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

 

State Highway Infrastructure Report - Puerto Rico

The information below summarizes the TPM Highway Infrastructure performance measures, which include four pavement condition measures and two bridge condition measures. Per 23 CFR 490, State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are required to establish 2- and 4-year targets for these measures. The targets should represent the anticipated condition/performance at the mid-point and end of the 4-year performance period. State DOTs establish targets at the beginning of each 4-year performance period, and report on progress every two years. When establishing targets, State DOTs have the flexibility to use the methodology they deem most appropriate. FHWA encourages States to review data sets and trends and consider factors that may affect targets. Performance targets should be data-driven, realistic, and attainable and should align with the performance management framework and legislative intent.

The targets and discussion of basis for targets, optional adjustment of targets, progress, and planned activities were provided by the State DOT in its most recent biennial performance report. FHWA has not edited this information. It is provided to help bring context to the State DOT’s performance targets and progress. The data in the tables and graphs is from the biennial performance report or HPMS data submittal as noted below each measure summary. Any questions about the information should be directed to the State DOT.

Data reported by State DOTs was collected in the previous year, representing the condition/performance at the time of collection. Thus, in the tables and graphs below, FHWA labels data with the year representing the condition/performance, rather than the year the data was reported. The same thing is done for the targets--the year represents when the corresponding actual condition/performance data will be collected, not reported. More Information.

Significant Progress Determination
FHWA determines significant progress for these measures after the mid-point and end of each performance period. A State has met or made significant progress toward target achievement if “actual” condition/performance is equal to or better than the established two-year target or “actual” condition/performance is better than baseline performance 23 CFR 490.109(e). As provided in 23 CFR 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), baseline condition/performance is derived from the latest data collected through the beginning date of the performance period. FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the achievement of an individual 2-year or 4-year target as “progress not determined” if a State provides the extenuating circumstance information required in 23 CFR 490.109(e)(5), and FHWA accepts the information.

Most recent Significant Progress Determination for the Infrastructure measures

Most Recent Significant Progress Determination for all applicable measures

 

  • Interstate Pavement in Good Condition

    • Trend through 2025

      Desired trend: ↑

      Puerto Rico % Interstate Lane Miles Good Condition


  • Interstate Pavement in Good Condition 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
    Condition/Performance 19.5 17.2 -- -- --
    Target -- -- 20.0 -- 25.0

  • Interstate Pavement in Good Condition

    PRHTA provided the general approach taken to establishing the targets. However, as it was not included, please further elaborate in the discussion the data, methods and/or processes used in the establishment of the actual targets (i.e. how did you get to that number). To select targets, the same method was used for both pavements and bridges. We reviewed the latest data submitted to FHWA to use as the baseline for the pavement conditions. Then, we used the TAMP annual condition forecast based on the most conservative investment scenario. This provided the forecasted estimate of the condition in years 2 and 4, based on the expected improvements from the projects planned to be executed per year and on the expected deterioration of the assets. The targets were selected to align to those 2 and 4 year forecasted condition estimates. The approach used is consistent with a recent FHWA asset management guidance document, “How Short-Term Bridge and Pavement Targets Complement the Long-Term State of Good Repair”, FHWA-HIF-22-045 available at https//www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif22045.pdf. That document emphasizes that 2-year and 4-year targets should reflect the conditions forecasted to exist in those years.
  • Data Sources:
    Puerto Rico 2022 Biennial Performance Report
    Puerto Rico 2022, 2023 HPMS Data Submittal

  • Interstate Pavement in Poor Condition

    • Trend through 2025

      Desired trend: ↓

      Puerto Rico % Interstate Lane Miles in Poor Condition


  • Interstate Pavement in Poor Condition 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
    Condition/Performance 9.1 11.9 -- -- --
    Target -- -- 11.0 -- 11.0

  • Interstate Pavement in Poor Condition

    These targets reflect the expected conditions by the end of 2023 and 2025. Over the 10-year TAMP period, the percent Good will increase and the percent Poor will decrease. As explained in P6, HTA will be focusing on treating the Poor and Fair-to-Poor pavements initially. HTA will then increase the investments in preservation. However, realistically, pavements that are not treated will continue to deteriorate and data for the pavements under construction cannot be collected until the projects are completed. These factors are reflected in the TAMP forecasts that shows the percentage Poor Interstate pavement increasing until 2026. After pavement reconstruction projects are completed, the conditions will improve. In the long-term, HTA's TAMP life-cycle-based investment strategies will result in steady condition improvement. The TAMP investment strategy predicts that by 2032 the percentage Poor Interstate pavement will decrease to 4.9 percent. However, until the reconstruction projects are complete, the percentage of Poor Interstate pavement will increase. These targets reflect those temporary increases in Poor Interstate pavement in 2023 and 2025 before the percentage Poor begins to decrease.

