490.513]

Q. Why is there a separate measure on freight movement on the Interstate?
A. The measure is a requirement of MAP-21 [23 USC 150(c)(6)] and considers factors that are unique to this industry such as the use of the system during all hours of the day and the use of a planning time index used by the freight industry in planning for on-time arrivals.

Q. Where will the data for the freight movement measure come from?
A. State DOTs and MPOs will have the data they need in FHWA's National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS), as the data set includes travel times for the full Interstate System. State DOTs and MPOs may use an equivalent data set if they prefer. [23 CFR 490.609]

[ Top ]

CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions: Total Emission Reductions

Q. Which State DOTs Are Required to Establish Targets and Report Performance for the CMAQ Emissions Measure?
A. Refer to Table 1 in the document, Applicability Determination: CMAQ Traffic Congestion and CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures (23 CFR 490.707 and 490.807).

Q. What Are the Applicable MPOs for the On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measure and the CMAQ Performance Plan?
A. Refer to Table 3 in the document, Applicability Determination: CMAQ Traffic Congestion and CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures (23 CFR 490.707 and 490.807).

Q. Where does the on-road mobile source emissions measure apply?
A. The measure applies to areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide or particulate matter. Applicable State DOTs and MPOs will establish separate targets for each of these criteria pollutants and applicable precursors. [23 CFR 490.803]

Q. Must all State DOTs establish targets for the on-road mobile source emissions measure?
A. No, only those whose geographic boundaries include any part of a nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. [23 CFR 490.803]

Q. Why is the on-road mobile source emissions measure limited to nonattainment and maintenance areas?
A. The CMAQ program's purpose is to fund transportation projects or programs that contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in those specific areas. [23 USC 149(b)]

[ Top ]

CMAQ Traffic Congestion: Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita

Q. Which State DOTs (with Applicable Urbanized Areas) Are Required to Establish Targets and Report Progress for the Traffic Congestion: Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita Measure?
A. Refer to Table 2 in the document, Applicability Determination: CMAQ Traffic Congestion and CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures (23 CFR 490.707 and 490.807).

Q. What Are the Applicable MPOs for the Traffic Congestion: Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita Measure?
A. Refer to Table 4 in the document, Applicability Determination: CMAQ Traffic Congestion and CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures (23 CFR 490.707 and 490.807).

Q. How will traffic congestion be measured?
A. Traffic congestion will be measured by the annual hours of peak hour excessive delay (PHED) per capita on the NHS. Excessive delay will be based on travel time at 20 miles per hour or 60 percent of the posted speed limit travel time, whichever is greater, during in 15-minute intervals per vehicle. [23 CFR 490.705 and 490.707]

Q. What are peak travel hours under the peak hour excessive delay per capita measure?
A. The morning period is 6-10 a.m. local time on weekdays. The afternoon period is 3-7 p.m. or 4-8 p.m. local time, providing flexibility to State DOTs and MPOs. [23 CFR 490.705]

Q. Where does the peak hour excessive delay per capita measure apply?
A. For the first performance period (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021), it applies to urbanized areas of more than 1 million people with NHS mileage in nonattainment or maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. After the first performance period, the population criteria changes to more than 200,000 people. [23 CFR 490.703]

Q. What needs to be done regarding the peak hour excessive delay per capital measure if an affected urbanized area overlaps with more than one State DOT or MPO?
A. All parties must coordinate and report on a single, unified target. [23 CFR 490.105]

[ Top ]

CMAQ Traffic Congestion: Percent of Non-Single Occupancy Vehical (SOV) Travel

Q. Which State DOTs (with Applicable Urbanized Areas) Are Required to Establish Targets and Report Progress for the Traffic Congestion: Percent of Non-SOV Travel Measure?
A. Refer to Table 2 in the document, Applicability Determination: CMAQ Traffic Congestion and CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures (23 CFR 490.707 and 490.807).

Q. What Are the Applicable MPOs for the Traffic Congestion: Percent of Non-SOV Travel Measure?
A. Refer to Table 4 in the document, Applicability Determination: CMAQ Traffic Congestion and CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures (23 CFR 490.707 and 490.807).

Q. How will the percentage of non-single occupancy vehicle travel be measured?
A. A minimum option for measurement will be use of the American Community Survey (ACS) Commuting (Journey to Work) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. State DOTs and MPOs also may use localized survey or measurements. Finally, State DOTs and MPOs may use volume counts for each mode to determine the percent non-SOV travel, and will be encouraged to report any data not available in national sources today (such as bike counts) to FHWA. [23 CFR 490.709]

Q. What modes are included in the non-single occupancy vehicle travel measure?
A. The measure includes all surface modes of transportation that are not SOV, and may include travel avoided by teleworking. [23 CFR 490.709]

[ Top ]

GHG Measure-Effective Date and Repeal Notice

Q. What is the status of the greenhouse gas (GHG) measure?
A. On May 31, 2018, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a final rule in the Federal Register repealing the performance management measure in 23 CFR 490.507(b) that assessed the percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, from the reference year 2017, on the National Highway System (NHS) (also referred to as the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) measure). The GHG measure was one of several performance measures that FHWA required State departments of transportation (State DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to use to assess performance in a variety of areas.

