Evaluation of the Transportation Pooled Fund Program (2026)
Chapter: 4 Program Data Analysis
Chapter 4. Program Data Analysis
This section summarizes the Program Data Analysis performed for the evaluation of the TPF Program. The purpose of this data analysis was to develop a baseline understanding of the overall scope and level of participation in the TPF program. This analysis provides insights into the patterns and variations of program participation by state DOT.
Methodology
The evaluation team evaluated the feasibility and ease of access of TPF Program data and study-level documents both from the external and internal (login required) website access. The team determined that in both cases, the documents would need to be downloaded manually for each project as there was not a streamlined approach for conducting mass downloads. Additionally, the custom reports that became available after logging into the website were not as comprehensive and had fewer data fields than the data that could be directly scraped from the website. With this information, the team ultimately determined that web-scraping study data and documents from the site would be the optimal solution to provide the most comprehensive view of the available data.
The evaluation team efficiently collected participation data by extracting all available study information from the TPF website (web-scraping) on November 2, 2024, using a customized Python application. Using the selenium library in Python, the web-scraping application automated the process of clicking on each study link, copying the typed data (e.g., contact information, study descriptions, dates, and attachments) into a database. Upon completion, the evaluation team had direct and immediate access to an organized table of the raw study data and their associated attachments (e.g., funding contributions, progress reports, final deliverables). After a series of data cleaning and data validation efforts, the team used this database to develop a Power BI dashboard.
State DOT Financial Commitments Data Validation
The web-scraped study-level data included attachments with details regarding the financial “commitments” by agency for each study. In a conversation with the TPF Program manager, the evaluation team learned that FHWA has a separate database of commitment information outside the website known as the Financial Management Information System (FMIS). This separate database was provided, and the evaluation team compared data across both sources to verify alignment between the two sources of commitment data.
The evaluation team found that the distribution of study subjects and lead agencies was almost an exact match between the two sources. Discrepancies were attributed to slight differences in the studies that were available for review on the website versus the studies that were evaluated in the internal reports. When reviewing the commitments data, the team discovered that 76% of the commitment quantities were an exact match between the two sources, an additional 22% were within $500,000 of each other, and 2% (contributions from Arizona DOT and New York State DOT) were different by $500,000 or more.
This review confirmed that for the purpose of the evaluation, the data on the website were representative of the overall contributions of study members and met sufficient data accuracy levels. Thus, the website data was used in further program analytics.
Program Data Dashboard
A Power BI dashboard was created by the project team for analysis and creation of figures to enhance the reporting for this evaluation. The dashboard was organized with pages for Commitments, Solicitations, State Details, and Project Details, including qualitative and quantitative data for each. Select graphics from the dashboard are included for illustrative and explanatory purposes.
Findings
This programmatic data analysis of FHWA’s TPF Program resulted in the following findings.
Historical Context
The evolution of programmatic recordkeeping, program size, and programmatic focus is not only interesting to observe for historical understanding but can also provide valuable insight into gaps or opportunities for improvement throughout the TPF program.
- The website was initiated in 2003; therefore, there are large spikes in solicitation and commitment data from the year 2003 and the immediately following years as presumably backdating of studies was still being performed evident in the evaluation dashboard.
- Since then, total solicitations each year have varied from $2 million to almost $19 million, with the number of solicitations posted ranging from 1 to 25.
- In terms of the research topics, the first several years of data consist of just one topic, “Bridges, Other Structures, Hydraulics & Hydrology” which has transformed into now more than 12 discrete research topics over time.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of total commitments by research topic. “Pavement Design, Management, and Performance” closely followed by “Highway Operations, Capacity, and Traffic Control” are the two most heavily committed research topics. Today, “Bridges, Other Structures, Hydraulics and Hydrology” is still in the top 5. As demonstrated, many commitments are not classified (denoted as “N/A”).
TPF Study Participation
The top contributors to pooled fund studies in terms of solicitations and active projects include Minnesota DOT with 33 solicitations and 22 studies, Iowa DOT with 28 solicitations and 23 studies, and Washington State DOT with 25 solicitations and 20 studies. Meanwhile, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) and New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) have led just one solicitation and zero official studies each according to this data.
The 10 studies with the most study partners are described below.