  • Data Sources:
    Puerto Rico 2022 Biennial Performance Report
    Puerto Rico 2022, 2023 HPMS Data Submittal

  • Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Pavement in Good Condition

    • Trend through 2025

      Desired trend: ↑

      Puerto Rico % Non-Interstate Lane Miles Good Condition


  • Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Pavement in Good Condition 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
    Condition/Performance 4.3 -- -- --
    Target -- -- 5.0 -- 10.0

  • Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Pavement in Good Condition

    P12 value is 4.3%. This value did not come pre-populated from FHWA. We assume FHWA did not pre-populate this number because of the missing, invalid or unusable data exceeded the maximum allowable of 5 percent. The FHWA 2021 Pavement Data Quality report, table 2(a) Classification Summary (full-distress + IRI), lists this value as 4.3% based upon the valid data. Therefore, that is the number we inserted here. These targets reflect the expected conditions by the end of 2023 and 2025. Keeping these conservative targets allows HTA to focus more on improving its Poor Interstate pavements which currently exceed the Federal allowable minimum. Once the Poor Interstate pavements are brought to a state of good repair, HTA can adopt a more balanced program and increase the target for the percentage of Good Non-Interstate NHS pavements.This is as indicated in the TAMP Appendix with the answers to FHWA.

    It is noted that the Non-Interstate NHS missing values exceeded the 5% limit by 0.86%. The team has discussed this issue and identified the cause. PRHTA’s Pavement Management Office (PMO) provided the segment list for the 2021 collection to Pathway (consulting group that collects the pavement condition data, their contract is managed by the PMO) based on the list provided by Highway Systems Office (HSO) and the established cycles (yearly for the NHS Interstate, bi-annually for the NHS Non-Interstate and 3 years for the HPMS samples). Then, Pathway proceeded with the data collection. After data collection was completed, Works (consulting group that supports the HSO on the HPMS sampling and data input into the FHWA’s system, their contract is managed by the HSO) provided an updated list. That updated list identified the missing segments, but they could not put that list in the format that Pathway needed to collect data on the missing segments. The geographical codification used by the two service providers were slightly different and need to be reconciled (start kilometer vs coordinates, for example) and the PMO found some differences in the classification that resulted in some segments not existent in the list. PRHTA understand the differences and resolved this issue by ensuring that, in the future, the Works team will be providing the segment list in the format that Pathway needs for the data collection, to avoid missing segments. This issue has been resolved as now both services (Works services managed by the HSO and Pathway services managed by the PMO) will use geolocation to identify the segments. Shapefiles were produced and shared among the providers.

  • Data Sources:
    Puerto Rico 2022 Biennial Performance Report
    Puerto Rico 2022, 2023 HPMS Data Submittal

  • Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Pavement in Poor Condition

    • Trend through 2025

      Desired trend: ↓

      Puerto Rico % Non-Interstate Lane Miles Poor Condition


  • Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Pavement in Poor Condition 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
    Condition/Performance 6.1 -- -- --
    Target -- -- 12.0 -- 14.0

  • Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Pavement in Poor Condition

    P16 value is 8.2%. This value did not come pre-populated from FHWA. The FHWA 2021 Pavement Data Quality report, table 2(a) Classification Summary (full-distress + IRI), lists this value as 8.2% based upon the valid data. These targets reflect the expected conditions by the end of 2023 and 2025. The conservative targets for the Non-Interstate NHS pavements allow HTA to focus more resources on improving the Interstate pavements.This is as indicated in the TAMP Appendix with the answers to FHWA.

    It is noted that the Non-Interstate NHS missing values exceeded the 5% limit by 0.86%. The team has discussed this issue and identified the cause. PRHTA’s Pavement Management Office (PMO) provided the segment list for the 2021 collection to Pathway (consulting group that collects the pavement condition data, their contract is managed by the PMO) based on the list provided by Highway Systems Office (HSO) and the established cycles (yearly for the NHS Interstate, bi-annually for the NHS Non-Interstate and 3 years for the HPMS samples). Then, Pathway proceeded with the data collection. After data collection was completed, Works (consulting group that supports the HSO on the HPMS sampling and data input into the FHWA’s system, their contract is managed by the HSO) provided an updated list. That updated list identified the missing segments, but they could not put that list in the format that Pathway needed to collect data on the missing segments. The geographical codification used by the two service providers were slightly different and need to be reconciled (start kilometer vs coordinates, for example) and the PMO found some differences in the classification that resulted in some segments not existent in the list. PRHTA understand the differences and resolved this issue by ensuring that, in the future, the Works team will be providing the segment list in the format that Pathway needs for the data collection, to avoid missing segments. This issue has been resolved as now both services (Works services managed by the HSO and Pathway services managed by the PMO) will use geolocation to identify the segments. Shapefiles were produced and shared among the providers.

