Getting More by Working Together - Amazon Web Services · Mark Hallenbeck, University of Washington...

Getting More byWorking Together

A Reference Manual

abcde

Opportunities for LinkingPlanning and Operations

Guidance Team:Mike Demetsky, University of VirginiaAnn Flemer, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Oakland,

California)Steve Gayle, Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study

(Binghamton, New York)Ken Leonard, Wisconsin Department of TransportationSteve Lockwood, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & DouglasMichael Meyer, Georgia Institute of TechnologyMichael Morris, North Central Texas Council of

Governments (Dallas, Texas)Toby Rickman, Washington State Department of

TransportationRick Stevens, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Peer Review Panel:Andrea d’Amato, City of BostonJanet D’Ignazio, North Carolina State University, Center for

Transportation and the EnvironmentMatt Edelman, TRANSCOM (New York, New York)Sarath Joshua, Maricopa Association of Governments (Phoenix,

Arizona)Larry King, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationBill Kloos, City of Portland, OregonElizabeth Ramirez, City of Dallas, TexasEileen Singleton, Baltimore Metropolitan CouncilAlex Taft, Association of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (retired)Emil Wolanin, Montgomery County, MarylandDavid Zavattero, Illinois Department of Transportation

US DOT Staff:Wayne Berman, Office of Operations, FHWABrian Betlyon, Resource Center, FHWABrian Cronin, Advance Public Transportation Systems Division,

FTAPatrick Decorla-Souza, Office of Transportation Policy Studies,

FHWATere Francheschi, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, FHWAEloise Freeman-Powell, Office of Planning, FHWAMike Freitas, ITS Joint Program OfficeDavid Geiger, Office of Operations, FHWADave Helman, Office of Operations, FHWAScott Johnson, Office of Operations, FHWAMartin Knopp, Resource Center, FHWAPam Kordenbrock, Office of Operations, FHWAMac Lister, Resource Center, FHWARobin Mayhew, Office of Planning, FHWAHarlan Miller, Office of Planning, FHWAJon Obenberger, Office of Operations, FHWAKenny Petty, Office of Planning, FHWARoger Petzold, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, FHWAJames Pol, Office of Operations, FHWARolf Schmitt, Office of Operations, FHWAFred Skaer, Office of Project Development and

Environmental Review, FHWANeil Spiller, Office of Operations, FHWADavid Winters, Office of Operations, FHWA

Practitioners:Ron Achelpohl, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council (Kansas City,

Missouri)Wayne Bennion, Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City,

Utah)Natalie Bettger, North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsBrian Burk, Texas Department of TransportationChuck Chappell, Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City,

Utah)Rachel Everidge-Clampffer, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning

Organization (Austin, Texas)Rex Fleming, Kansas Department of TransportationKaren Gilbertson, Kansas Department of TransportationEric Graye, Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

CommissionMark Hallenbeck, University of Washington Transportation CenterStephany Hanshaw, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission

(Hampton Roads, Virginia)Doug Hattery, Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City,

Utah)Rick Hawthorne, Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

CommissionSarath Joshua, Maricopa County Council of Governments (Phoenix,

Arizona)Lee Ann Kell, Missouri Department of TransportationDave Kinnecom, Utah Department of TransportationMichael Morris, North Central Texas Council of

Governments (Dallas, Texas)Bubba Needham, Texas Department of TransportationKeith Nichols, Hampton Roads Planning District

Commission (Hampton Roads, Virginia)John Poorman, Capital District Planning Commission (Albany,

New York)Camelia Ravanbahkt, Hampton Roads Planning District

CommissionToby Rickman, Washington State DOTDan Rocha, North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas,

Texas)Richard Roisman, Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

CommissionEileen Singleton, Baltimore Metropolitan CouncilEmil Wolanin, Montgomery County, Maryland

Project Consulting Team:Jeffrey Ang-Olson, ICF ConsultingJocelyn Bauer, SAICMichael Grant, ICF ConsultingJonathon Kass, ICF ConsultingJohn Mason, SAICSergio Ostria, ICF Consulting

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS

November 30, 2004

Dear Colleague,

The Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Operations and Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty are pleasedto present this document entitled “Getting More By Working Together - Opportunities for Linking Planning and Opera-tions.” This represents an early accomplishment of the continuing joint program between our offices to accomplish threekey goals:

1. Increase the emphasis on regional partnerships among managers with responsibility for day-to-day transportationoperations.

2. Enhance regional transportation decisionmaking and planning to consider investments in operations in balance withinvestments for major capacity expansion.

3. Build stronger linkages between planning and operations

The information contained in this resource document was derived from an extensive review of the literature and discus-sions with nearly 30 transportation professionals who represent planning and operations at all levels of government.Based upon the collective, practical experiences of these professionals, the reference material identifies the following nineareas that provide opportunities to better link the planning and operations functions:

The Transportation Planning Process;Data Sharing;Performance Measures;Congestion Management Systems;Funding and Resource Sharing;Institutional Arrangements;Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture;Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations Projects; andA Regional Concept for Transportation Operations.

This document also offers a self-assessment tool to assist transportation planning and operations professionals. The toolcan be very useful in identifying opportunities to enhance coordination between transportation planning and operations.