- TPF-5(530): TRB Core Program Services for a Highway RD&T Program – Federal Fiscal Year 2024/TRB (state DOTs) Fiscal Year 2025, FHWA, 52 partner agencies4
- TPF-5(068): Long-Term Maintenance of LRFD Specifications, Iowa DOT, 48 partner agencies
- SPR-2(800): SHRP Implementation Asphalt Test Equipment, FHWA, 46 partner agencies
- TPF-5(317): The Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study, FHWA, 42 partner agencies, Continuation of TPF-5(099)
- TPF-5(099): Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements PFS, FHWA, 39 partner agencies
- TPF-5(326): Develop and Support Transportation Performance Management Capacity Development Needs for State DOT’s, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, 39 partner agencies
- TPF-5(479): Clear Roads Winter Highway Operations Phase III, Minnesota DOT, 39 partner agencies
- SPR-2(166): No Title, Description: To develop a state of the practice on current CRM design methods used by state highway agencies and to develop construction guidelines, FHWA, 36 partner agencies
- TPF-5(313): Technology Transfer Concrete Consortium, Iowa DOT, 36 partner agencies
- TPF-5(353): Clear Roads Phase II, Minnesota DOT, 36 partner agencies
There are 17 studies with just one study partner, with 13 of these studies being led by FHWA.
TPF Study Leadership
FHWA has led the most studies (over 250 studies), followed by Iowa DOT (62 studies), Minnesota DOT (42 studies), Washington State DOT (39 studies), Utah DOT (26 studies), and Kansas DOT (21 studies).
Arkansas DOT, Florida DOT, Georgia DOT, Idaho DOT, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Nevada DOT, New Mexico DOT, New York State DOT, Rhode Island DOT, and South Carolina DOT have each led one study.
This analysis demonstrated projects led by FHWA versus state DOTs are very similar in terms of study size, status, and subjects, as evidenced in the dashboard visualizations provided in Figure 11.
___________________
4 Study Number: Study Title, Lead Agency, Number of Partner Agencies
The primary observed difference between data available for FHWA-led projects vs state DOT-led projects is the quantity of documentation available. When considering the project data saved from the TPF website, 68% of the FHWA projects had corresponding documents and 89% of state DOT projects had documents available.
Financial Contributions to TPF Studies
From 2009 – 2024, FHWA has invested approximately $1.5 million per year (for a total of about $24 million over that period), state DOTs collectively have invested approximately $31 million per year (for a total of about $491 million over that period), and all other have invested approximately $450 thousand per year (for a total of about $7 million over that period, between 3 and 6 projects per year) in TPF studies.
DOTs in Texas, California, New York, Wisconsin and Virginia have all committed over $20 million to TPF studies, with Texas and California both committing over $30 million to TPF studies. The DOTs contributing the least to TPF studies include Rhode Island, Hawaii, DC, Wyoming, Vermont and Delaware with less than $3 million in commitments, Rhode Island has committed less than $1 million.
Figure 12 shows the total number of projects and commitments per year in the TPF program. As this data was pulled in November 2024, projections from 2025 through 2030 are incomplete and explain the drop-off in those numbers. This visual demonstrates that the total number of projects has remained relatively stable year-over-year while the total commitments have progressively increased.
Figure 13 represents the total commitments contributed to TPF studied by each state. The deeper the shade of blue, the higher the quantity of commitments from that state.
From 2009 – 2024, the top 5 funded subject areas, in order were:
- Pavement Design, Management, and Performance (approximately $68 million),
- Highway Operations, Capacity, and Traffic Control (approximately $57.5 million),
- Maintenance (approximately $50 million),
- Bridges, Other Structures, Hydraulics, and Hydrology (approximately $48 million),
- Highway and Facility Design (approximately $46 million)
Figure 14 breaks down the total commitments received by the research area, for studies where the research area was indicated on the TPF website.
TPF-5(267) and TPF-5(304) both received over $20 million in commitments.
- TPF-5(267): Accelerated Performance Testing on the 2012 NCAT Pavement Test Track, Alabama DOT, Alabama DOT, 19 partners
- TPF-5(304): 2015 National Household Travel Survey, FHWA, 13 partners
The following studies each received over $10 million in commitments.
- TPF-5(133): No Title, Description: This proposal provides transportation agencies at the state, regional, and local level with a mechanism for collecting quality travel survey data, FHWA, 16 partners
- TPF-5(193): Midwest States Regional Pooled Fund Project, Nebraska DOT, 23 partners
- TPF-5(469): Accelerated Performance Testing on the 2021 NCAT Pavement Test Track with MnROAD Research Partnership, Alabama DOT, 14 partners
- TPF-5(374): Accelerated Performance Testing on the 2018 NCAT Pavement Test Track with MnROAD Research Partnership, Alabama DOT, 19 partners
- TPF-5(531): Accelerated Performance Testing on the 2024 NCAT Pavement Test Track with MnROAD Research Partnership, Alabama DOT, 14 partners
- TPF-5(398): Moving Forward with the Next Generation of Travel Behavior Data Collection and Processing, FHWA, 25 partners
The two bar charts in Figure 15 show the highest funded studies led by FHWA (left) and led by a State DOT (right).