  • Data Sources:
    Puerto Rico 2022 Biennial Performance Report
    Puerto Rico 2022, 2023 HPMS Data Submittal

  • National Highway System (NHS) Bridges in Good Condition

    • Trend through 2025

      Desired trend: ↑

      Puerto Rico % Deck Area in Good Condition on NHS Bridges


  • National Highway System (NHS) Bridges in Good Condition 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
    Condition/Performance 16.2 16.5 -- -- --
    Target -- -- 15.0 -- 15.0

  • National Highway System (NHS) Bridges in Good Condition

    1. The narrative indicates that “the target (15%) is lightly lower than expected conditions because the baseline condition (16.2%) data does not reflect any effects of Hurricane Fiona." Based on this, please clarify if PRHTA expect to have additional deterioration-related findings that will impact the % of area in good condition in such a way that it could decrease from 16.2% to 15%. It is our understanding that the impact of hurricane Fiona on the NHS was very minimal.

    Since the PRHTA does not have the full data yet for the determination of the current conditions, we chose to be conservative until this data is fully gathered and an analysis can be made. If necessary, we will take the opportunity of the mid-performance report to adjust the target.

    2. The previous target was 10%, while the new one is 15%. This means that the current % of area in good condition (16.2%) will not go below 15%. This is a more aggressive target, which is a great direction for the program. If this is what PRHTA proposes, the wording should be modified to clearly state that the target is being adjusted from a minimum of 10% to a minimum of 15%.

    The language is modified to add the highlighted text “The targets are based on the expected conditions by the end of 2023 and 2025. The targets for minimum percentage in good condition are slightly lower than expected conditions because the baseline condition data does not reflect any effects of Hurricane Fiona. Actual conditions could be lower than the 2021 reported Baseline. The targets reflect the forecasted conditions which are based on the 2023-2026 projects and work types shown in the published STIP. The investments shown in the STIP are also shown in the 2032 HTA financial plan and its bridge investment strategies. Therefore, these targets reflect the 2022-2032 TAMP investment strategies, but adjusted for the uncertainty caused by any damage from Hurricane Fiona.”

  • Data Sources:
    Puerto Rico 2022 Biennial Performance Report
    Puerto Rico 2022, 2023 NBI Data Submittal

  • National Highway System (NHS) Bridges in Poor Condition

    • Trend through 2025

      Desired trend: ↓

      Puerto Rico % Deck Area in Poor Condition on NHS Bridges


  • National Highway System (NHS) Bridges in Poor Condition 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
    Condition/Performance 7.8 9.5 -- -- --
    Target -- -- 10.0 -- 11.0

  • National Highway System (NHS) Bridges in Poor Condition

    The target is being increased from 10% (2 year target) to 11% (4 year target). It should be pointed out that this new 4 year target is higher than the requirement of 23 CFR 490.411(a) which establishes a minimum condition level requirement of 10% for the NHS. If PRHTA sets a target at 11% and the actual % goes to 10.5%, this means that although the target would be met as it relates to 23 CFR 490.105, PRHTA would not be in compliance with 23 CFR 490.411(a). Based on this, PRHTA needs to

    1. Clarify / indicate when the STIP would be re-analyzed to identify the new projects.

    The STIP is expected to be revised by the first quarter of 2023. However, in order to be able to meet the 10%, we will need to have available the budgets described in TAMP NHS bridge scenarios 2 or 3. These scenarios are based on the Fiscal Plan approved by the Financial Management and Oversight Board in October 2022.

    Note that the PRHTA had to make a compromise between the targets and meeting consistency. Although the FOMB approved a Fiscal Plan for the PRHTA on October 2022, there is no assurance on the particular date when the indicated funds will be available to the PRHTA or the exact amount that will be apportioned for NHS pavements and bridges. Therefore, PRHTA based its targets on the most conservative or worst-case scenario presented in the TAMP. This scenario includes the current STIP values from 2023 to 2026 and an average of the STIP values from 2027 to 2032. With that budget, an increase in the percentage of Poor NHS bridges is expected, as shown in the table below. Even though the selected target does not meet the 23 CFR 490.411(a) requirements, it will give PRHTA a good chance to meet the next annual consistency. The PRHTA understands that the penalty for not meeting consistency will represent a major negative impact compared to the penalty for not meeting the 10% minimum Federal target requirement for NHS bridges. In addition, the PRHTA would not to be over the 10% for three consecutive years in order to be penalized, and it is likely that the budget issue could be resolved within that period.