We believe that the material contained in the Reference document will help to support current transportation planning law.Specifically, the material will provide direction to local, regional, and State agencies on how to address the planning factorin Title 23 U.S.C. Sections 134 and 135 that provides for the consideration of projects and strategies that will “promoteefficient management and operations.”

Improved planning, management, and operations in the Nation’s transportation systems are vitally important to achievingthe high expectations for safety, security, and mobility in the 21st century. We look forward to working with your organi-zations, agencies, and interest groups to advance the ideas presented in this reference document..

Jeffrey F. PaniatiAssociate Administrator Office of Operations

Cynthia J. BurbankAssociate Administrator Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NOTE FROM THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS

1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 What Do We Mean by Linking Planning and Operations? ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 What Is the Purpose of This Resource Guide? ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Why Link Planning and Operations? ......................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Can It Be Done? ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.5 Structure of the Guide ................................................................................................................................................. 1-5

2: OPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING AND OPERATIONS

2.1 Transportation Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2 Data Sharing .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.3 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................................. 2-12

2.4 Congestion Management Systems .......................................................................................................................... 2-19

2.5 Funding and Resource Sharing .............................................................................................................................. 2-24

2.6 Institutional Arrangements ..................................................................................................................................... 2-31

2.7 Regional ITS Architecture ......................................................................................................................................... 2-39

2.8 Regional Management and Operations Projects .................................................................................................. 2-46

2.9 Regional Concept for Transportation Operations ................................................................................................ 2-52

3: SELF-ASSESSMENT

4: RESOURCES

CONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTS

Background and Purpose | 1 - 1

1.1 WHAT DO WE MEAN BYLINKING PLANNING ANDOPERATIONS?

safe, efficient, and reliable transportation systemrequires more than just infrastructure. It demandscoordinated management and operations. Manage-

ment and operations1 (M&O) is an integrated approach tooptimize the performance of existing infrastructure throughthe implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and oftencross-jurisdictional systems, services, and projects.

M&O refers to a broad range of strategies. Examples ofM&O strategies include traffic detection and surveillance,work zone management, electronic toll collection, trafficincident management, road weather management, emer-gency management, and traveler information services. Suchstrategies enhance service efficiency and improve publicsafety and security; reduce traveler delays associated withincidents and other events; and improve information forbusinesses and for the traveling public.

Traditionally, planning the transportation system andoperating the transportation system have been tworelatively detached sets of activities with different require-ments and different cultures. In the traditional model,transportation planning focuses on infrastructure projects,relying on an analysis of long-range travel demands,transportation system goals, and funding constraints, butoften with limited consideration of short-term and ongoingoperational issues. Management and operation of thetransportation system typically involves a different set ofpractitioners with a short-term or real-time focus, often withlimited consideration of how activities relate to regionaltransportation system goals and objectives.

Transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organiza-tions (MPOs), and other stakeholders are increasinglyrecognizing the value of coordination and collaboration

among transportation planners and operators. Althoughthey come from differing perspectives, transportationplanning and operating agencies generally share the goalof enhancing system performance, and they can mutuallybenefit from stronger linkages.

Regional transportation planning and investmentdecisionmaking requires a great deal of coordination andcollaboration among State and local governments, MPOs,highway and transit agencies, other stakeholder organiza-tions, and the general public.2 Similarly, effective regionalmanagement and operations requires collaboration andcoordination among operating agencies across jurisdic-tions and between transportation and public safetyagencies in order to improve the security, safety, andreliability of the transportation system. Strengthening theconnections between these two processes and activities –planning and operations – can enhance both activities.

1.2 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OFTHIS RESOURCE GUIDE?This resource guide is designed to help planning andoperations managers understand the value of workingtogether and realize the benefits of pursuing managementand operations strategies at the regional scale. As shownin Exhibit 1 (next page), this goes a step beyond jurisdic-tion and agency coordination on planning and investment.It also goes beyond regional collaboration and coordina-tion on management and operations activities.3 The guidehighlights how existing relationships can be strengthenedand new ones developed, and how opportunities forgreater coordination and collaboration can be exploited. Itemphasizes the important role that both planners andoperators have to play in building stronger connectionsand the benefits of these relationships.

1 Management and operations (M&O) is also referred to as transportationsystems management and operations (TSM&O). M&O is distinct fromoperations and maintenance (O&M), which focuses on internal agencyoperations and recurring maintenance and preservation.

2 Transportation planning takes place at the State, regional, and locallevels. The scope and nature of the process differs based on the areabeing covered and requirements set out in laws and regulations. Federalregulatory requirements for transportation planning are codified in 23 CFR

450, with Metropolitan Transportation Planning addressed in Subpart C, andStatewide Transportation Planning addressed in Subpart B. Although thisguide focuses on metropolitan planning, the concepts of linking planningand operations are also applicable at the statewide and local levels.

3 Collaboration and coordination on management and operations activitiesis the topic of a related publication, Regional Transportation OperationsCollaboration and Coordination, available at http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13686.html.

11111 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEBACKGROUND AND PURPOSEBACKGROUND AND PURPOSEBACKGROUND AND PURPOSEBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A

1 - 2 | Getting More by Working Together

This resource guide describes a number of specificopportunities for improving connections between planningand operations. These opportunities are derived from anextensive review of the literature and interviews with nearly30 transportation professionals who represent planningand operations at all levels of government. Based on thecollective, practical experiences of these professionals, thisguide is organized around the following linkage opportuni-ties:

The Transportation Planning Process,Data Sharing,Performance Measures,Congestion Management Systems,Funding and Resource Sharing,Institutional Arrangements,Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)Architecture,Regional Management and Operations Projects, andRegional Concept for Transportation Operations.