TPF-5(206) and TPF-5(193) both received over $5 million more than was originally solicited, and TPF-5(218) and TPF-5(054) both received over $3 million more than was solicited.
- TPF-5(206): Research Program to Support the Research, Development, and Deployment of System Operations Applications of Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII), Virginia DOT, 23 partners
- TPF-5(193): Midwest States Regional Pooled Fund Project, Nebraska DOT, 23 partners
- TPF-5(218): Clear Roads Winter Highway Operations Pooled Fund, Minnesota DOT, 32 partners
- TPF-5(054): Development of Maintenance Decision Support System, South Dakota Department of Transportation, 20 partners
TPF-5(209) and TPF-5(283) both received over $3 million less than was originally solicited, and TPF-5(121), TPF-5(117), TPF-5(199), TPF-5(104), TPF-5(063), TPF-5(099), and TPF-5(183) each received over $1 million less than was originally solicited.
- TPF-5(209): Support of Transportation Curriculum Coordination Council, FHWA, 18 partners
- TPF-5(283): The Influence of Vehicular Live Loads on Bridge Performance, FHWA, 7 partners
- TPF-5(121): Monitoring and Modeling of Pavement Response and Performance, Ohio DOT, 2 partners
- TPF-5(117): Performance Properties of Ternary Mixes, Iowa DOT, 11 partners
- TPF-5(199): Recycled Materials Resource Center, FHWA, 7 partners
- TPF-5(104): High Plains Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Coalition, Nebraska DOT, 3 partners
- TPF-5(063): Improving the Quality of Pavement Profiler Measurement, FHWA, 23 partners
- TPF-5(099): Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements, FHWA, 39 partners
- TPF-5(183): Improving the Foundation Layers for Concrete Pavements, Iowa DOT, 7 partners
Proportion of State DOT Research Dollars used for TPF Studies
In addition, the evaluation team conducted exploratory research into the proportion of state DOT SP&R dollars allocated annually compared to their TPF Program commitments. State DOTs are required to set aside 2 percent of their apportionments from their federal aid highway program for state planning and research activities (20). Of this amount, 25 percent must be expended on research, development, and technology, which involves exploring new knowledge, developing new technologies, and transferring them to users. This means that state DOTs must dedicate at a minimum 0.5 percent of their apportionments for research, development, and technology.
One of the benefits of participating in a pooled fund program is the possibility of waiving the fund match requirement for SPR-funded projects (which is normally at least 20 percent of non-federal funding). 23 CFR 420.119 (d) of the Code of Federal Regulations allows for the AA for Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T activities) to waive the non-federal match waiver, though it is not guaranteed. This means that a state would not need to provide any non-federal share of the project costs, which can reduce the financial burden on the state and encourage more collaboration and innovation. Additionally, 23 CFR 420.209 (a)(2) encourages state DOTs to use research funds towards TPF studies.
With this information in mind, the evaluation team compared each state DOT’s amount of federally allocated research dollars between 2016 and 2024 with each state’s commitments to TPF studies during those years. The findings are shown in Table 7. State DOTs like Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Dakota, among others, have committed a substantial portion of their SP&R funds directly to TPF studies. State DOTs like Arizona, Indiana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and others have committed smaller proportions of their total SP&R funds to TPF studies.