    TAMP Scenario 1 HS Bridges -Resulting Projected Conditions Conditions 10-Year Target Base 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Good 15.0% 16.2% 16.4% 16.3% 16.5% 16.7% 16.7% 16.8% 16.8% 16.9% 16.9% 17.0% 17.0% Fair to Good 35.0% 36.7% 36.2% 35.8% 35.5% 34.9% 34.5% 34.2% 33.9% 33.6% 33.3% 33.0% 32.8% Fair to Poor 35.0% 39.3% 38.7% 38.4% 38.1% 38.0% 37.6% 37.6% 37.5% 37.4% 37.3% 37.2% 37.1% Poor 15.0% 7.8% 8.7% 9.5% 9.8% 10.4% 11.2% 11.5% 11.8% 12.2% 12.5% 12.8% 13.1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

    2. Clarify / indicate if there are additional projects not included in the STIP that may help the condition projection (i.e. Metropistas bridge projects, etc.).

    Yes, there are additional projects not included in the STIP. Metropistas projects are already included in all three TAMP scenarios. The Directory of Public Works will perform additional maintenance and preservation; however, the exact extent of the TAMP-related work and their corresponding investment was not available at the time of the TAMP development and is not currently documented.

    3. Elaborate as to how the conditions indicated by PRHTA aligns with the PRHTA’s STIP Methodology Process included in the TAMP and the STIP and the response to question B8 of the Full performance period report.

    A. The following echoes the information included in the TAMP Appendix K, which provides answers to FHWA comments. It relates to the process that was followed for the current STIP.

    TAMP Support to STIP

    Since 2020, the TAMP team has been collaborating with the PRHTA’s Project Management Information System (PMIS) effort. The first stage of the PMIS involved a process to create and manage project initiatives. A simple process was developed to identify potential initiatives that will be aligned to the TAMP strategies. The process is based on the current TAMP, the TAMP Excel tools, and the current STIP and other PRHTA project programs. Since then, we have been identifying sites for potential projects, with emphasis on National Highway System (NHS) pavements. The process applies also to bridges; however, currently, the PRHTA has been focused on addressing critical bridges. These project initiatives serve as a pool from which the STIP and other PRHTA programs can select projects that will help towards achieving the TAMP goals.

    The general procedure to identify project initiatives can be summarized as follows 1. Use the TAMP investment strategies to identify the recommended treatment lane miles and bridge deck area per year and treatment type. 2. Identify the treatment gaps on the corresponding TAMP year. 3. Identify road segments and bridges with unfulfilled treatment needs compatible with the identified gaps. This is performed using the Condition, Inventory, and Base Treatment Excel TAMP tools. 4. Compare those road segments and bridges with the projects recently finished, in progress, or programmed. Select those that are not already executed, in execution, or programmed. These become the potential project initiatives to be further evaluated. 5. Use engineering judgement and data analyses to group pavement sections in segments needing similar treatments and with a total length adequate for construction. These will constitute the project initiatives. 6. Lists of initiatives are produced. a. The pavement lists include an identification code, road number, kilometer segment, pavement surface type, lane miles, road system, preliminary treatment type, and a preliminary cost estimate based on TAMP unit costs and measured segments requiring treatment. b. The bridge lists include an identification code, bridge number, deck area, road system, preliminary treatment type per bridge component (deck, superstructure, substructure), and a preliminary cost estimate based on TAMP unit costs and bridge deck area.

    TAMP Considerations on STIP Project Selection Process

    Pavement 1. The pavement project initiatives previously discussed in are gathered. Even though the initiatives identify a potential treatment type, they are not classified as such on the STIP to allow for refinements once further studies are performed during the design process. 2. In general, the PRHTA tends to include several improvement types in their projects. Therefore, pavement projects may also include other features such as highway safety devices, signage, acceleration or deceleration lane improvements, shoulder improvements, and minor bridge preservation. To account for such potential additional features and current inflation, a buffer is applied to the initiatives’ preliminary cost estimate. This is the construction cost that is included in the STIP. 3. Priority was given to segments in the NHS. First priority was given to the NHS-Interstate system to advance achieving the TAMP target of a maximum 5% lane miles in Poor condition and to get out of the current penalty as soon as possible. Second priority was given to the NHS Non-Interstate system. Non-NHS follows. 4. Another element considered in programming projects in the STIP is how ready is the project for obligation of FHWA funds. a. Projects in the final stage of design/permits are generally assigned to the closest year. b. Projects starting or in the early stages of design are generally assigned to the near to mid years. c. Projects in procurement process for design are generally assigned to the mid to later years. d. Projects in the early planning process are generally assigned to the latest year. 5. As the STIP needs to be fiscally constrained, projects are programmed based on funding availability and the previously mentioned priorities.