Each of these linkage opportunities is discussed in detail insection 2.

1.3 WHY LINK PLANNING ANDOPERATIONS?Linking planning and operations is important to improvetransportation decisionmaking and the overall effective-ness of transportation systems. Coordination betweenplanners and operators helps ensure that regional transpor-tation investment decisions reflect full consideration of allavailable strategies and approaches to meet regional goalsand objectives.

Factors Motivating the LinkageFederal Requirements: Federal requirements emphasizethis linkage. One of the seven planning factors that mustbe considered in the planning process at both the metro-politan and statewide levels is to “promote efficient systemmanagement and operation.”4 The planning requirements,therefore, emphasize the important role that systemmanagement and operation should take in regionalplanning. Through the MPO certification process, theUnited States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)considers whether these factors have been adequatelyassessed.

Environmental, Community, and Funding Constraints: Ata practical level, increasing transportation needs andconstraints faced by transportation agencies are requiringnew solutions. At the same time communities are facing theneed for mobility improvements, transportation agencies

4 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Section 1203(f).

Exhibit 1: Scope of Linking Planning and Operations


are faced with environmental, community, and fundingconstraints that limit their ability to build new capacity toaddress these needs. Moreover, the length of time it takesto complete large-scale transportation infrastructureprojects emphasizes the need for transportation solutionsthat can respond quickly to congestion, safety, andeconomic concerns. Given budget and other constraints,the public expects transportation agencies to operate thesystem at peak efficiency before providing funding toexpand physical capacity.

New Technologies: New technologies and intelligenttransportation systems (ITS) provide the potential foroperational improvements that substantially improvesystem performance and for better data to pinpoint andprioritize transportation needs. These technologies alsooffer opportunities to improve reliability, safety, andsecurity, which are difficult to address with traditionalhighway and transit capacity increases.

Benefits for Planners and OperatorsGreater coordination and collaboration among planners andoperators can help to focus attention on investments thatmore effectively and efficiently address short-term andlong-term needs. Stronger linkages, therefore, help bothplanners and operators to do their jobs better.

For planners, collaboration with operators can:

Help planners better understand how operationalstrategies can meet regional transportation goals.Provide access to system-wide, 24-hour travel datathat can be used to better characterize existing systemperformance and travel conditions, to identify the mostcritical transportation problems, and to prioritizefunding.Provide operations data and expertise to improveforecasts of future conditions, broaden theunderstanding of existing conditions, and analyze theeffectiveness of alternative investments.Foster greater consideration of the day-to-dayfunctioning of the transportation network and the realconditions facing travelers that can help frametransportation goals, objectives, and priorities.Reveal how transportation plans can address issuessuch as reliability, security, and safety—issues that aredifficult to address solely with traditionalinfrastructure investments.

For operators, collaboration and coordination withplanners can:

Help operators have a greater understanding of howthe long-range planning process can support M&Oactivities and how M&O activities fit into the contextof regional goals and objectives.Provide increased opportunities and incentives forgetting involved in the planning process, therebyhelping to shape system goals and objectives.Provide regional leadership and greater participationby stakeholders in regional M&O efforts.Clarify the role of operations in meeting the region’stransportation vision and goals.Direct attention to the value of M&O strategies.Increase resources assigned to operations projectsand programs.

Benefits for System UsersUltimately, greater coordination and collaboration amongplanners and operators improves transportationdecisionmaking and benefits the traveling public, busi-nesses, and communities.

Improved ability to address short- and long-termneeds—Improved traffic operations information andunderstanding can help planners better predict futureconditions and system improvements. It can also bringattention to operational improvements that can beimplemented in a shorter time frame than traditionalinfrastructure investments. This will lead to a moreeffective mix of operational, capital, safety,maintenance, and preservation investments.Improved reliability—Travelers and freight shippersare increasingly sensitive to unanticipated disruptionsto tightly scheduled personal activities andmanufacturing supply-chain processes. Yet trip timeshave become increasingly unpredictable due to thegrowth in non-recurring congestion—unexpected orunusual congestion caused by accidents, inclementweather, special events, or construction. Growth inoverall traffic volumes often means that even smalldisruptions can have a significant ripple effect ontransportation system performance over a broadgeographic area. Today, non-recurring congestionaccounts for about half of all travel delay. Theplanning process typically deals with ongoing orpredictable congestion issues, and traditionalinfrastructure investments that do not address the


disruptions that are the source of non-recurrentcongestion. Stronger connections between plannersand operators help planners consider programs andstrategies to improve reliability, such as deployment oftechnologies to rapidly detect incidents; variablemessage signs and other approaches for providingquick, reliable traffic information to the public andmedia outlets; and use of roving incident responseteams to quickly clear accidents to open up aroadways for full operation.Improved emergency preparedness—Coordinationbetween planning and operations reinforces efforts toensure emergency preparedness and transportationsecurity. Regional operations planning and flexibility isa critical element of a secure transportation system.States and regions that advance operational flexibilityin their planning and investment prioritization arebuilding their capacity to address the myriad ofemergency and security situations that could arise. Inaddition, sources of funding may be availablespecifically for activities that support transportationsecurity and emergency preparedness, which can beused to support transportation M&O objectives.

