1
Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies
Deployment (ATCMTD) Program Final Report Template
The contents of this template do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the
public in any way. This template is intended only to provide a high-level guide for what ATCMTD
grantees should include in their Final Reports based on existing requirements under the law or
agency policies. All reporting requirements for each ATCMTD funding recipient are established
separately in each ATCMTD grant award agreement. If you have any questions about your reporting
requirements, please contact the agreement officer. If you have questions about the content of this
template, please contact Margaret Petrella ([email protected]), US Department of
Transportation (DOT), Volpe Center.
1. Project Summary
• Description of the project, including the technologies being deployed; these
technologies may be organized as “use cases” if that provides a helpful framework:
o Include project location(s) and initial (baseline) conditions the project is trying
to address, providing context for the purpose of the project.
• Project Scope
o Describe any changes in scope from the original award, highlighting any key
goal areas or performance measures that were no longer being addressed as a
result of the change in scope.
• Project Timeline
2. Performance Metrics, Evaluation Methods, and Data Sources
• Description of project goals the project covers that align with Section 6004 of the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (PL 114-94) including (NOTE: this
description should focus on goals that were measured in the evaluation):
o Improved safety
o Reduced congestion and/or improved mobility (e.g., travel time reliability)
o Reduced environmental impacts (e.g., emissions or energy)
o Improved system performance or optimized multimodal system performance
o Enhanced access to transportation options
o Effectiveness of providing integrated real-time transportation information to
the public to make informed travel decisions
o Reduced costs
o Institutional or administrative benefits (e.g., increased inter-agency
coordination)
o Other benefits
• This section should include a brief description of how the deployed technologies were
expected to meet their stated goals.
• Description of performance metrics that shows how they are aligned with project
goals (described in Section 6004 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act (PL 114-94)) and evaluation questions/hypotheses (include performance measure
2
targets, if applicable). Please note this list is not exhaustive, and grantees may use
other performance metrics tailored to their projects:
o Reduced traffic-related fatalities and injuries
o Reduced traffic congestion and improved travel time reliability
o Reduced transportation-related emissions
o Optimized multimodal system performance
o Improved access to transportation alternatives
o Provided the public with access to real-time integrated traffic, transit, and
multimodal transportation information to make informed travel decisions
o Provided cost savings to transportation agencies, businesses, and the traveling
public
o Provided other benefits to transportation users and the general public
• Evaluation design and method(s) that are being used to address each performance
measure:
o Data sources
o Data collection time period
o
Any challenges with data sources or data collection that may have impacted
the evaluation (alternatively, these challenges could be discussed in Section 3
with Evaluation findings)
• For example, if surveys are used, include information on the target population, how
they were sampled or recruited, how the survey was administered, the response rate,
and the types of questions that were asked (include the questionnaire in an
appendix).
Note: Grantees can use a table to summarize this information. See table 1 in the appendix for
an example. The table should be accompanied by text that provides more details.
3. Evaluation Results
• Detailed evaluation results (quantitative and qualitative) organized by goal area or
use cases:
o Describe any data limitations, including external factors that may have
impacted the evaluation findings
4. Lessons Learned, Recommendations, and Conclusions
• Key Takeaways, including:
o The overall effectiveness of the grantee in meeting their deployment plans
o Deployment and operational costs of the project compared to the benefits
and savings the project provides
• Project lessons learned
• Recommendations for future deployers regarding strategies to optimize
transportation efficiency and multimodal system performance
3
Appendix
Table 1 provides an example of the type of information that grantees may want to summarize using a
table format. A more detailed write-up should accompany any tables.
Table 1: Performance Measurement Summary Table
Goal Area Performance
Measure
Data
Method
Data Source Data Collection
Time Period
Sample Size
(if applicable)
Safety
Percent of
respondents who
feel safety warning
was helpful
Survey Survey
response in
post-survey
3 months post-
deployment
N=288
Safety Number of
fatalities
Quantitative
data
comparison
Fatality
Analysis
Reporting
System (FARS)
data
1 year of
baseline data
and 1 year of
post-
deployment
data
Reduced
Congestion
and/or Improved
Mobility
Percent change in
average travel
times
Field test
(vehicle probe
data)
Pre-post
comparison of
vehicle probe
data
1 year of
baseline data
and 1 year of
post-
deployment
data
Reduced
Environmental
Impacts
Reduction in GHG
emissions
Environmental
modeling
Environmental
model
emission
estimates
1 year of
baseline data
and 1 year of
post-
deployment
data
Cost
Savings/Return on
Investment
Net present value Benefit-cost
analysis
Monetized
estimates of
project
impacts
1 year of
baseline data
and 1 year of
post-
deployment
data
[ADD] [ADD] [ADD] [ADD] [ADD]