    Bridges 1. Gather information from the 2028 TAMP, including targets, yearly bridge investment strategy, and unit costs. 2. Develop Bridge Program Yearly budgets based on guidance from PRHTA Programming Office, available funds information from PRHTA Federal Liaison Office, and FHWA Bridge Program Notice for Apportionment of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Highway Infrastructure Program Funds for the Bridge Formula Program Pursuant to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 3. Adjust the construction unit cost estimates from the TAMP to reflect observed increases in construction costs due to market fluctuations and the impacts of the pandemic and Hurricane Maria in the past years. 4. Bridge project selection aimed to reach TAMP targets for improvement in condition rating of bridges by incorporating Bridge rehabilitation and preservation projects in addition to Bridge Replacement projects. Project selection also considered on site conditions, complexity of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process compliance and Right of Way (ROW) considerations. 5. Priority was given to bridge projects with advanced design progress that were already included in previous STIP revisions. 6. Priority was also given to Critical Finding Bridges and all types of projects for bridges with Off-System classification to comply with Bridge Program Notice and Guidance for additional funding and allocation for Bridges beginning in FY22 through FY26. 7. Project readiness for FHWA funds obligation was also considered, advancing the projects in advanced design stages as follow a. First, projects in final stage of design/permits b. Second, projects starting or in early stages of Design c. Third, projects in procurement process for Design d. Fourth, all other projects

    B. The following refers to the process that the PRHTA plans to implement to sustain the alignment of the STIP to the TAMP in the future. 1. Develop a series of presentations related to STIP development. The presentations will be made to all PRHTA, and contractor/consultants SMEs and decision makers involved in any aspect of the planning, programming, design and/or delivery of bridge and pavement projects. It will emphasize a. The Federal TAMP regulation and related penalties. b. The key aspects of the latest PRHTA TAMP. c. How to navigate the TAMP to find key information for planning projects. d. Point out the key information needed to evaluate potential projects against the TAMP. e. Keep track of all projects in the STIP that contribute to the TAMP investments for the annual consistency reports 2. Officially designate a Committee that will be in charge of putting together the STIP and appoint its leader. Assign roles and responsibilities to members. This Committee will also ensure that requirements from other plans such as the SHSP are also met. 3. Draft an SOP that will guide the Committee, including a schedule. 4. Monitor the implementation of the SOP and the delivery of the STIP projects. Take action to address any gaps or issues with project delivery that impact the investments shown in the TAMP. Escalate issues to the leadership for resolutions as appropriate.

  • Data Sources:
    Puerto Rico 2022 Biennial Performance Report
    Puerto Rico 2022, 2023 NBI Data Submittal


Significant Progress Determination

This table shows FHWA’s most recent determination for the Infrastructure performance measures.

PLEASE NOTE: Each State’s performance target assessment is based on its own State-specific target methodology and program philosophy. Therefore, conclusions should not be drawn based only on the information in the Significant Progress Determination Results table. FHWA understands that each State’s program is unique and therefore does not prescribe a methodology for States to set targets. States have the flexibility to use the methodology they deem most appropriate when setting their performance targets. 

Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands 2022 Full Performance Period Significant Progress Determination Results
Measure Area Measures Baseline Target Actual Better
than
Baseline?
Achieved Target? Made
Significant
Progress?
Consequences
[23 CFR 490.109(f)]
The condition of pavements on the Interstate System Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition 15.21 5.0 19.5 Yes Yes Yes None
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Poor condition 12.02 14.0 9.1 Yes Yes Yes
The condition of pavements on the National Highway System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition Based only on IRI 3.3 --- I/D* No --- No Additional Reporting
Based on Full Distress + IRI --- 1.3 I/D* --- No
Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition Based only on IRI 68.8 --- I/D* No --- No
Based on Full Distress + IRI --- 20.0 I/D* --- No
The condition of bridges on the National Highway System Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition 18.5 10.0 16.2 No Yes Yes None
Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition 8.6 10.0 7.8 Yes Yes Yes

* Insufficient Data denoted by "I/D"

1 The 2-year condition/performance, in 2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Report, as the baseline condition/performance, as required in 23 CFR 490.105(e)(7)(iii).
2 Ibid.

Updated: 12/06/2023
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000