1.4 CAN IT BE DONE?

ChallengesAlthough there are many reasons for improving the linkagebetween planning and operations, there are also seriouschallenges. The challenges of linking planning andoperations vary depending on factors such as the experi-ence, size, institutional arrangements, and institutionalculture within each region. Some challenges that arecommon to many regions include:

Difficulty demonstrating the benefits of managementand operations investments. Analysis tools toevaluate the benefits resulting from operationalstrategies and ITS projects are limited. Most analysistools are oriented toward calculating the benefits ofmajor infrastructure investments. These tools do notconsider non-recurring congestion caused byincidents, construction, or special events. Moreover,travel demand models have been the subject of legalchallenges particularly in air quality nonattainmentareas. Tools that model the effects of M&O strategiesmust have demonstrated the credibility to withstandsuch challenges.An initial unwillingness of local officials to discussmanagement and operations costs at a regional level.

Often, there is a perception that management andoperations are local, not regional, issues.A lack of training among planning staffs aboutoperations activities. MPO staffs tend to be primarilyfocused on planning and programming of capitalprograms.A lack of training and experience among operationsstaff about planning activities. Operationspractitioners tend to emphasize a short-term outlook,with limited consideration of how their activities fitinto broader regional goals.Limited funding to pay for capital needs of theroadway and transit network that may have been inplans for years. This can push any consideration offunding for operational programs and strategies off theradar screen.Limited funding to pay for ongoing operations.

While the capital costs of ITS technologies and trafficmanagement centers are often paid for with Federal funds,ongoing operational costs typically fall to State, regional,and local agencies.

Can These Challenges Be Overcome?Yes, they can! That is what the remainder of this guide isabout. Coordination between planning and operations ishappening today and is being enhanced through a diverserange of strategies. This resource guide discusses thelessons from those who have had success at building thislinkage and highlights opportunities to further regionalcoordination.

Historically, operational considerations have been inte-grated into planning for transit projects, but much less sofor highway projects. However, that is changing. Today,highway agencies are evolving to focus greater attentionon maintaining existing infrastructure and recognizing thecritical role of operations in achieving regional mobilitygoals. Both transit and highway agencies are recognizingnew opportunities to improve reliability, security andsafety, and public information through their investmentprograms. MPOs are increasingly seeing their role as notonly facilitating regional transportation planning, but alsofacilitating regional management and operation.


1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDEThis resource guide discusses opportunities to strengthenlinkages between planning and operations.

Section 2 is the main body of this report and is organizedaround the linkage opportunities discussed above. Section2 includes a number of brief case examples and exhibits toillustrate the concepts being discussed. The case examplesdescribe planning/operations linkages from specificregions and States. These generally include contactinformation should the reader wish to gather more detailsabout the example. Purple exhibit boxes provide moregeneral illustrative concepts that are not specific to anylocation.

Section 3 is a self-assessment tool that can be used byboth planners and operators to think about current levelsof coordination and opportunities for strengtheningplanning and operations connections. Some practitionersmay wish to begin with this self-assessment tool as a wayto prioritize which of the linkage opportunities in Section2 should receive the most immediate attention.

Section 4 provides resources for further information,including links to useful Web sites, online tools, and onlineforums.


Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 1

his section provides a roadmap to linking planningand operations by focusing on specific linkageopportunities. First, the section discusses general

strategies for integrating operations considerations intothe core regional transportation planning process. Thepurpose of this discussion is to demonstrate how thecurrent planning process can serve as the foundation for amore integrative approach. Second, nine specific linkageopportunities are discussed:5

1) Transportation Planning Process (page 2-2),

2) Data Sharing (page 2-6),

3) Performance Measures (page 2-12),

4) Congestion Management Systems (page 2-19),

5) Funding and Resource Sharing (page 2-24),

6) Institutional Arrangements (page 2-31),

7) Regional ITS Architecture (page 2-39),

8) Regional Management and Operations Projects(page 2-46), and

9) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations(page 2-52).

The discussion of each of these linkage opportunities isorganized as follows.

Background—This subsection provides an overviewof the linkage opportunity, with a general descriptionof how it brings together planners and operators. Asappropriate, this subsection also identifies intendedoutcomes of successful linkages and describes whenthe linkage is most applicable.

Taking Advantage of Linkage Opportunities—Thissubsection illustrates specific linkages along withillustrative examples. These examples are intended togive the reader a concrete sense of how eachdescribed activity can enhance communication orcoordination among practitioners.6

Lessons Learned—This subsection identifies commonchallenges, obstacles, and unanticipated benefits.Lessons learned include points that practitionerscommonly raised during MPO and State DOTinterviews as well as points that appear frequently inthe planning and operations literature. This sectionalso includes tips on how to implement specific linkageopportunities.