Table 7: Comparison of Commitments and SP&R Funds
| DOT | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 16% | 17% | 24% | 21% | 20% | 21% | 22% | 19% | 50% |
| Alaska | 12% | 9% | 11% | 14% | 9% | 20% | 15% | 12% | 19% |
| Arizona | 15% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 6% | 12% | 7% | 7% | 3% |
| Arkansas | 10% | 6% | 2% | 10% | 10% | 17% | 11% | 23% | 10% |
| California | 8% | 12% | 9% | 12% | 7% | 13% | 10% | 11% | 15% |
| Colorado | 19% | 29% | 23% | 27% | 17% | 19% | 23% | 19% | 23% |
| Connecticut | 11% | 14% | 18% | 28% | 28% | 27% | 19% | 38% | 18% |
| Delaware | 4% | 0% | 44% | 38% | 34% | 23% | 41% | 33% | 23% |
| DC | 5% | 8% | 8% | 5% | 6% | 11% | 17% | 31% | 17% |
| Florida | 14% | 14% | 10% | 10% | 12% | 14% | 12% | 13% | 10% |
| Georgia | 13% | 16% | 10% | 18% | 25% | 20% | 15% | 14% | 12% |
| Hawaii | 7% | 6% | 11% | 2% | 12% | 31% | 5% | 8% | 7% |
| Idaho | 19% | 20% | 19% | 79% | 81% | 45% | 29% | 69% | 45% |
| Illinois | 17% | 21% | 12% | 18% | 20% | 17% | 15% | 15% | 19% |
| Indiana | 3% | 3% | 7% | 7% | 9% | 10% | 10% | 8% | 10% |
| Iowa | 31% | 28% | 35% | 42% | 38% | 48% | 23% | 31% | 23% |
| Kansas | 47% | 40% | 50% | 46% | 55% | 44% | 31% | 23% | 29% |
| DOT | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kentucky | 15% | 17% | 12% | 13% | 18% | 21% | 18% | 20% | 13% |
| Louisiana | 7% | 6% | 5% | 7% | 6% | 20% | 8% | 9% | 8% |
| Maine | 13% | 23% | 41% | 27% | 30% | 21% | 17% | 9% | 21% |
| Maryland | 23% | 30% | 16% | 23% | 15% | 28% | 19% | 17% | 16% |
| Massachusetts | 1% | 4% | 4% | 8% | 10% | 12% | 10% | 18% | 6% |
| Michigan | 22% | 23% | 19% | 14% | 18% | 39% | 20% | 21% | 22% |
| Minnesota | 36% | 39% | 39% | 40% | 23% | 37% | 29% | 37% | 30% |
| Mississippi | 24% | 29% | 44% | 51% | 46% | 55% | 33% | 42% | 49% |
| Missouri | 18% | 18% | 15% | 18% | 20% | 25% | 22% | 19% | 22% |
| Montana | 23% | 21% | 21% | 18% | 19% | 24% | 19% | 20% | 19% |
| Nebraska | 16% | 17% | 14% | 16% | 19% | 27% | 20% | 27% | 25% |
| Nevada | 14% | 19% | 23% | 19% | 19% | 26% | 12% | 17% | 25% |
| New Hampshire | 15% | 18% | 27% | 30% | 28% | 31% | 17% | 19% | 18% |
| New Jersey | 12% | 8% | 5% | 2% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 3% | 4% |
| New Mexico | 8% | 11% | 3% | 17% | 14% | 22% | 10% | 14% | 13% |
| New York | 18% | 20% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 12% | 13% | 11% | 10% |
| North Carolina | 34% | 17% | 15% | 16% | 16% | 20% | 17% | 12% | 10% |
| North Dakota | 18% | 23% | 39% | 61% | 64% | 55% | 55% | 108% | 40% |
| Ohio | 12% | 22% | 16% | 9% | 16% | 10% | 15% | 10% | 6% |
| Oklahoma | 17% | 31% | 35% | 26% | 22% | 23% | 22% | 18% | 25% |
| Oregon | 16% | 20% | 12% | 16% | 13% | 10% | 8% | 13% | 5% |
| Pennsylvania | 16% | 11% | 11% | 13% | 9% | 10% | 9% | 9% | 13% |
| Rhode Island | 1% | 1% | 10% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| South Carolina | 12% | 13% | 30% | 23% | 20% | 27% | 20% | 17% | 21% |
| South Dakota | 29% | 24% | 25% | 9% | 19% | 21% | 23% | 25% | 34% |
| Tennessee | 8% | 9% | 18% | 22% | 8% | 23% | 18% | 23% | 8% |
| Texas | 35% | 8% | 9% | 14% | 12% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 10% |
| Utah | 37% | 26% | 40% | 37% | 23% | 51% | 31% | 38% | 44% |
| Vermont | 4% | 4% | 16% | 25% | 19% | 19% | 12% | 20% | 11% |
| Virginia | 17% | 17% | 77% | 19% | 15% | 18% | 17% | 17% | 17% |
| Washington | 18% | 17% | 13% | 16% | 17% | 26% | 14% | 22% | 13% |
| West Virginia | 8% | 4% | 30% | 19% | 17% | 8% | 7% | 5% | 15% |
| Wisconsin | 33% | 35% | 43% | 34% | 31% | 33% | 22% | 143% | 26% |
| Wyoming | 6% | 0% | 28% | 2% | 6% | 23% | 20% | 4% | 3% |
This information was used in the surveys to ask specific questions to agencies regarding their unique contributions and participation in the program.