By repealing the GHG measure, FHWA will no longer require State DOTs and MPOs to undertake administrative activities to establish targets, calculate their progress toward their selected targets, report to FHWA, and determine a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if they failed to make significant progress during a performance period. (See 23 CFR 490.105, 107, 109.)

Travel Time Metric Data Reporting

Q: What constitutes the NHS mainline in the NPMRDS v2?
A: For the travel time-based measures, the mainline NHS is used.[1] These include Traffic Message Channels (TMCs) with facility types 1,2 and 6.[2] Note that other portions of the NHS are included in the NPMRDS v2 and those are not to be used in metric/measure calculation.

Q: How is the NHS represented in the NPMRDS v2?
A: The NPMRDS v2 includes all NHS roads as identified in FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) sections data. There is a 1-2-year lag between the date of the HPMS data and what is being provided in NPMRDS, including the NHS designation. This is due to the process the State DOTs and FHWA go through for collecting, submitting, and validating HPMS data. For example, data collected over the calendar year of 2015 was entered by the State DOT into HPMS on or by June 15, 2016, then reviewed by FHWA, and any necessary corrections or resubmissions were made. This HPMS data submitted in 2016 (reporting the 2015 data) was then used to create the shapefile for the NHS that would be used for the 2017 NPMRDS. Therefore, the NHS designation and HPMS attribute data in the NPMRDS will typically be lagging 2 years. Please note that travel times in 2017 NPMRDS includes the travel time measurements obtained during 2017.

Q: What about TMCs that include a non-100% value for the NHS_pct item?
A: The NHS_pct data item in NPMRDS is defined as: Percent of TMC Path on NHS. The percentage of the TMC path length that is designated as NHS by HPMS (applicable when multiple HPMS segments assigned to a single TMC). This attribute value is calculated by the NPMRDS Development Team and is not an HPMS attribute.

Therefore results for the CMAQ Traffic Congestion Peak Hours of Excessive Delay (PHED) metric value by reporting segment should be weighted by this item (NHS_pct) so that the resulting delay metric is weighted to the NHS length and not the entire length of the TMC (both non-NHS and NHS portions). This would only need to be done where the NHS_Pct does not equal 100%.

For the NHPP reliability metrics, this NHS_Pct would not influence the results since the Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) for a reporting segment should remain the same whether weighting with the NHS_Pct or not. But the reporting segment's "Segment_Length" reported to HPMS (please see top of Page 16 of the HPMS Supplemental Guidance[1]) should be weighted by NHS_Pct so only the actual NHS length within TMC segment is reported to HPMS and counts toward measure computation.

Q: What is the process to update the NHS in the NPMRDS?
A: The normal process for updating the NHS in the NPMRDS is through the annual HPMS submittal.[1] When changes to the NHS are submitted in HPMS, the network will be reflected in the NPMRDS the following year, as noted in the Question "How is the NHS represented in the NPMRDS v2?". Amendments made to the NHS during the 2018 calendar year will be submitted to HPMS in June 2019 and reflected in the 2020 NPMRDS data.

Q: What should the State do if there are errors in the NHS shapefile for the NPMRDS such as: sections included in the NPMRDS that are not on the NHS; or NHS sections are missing from the NPMRDS?
A: Any errors with the NHS network on the NPMRDS shapefile (not related to the delay in updating the NHS noted in question # 1 above) need to be reported to npmrds@ritis.org. This would apply to an error in the NHS that was not part of the previous HPMS submittal. Every attempt will be made to fill in the corrected TMCs with travel time data for that year (based on availability).

This correction process cannot be used to make additions or deletions to the NHS. The process for adding or deleting sections of NHS must be done through the HPMS annual submittal.[1]

Q: What is the source of the traffic volumes (AADT, Single-Unit Truck & Bus AADT, Combination Truck AADT) in the NPMRDS?
A: The traffic volumes in the NPMRDS are from the State's HPMS submittal. As noted in the Question "How do we use trend data to set targets for the first performance period when we only have one year of data (2017) in NPMDRDS v2 format?", all of the data that is conflated to the NPMRDS is 2 years old (e.g., 2015 HPMS traffic data submitted in 2016 is what is used in the 2017 NPMRDS).

Q: What should the State do if the traffic volumes in the NPMRDS do not match the State's traffic volume data?
A: States can submit their own traffic volumes to use if they do not want to use the traffic volumes that are included in the NPMRDS. This would be done through the HPMS metric submittal process.[1]

Q: Why do certain TMCs in NPMRDS have zero AADT or the AADT <= AADT_SINGL + AADT_COMBI.
A: This would happen in a case where the original values provided in HPMS null/missing AADT values. The null/missing values are converted to "0" values when conflating the HPMS to the NPMRDS.

Q: How does the State apply the posted speed limit to the NPMRDS sections?
A: States must provide posted speed limits and apply them to the NPMRDS TMC segments. This is only applicable for the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure: Annual Peak Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita.[1]

  • [1] 23 CFR 490.711(c)

[ Top ]

Updated: 09/11/2018
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000