5 These nine linkage opportunities were identified through literature reviewand practitioner interviews.

6 The examples that are used throughout Section 2 focus disproportionatelyon the regions that were interviewed for this guidebook. There are

22222 OPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING ANDOPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING ANDOPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING ANDOPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING ANDOPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING ANDOPERAOPERAOPERAOPERAOPERATIONSTIONSTIONSTIONSTIONS

T

undoubtedly many more illustrations of the opportunities discussed in thissection. Readers are encouraged to share successes and lessons learnedso that others may continue to learn from each other’s efforts. Some easyways to share such examples are listed in the Resource Section at the endof this guide.


2.1

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) identifies seven planning factors that must be consid-ered in the transportation planning process.7 One of thesefactors requires that transportation plans “promoteefficient system management and operation,” establishinga formal role for M&O activities in the transportationplanning process.8 In support of this requirement, thestructure of the transportation planning process providesnumerous opportunities to address transportation manage-ment and operations. This section briefly highlights theseopportunities in general terms. This discussion also pointsout several current trends within transportation planningthat complement efforts to link planning and operations.Subsequent sections go into more detail about specificlinkage opportunities.

BACKGROUNDThe transportation planning process has traditionallyfocused on long-range travel trends and large-scaleinfrastructure projects. Management and operationsstrategies such as incident response, special eventplanning, and work zone management have receivedrelatively little attention. However, over the past 20 years orso, a number of constraints have highlighted the need forcoordination of regional operations strategies within theplanning process. Following are several factors that aremaking it increasingly difficult to construct new highwayand transit capacity.

Environmental, Community, and Space Constraints—In many metropolitan areas, there are feweropportunities for highway or transit capacityexpansion along congested corridors. Often theenvironmental and community impacts that wouldresult from new or widened roadways go beyond whatis acceptable to the public. In some cases, there is littleor no additional space within public right-of-ways.These constraints on traditional infrastructureconstruction have placed increased pressures onpublic officials and transportation agencies to findnew ways of enhancing the effective capacity andreliability of the existing transportation network.

Funding Constraints—As transportation constructioncosts have increased, State and local budgets havebecome more strained. Some transportation capacityprojects move forward despite community,environmental, and space constraints, but overcomingthese constraints requires longer construction periods,frequent project mitigations, and more complexconstruction techniques. This means that each projectconsumes a bigger share of available funds. At thetime that project costs are increasing, many States andlocalities are facing infrastructure deterioration fromyears of deferred maintenance. These fundingchallenges mean that few agencies can build all of thefacilities that might be desired.

Inability to Respond to Short-term Problems—Majorconstruction projects rarely deliver new capacity in theshort term. In fact, some large-scale projects take wellover a decade to complete. At the same time,transportation patterns are more diverse and lesspredictable than ever. New transportation challengesemerge unexpectedly as a result of economic shifts orshort-term trends. Thus, there is a need fortransportation solutions that can respond quickly tocongestion, safety, and economic concerns.

The statutes and regulations that govern the transporta-tion planning process have the flexibility to accommodateand, in fact, encourage management and operationssolutions. It has become clear that MPOs, State DOTs, andother agencies that lead transportation planning efforts canuse the planning process as an important forum and toolfor collaboration between planners and operators.

7 The metropolitan and statewide planning factors are referenced under 23U.S.C. 134(f) and 23 U.S.C. 135(c), respectively.

8 Other planning factors focus on increasing safety and security,enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,and preservation of the existing system. These additional factors furthersupport the importance of addressing management and operations withinthe planning process.


OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PLANNINGPROCESSVarious stages in the transportation planning processafford opportunities to ensure collaboration betweenplanners and operators and to incorporate managementand operations strategies into the decisionmaking process.These stages are summarized in Exhibit 2, along withexamples of opportunities for operations coordination. Thissection summarizes opportunities in each of these stages.

Identify and Engage StakeholdersThe MPO serves as the regional agency coordinatingtransportation planning and programming among the Stateand local agencies and individual jurisdictions. Theregional transportation planning process is designed tofoster involvement by all interested parties, such as thebusiness community, environmental organizations,

Exhibit 2: Examples of Opportunities to Coordinate M&O in the Planning Process

community groups, and the general public. This is accom-plished through a proactive public participation processconducted by the MPO in coordination with the State DOT,transit operators, and local jurisdictions. Because of theresources and the emphasis typically placed on getting allstakeholders to the table, outreach oriented toward publicsafety and transportation operations stakeholders can beparticularly effective at this stage.

The interagency and inter-jurisdictional collaboration thatis part of the regional planning process is critical foreffective regional transportation management, and makesthe process an important forum for addressing regionaloperations concerns. Through specific committees andtask forces, the MPO can facilitate discussions betweenplanners and operators, including public safety managers,freight stakeholders, and other operations stakeholders.


Develop Goals and ObjectivesThe development of regional transportation vision andgoals affords an opportunity to involve operationsagencies in the process that shape future transportationsystems. First, visions and goals need not be confined tothe distant future. Near-term goals and visions are impor-tant for engaging businesses and members of the public insetting priorities. These shorter term goals often demand agreater role for management and operations practitioners.Second, setting goals and objectives provides an opportu-nity to engage with M&O practitioners (see Case 1). Theregion’s vision should emphasize efficient operations, aswell as needed physical infrastructure investments.

Optimally, as regions strive to improve the efficiency,reliability, and safety of transportation systems, strategiesthat transcend the spectrum of options should be devel-oped and evaluated early in the planning process (see Case2). In this manner, “solutions packages” that combineoperations, info-structure, infrastructure, and land usestrategies and projects can be formulated. Such a “trans-portation-as-a-system” perspective can help to improve thequality and timeliness of transportation decisions, andinherently integrates operations into the planning process.

Define Performance Criteria and Data NeedsPerformance measures help to determine whether resourcesare being prioritized properly to meet goals and objectives.The approach to performance measurement can dramati-cally influence what regional needs are highlighted withinthe planning process and which are downplayed orignored. Transportation professionals with a managementand operations focus contribute a unique perspective onhow to measure performance, and therefore can add a greatdeal to the regional discussion about performance mea-surement at the system, corridor, or facility level.

The availability of data also has a great deal to do with thetypes of performance measures that can be implemented.Operations data address real time performance of thetransportation system, allowing for the development ofmeasures that can better capture the experiences of users(e.g., travel time and travel time reliability). However, toaccess and properly apply real-time data, the resources andexpertise of operations practitioners is needed in theplanning process.

Assessment of DeficienciesAn important component of regional planning processesinvolves determining where transportation improvementsare most needed. Needs assessment traditionally hasfocused on additional roadway or transit capacity toimprove mobility in particular corridors. As the focus ofplanning efforts expands beyond mobility to also addresstravel time reliability and accessibility, management andoperations strategies grow in importance, especially givenenvironmental, community, and funding constraints to newphysical infrastructure projects. Consequently, the needs

Case 1: Examples of Goals and Objectives thatAcknowledge the Role of Management & Operations

Following are examples of goals taken from regionaltransportation plans that set out to achieve systemperformance based improvements throughmanagement and operations:

Wilmington, DE (MPO)“To efficiently move people and goods… improvesystem performance…promote mobility, andaccessibility.”

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX (MPO)“Support management strategies that optimizetransportation system performance throughtechnology and innovation.”

New Orleans, LA (MPO)“We recognize today that resources are limited andimproved management of existing systems caneffectively add capacity to transportation networks.”

Case 2: Transportation Management in the ChicagoRegion Transportation Plan

Regional transportation plans for the Chicagometropolitan area have placed increasing emphasison management and operations strategies. The 2020Plan listed M&O projects that were considered apriority. The current 2025 plan establishes a regionalpolicy that all major capital projects are to includemanagement and operations components in order toenhance system efficiency. The current updatedversion of the plan anticipates an expandedemphasis on M&O, linking to specific capitalinitiatives.

Contact Thomas Vick: [email protected]


assessment phase provides an important opportunity toengage more effectively management and operations in thedecisionmaking process. The need to better integratemanagement and operations into regional needs assess-ment is heightened further by the increased focus ontransportation security, which will rely on effectiveoperations planning and response to prepare for andrespond to terrorist incidents.

Develop Alternative ScenariosMany plans define two or more alternative scenarios, oftenrelating to particular themes. For example, a region maydefine a scenario with all the desired capital investments,as well as a less costly scenario that seeks primarily tomaintain the existing system. M&O strategies can form thebasis for an alternative scenario (see Case 3). Developingan integrated M&O-focused alternative is an excellentopportunity for involving operations practitioners in theplanning process. This is a chance to see how regional orState coordination of management and operations effortscan address short- and mid-term needs. Moreover, incorpo-rating M&O strategies into all types of capacity enhance-ment projects is important to ensure that the effectivecapacity of the system is maximized.

Evaluate Alternatives and SelectSuperior OptionsMany planning agencies have developed advancedprocedures for applying modeling techniques and eco-nomic assessments in order to choose between variouscapital investment options. This already challengingprocess becomes even more complex when transportationmanagement projects and programs are included withincompeting investment scenarios. For example, evaluationtechniques can rarely weigh the benefit from a coordinatedset of corridor management strategies.

Involvement from operations practitioners is critical toensure that the full range of benefits of these programs isconsidered. Involvement at this stage can help operationsstaff to see the importance of their expertise within thetransportation decisionmaking process. Ultimately,interaction in this evaluation process can lead to improvedmutual understanding and often raises new coordinationsteps for subsequent updates to the transportation plan.

Taking Advantage of These OpportunitiesImplementing the broad opportunities discussed aboverequires specific consideration of the planning andoperations activities that best afford new linkages. This isdetailed in the subsequent parts of this section, most ofwhich follow directly from the themes raised in thissection.9

Case 3: MTC 2001 Regional Transportation PlanSystem Management Alternative

In its 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, the SanFrancisco Bay Area Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) included a system managementalternative. This alternative sought to address corridormobility issues through a set of projects that wereprimarily operational in nature. Examples includedexpanded express bus service, reversible carpoollanes, and a better-connected HOV and transitsystem. The alternative also included more fundingfor streets and roads pavement shortfalls. Freewayramp metering was assumed to be implemented forthe most congested corridors, while congestionpricing was assumed for the region’s major bridgesin order to generate additional revenues, includingtransit operating revenues. In this alternative, somehighway projects were deferred to provide additionalfunding for these management programs.

Contact Doug Kimsey: [email protected]

9A Note of Caution on Timeframes in Planning and Operations: Thisdiscussion and the remainder of this guide point out opportunities within theplanning process to coordinate with, and incorporate, shorter termoperations-oriented solutions. However, a shorter term focus must beapproached with caution. In cases where short-term and long-termresponsibilities are assigned to the same organization, there is a dangerthat the immediate and tangible issues of the short term will overwhelm thetime and resources available for long-term planning responsibilities. One ofthe strengths of MPOs is that their primary mandated responsibility hasbeen to take the long view of the community’s transportation needs; thus itis vital that a strong long-term perspective be maintained. A melding ofthe long-term focus of planning and the short-term focus of operationsmeans that MPOs should take a more active role in forums for regionaloperations coordination and in coordination between short- and long-termplanning. It does not mean that planning practitioners should prioritize short-term planning over long-term planning.


2.2

BACKGROUNDUsing advanced technologies, it is now possible to collectand store vast amounts of data to support the planningand operation of transportation systems (see Exhibit 3).Roadway loop detectors, for example, can provide real-timeinformation about traffic volumes and speeds. Globalpositioning systems and radio/cellular phone triangulationcan determine vehicle location and speed. Electronic farecollection and automatic vehicle location systems canrecord detailed information on transit service and use.These rich data sources not only replace many moreexpensive traditional data collection methods such asmanual traffic counts, surveys, and floating car studies,they also allow data to be combined across modes andoperational environments in new ways. In doing so, thesedata can create a more complete picture of how policy,infrastructure, and service changes affect the performanceof transportation systems.

What Is Data Sharing?Data sharing refers to a broad range of activities thatsupport the full use of readily available transportationinformation. Many government and private organizationscollect data that can inform the design and operation oftransportation facilities and systems. First and foremost,data sharing implies awareness about such data sourcesand a fresh perspective in considering their potential valuein new uses. Data sharing typically requires that organiza-tions store data and make it available in a useable format. Itmay also involve a forum to coordinate with other organiza-tions about potential data exchange opportunities.

How Can Data Sharing Create StrongerLinkages Between Planning and Operations?The collection, storage, and sharing of transportation dataprovides numerous opportunities to solidify the linkbetween planning and operations. Real time data fromsystem operators allows agencies to measure and track thecharacteristics of the transportation system that are closestto what users experience. This, in turn, allows planners todevelop better performance measures and other analyticaltools. As planners come to value the data available frommanagement and operations programs, they build a broaderawareness of such programs and their importance. Whenoperations agencies share their data, they often increasetheir focus on data quality and transferability, and theymay develop new relationships with other agencies,universities, and other institutions in the process.

Why Is Data Sharing So Important?Interest in data sharing is prompted in part by growingconcern about the performance of transportation systemsin addition to the performance of individual facilities, andby the increased focus on system management andoperations as a tool to enhance transportation systemsperformance. Efforts to improve travel time reliability andpredictability require more detailed data than has tradition-ally been analyzed by planners. The system focus meansthat data on conditions are needed virtually everywhere onthe transportation system, across jurisdictions and modes.This contrasts with the typical “hotspot” approach thathas governed data collection and transportation manage-ment in the past (see Exhibit 4).

As data collection and storage have become more costeffective, the capacity for transportation practitioners tomake use of vast amounts of data for policy analysis hasalso increased. For example, desktop geographic informa-

Exhibit 3: Typical Operations Systems andAssociated Data

Traffic monitoring and detection systems:vehicle volume, speed, travel time, classification,weight, and position trajectoriesTraveler information systems: current trafficconditions (e.g., travel time, speed, level ofcongestion), traffic incidents, work zone, and/orlane closuresTraffic control systems: time and location oftraffic control actions (e.g., ramp metering, trafficsignal control, lane control signals, messageboard content)Incident and emergency managementsystems: location, cause, extent, and timehistory of roadway incident/emergency detectionand clearanceAdvanced public transit systems: transit vehiclepassenger boardings by time and location,vehicle trajectories, passenger origins, anddestinations


tion systems (GIS) applications have continued to becomemore advanced and more pervasive. GIS is a valuable toolfor organizing spatial data from multiple sources. Otherpowerful software tools allow simulation of complex trafficconditions on individual computers. For years, manygroups within State transportation agencies have operatedindependently, collecting their own information usingdifferent reference systems, databases, and analysispackages. Many States are now using relational databases,GIS, and other tools to assist them in bringing togetherthese dissimilar datasets.

The ITS architecture also encourages the identification ofnew data sharing opportunities. One element of theNational Architecture (and regional architectures) is theinformation flow analysis. This is typically diagramed in away that illustrates the appropriate information flowsbetween each major component of the transportationsystem, thereby highlighting potential data sharingoptions. A related element of the National ITS Architecture,the Archive Data User Service, was designed to facilitatealternative uses of ITS data, including use of data fortransportation planning. The Archive Data User Servicehelps promote a regional data sharing approach that isconsistent with current and anticipated technologicalcapacity.

Exhibit 4: Typical Differences in Survey and ITS Data

Organizations that receive data benefit from valuableinformation on transportation system demand and perfor-mance, often at little or no cost. Sharing data can benefitthe organization providing data by building awarenessabout the agency’s programs and creating a check on dataaccuracy. Data sharing may necessitate changes within theagencies receiving data, including a willingness to evaluateplanning practices and operations strategies in light ofmore complete information.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESData sharing is often a first step toward broader coordina-tion between planning and operations. Sharing data willrequire establishing new relationships with other agenciesand building mechanisms to support sustained dataexchange and storage. Issues such as data formats,accuracy, consistency, and appropriate use can complicatethe process of establishing inter- and intra-agency datasharing programs, but these challenges can be overcome. Anumber of small steps can help to initiate the process. Asagencies learn about resources available in their region,they are likely to be more interested in exploring thebenefits of data exchange. This section discusses severalspecific opportunities to use data sharing as a mechanismto link planning and operations.

Develop a Regional Data ClearinghouseA central data clearinghouse can help facilitate access to aregion’s full range of transportation data for both planningand operating agencies. This requires that a regionalagency take stock of all transportation data that areavailable and develop partnership agreements to make dataretrievable from a central access point. There will bebarriers for certain sensitive data sources, but the effortshould include all planning and operating agencies, publicsafety agencies, as well as private sector sources such asfreight companies. An initial effort to compile a list of allelectronically available data sources is an excellent place tobegin a discussion about regional data sharing mecha-nisms.

The regional ITS architecture is likely to include a detaileddescription of the types of data that are available fromvarious transportation, emergency management, and publicsafety agencies. In this way, the ITS architecture can beused to guide data sharing and the development of acentral clearinghouse. (Regional ITS architecture opportu-nities are discussed in Section 2.7.)


Coordinate Data Resources With TransitAgenciesAs a result of ITS deployments, transit agencies arebecoming more valuable data sharing partners enablingthem to participate in regional planning activities in newways (see Case 4). With numerous vehicles throughouttheir service area traveling on regularly scheduled routes,transit agencies are in an excellent position to provideroadway system data using automatic vehicle locationtechnology. This includes information on current speedsthroughout the roadway network and changes in speedson a particular route throughout the day and over longertime periods. When such information is collected andstored, it can be useful for evaluating the impacts ofsystem improvements. For example, by comparing expressbus travel times during the specified time periods on aparticular day, such data could allow evaluation of thedeployment of a traffic control feature during specialevents.

When they share data with other agencies, transit provid-ers assist with improving regional system operations byenhancing roadway network monitoring, and they assistwith improving regional planning by facilitating thedevelopment of performance measures. Transit agenciesthemselves benefit from vehicle location data when it

Case 5: Salt Lake City’s Olympics Games Lead toContinued Data Sharing

Commuter Link is a Web-based traveler informationsystem for the Salt Lake City region. The systemcomponents include closed-circuit televisioncameras, electronic roadway signs, a 511 travelinformation line, coordinated traffic signals, rampmeters, traffic speed and volume sensors, pavementsensors, and weather sensors. Transportationofficials demonstrated a new willingness to devoteattention to this coordinated data service inpreparation for the 2002 Winter Olympics. During theOlympics, the system worked extremely well. Sincethe Olympics, this data sharing has continued andhas proven to be useful in coordinating trafficmanagement centers across jurisdictions.

Contact Dave Kinnecom: [email protected]

provides information on real-time system conditions, suchas incident information. And communicating real-timevehicle location and arrival information to transit customersimproves transit service and can boost ridership.

Use Special Events to Initiate New DataPartnershipsAmidst the day-to-day duties of transportation agencies,taking time to discuss data collaboration is often viewed asa low priority. The need to reach out to new agencies canbe heightened when preparing for special events. Specialevents create an opportunity to develop awareness of datathat are available from other organizations (see Case 5).When participating in transportation planning for a specialevent, consider how the agencies involved might sharedata on a long-term basis.

Use Universities to Help Develop IntegratedDatabasesUniversities are natural partners for developing datasharing resources (see Case 6). Their technologicalcapabilities, their positions outside of the establishedinstitutional framework, and their role in developing a newgeneration of practitioners all contribute to their value asdata sharing partners.

Most major universities can be expected to have thetechnology and expertise required to develop large datacollection, storage, and distribution systems. Moreover,

Case 4: Puget Sound Region Uses Transit Vehiclesas Speed Probes

The roadway infrastructure that is used to obtain traveltime and speed data is expensive. The University ofWashington Transportation Center (TRAC) funded theUniversity of Washington Electrical EngineeringDepartment (UWEE) to use transit vehicles equippedwith automatic vehicle location (AVL) devices asspeed and travel time probes in an effort to gathersuch data more efficiently. UWEE’s analysis foundthat transit vehicles could be used to successfullyestimate acceleration, speed, and position for specificlocations and times. The ITS research program at UWis creating a server to place data from the transitprobe virtual sensors into the Washington State DOTNorthwest Region’s operational Traffic ManagementSystem. This work will increase WSDOT trafficmanagement sensing capabilities without installationand maintenance costs of roadway loops andcabinets. Seattle region travelers will benefit frombetter arterial traveler information.

For more information: http://www.its.washington.edu/transit-probes/


universities that are involved with transportation policy,engineering, or planning may have already taken steps todevelop regional transportation databases that link existingdata sources in innovative ways.

Universities are typically perceived to be somewhatindependent of local and regional transportation agencies.This means they may have a unique capacity to buildbridges between agencies. And because universities areusually removed from day-to-day collection and use oftransportation data, they may be able to offer creative ideasfor new uses of existing data.

Finally, when local universities are focused on developingintegrated transportation data management systems,students involved with this work will leave the university

with an understanding of the data sources and how theycan be related. This helps train a generation of profession-als who see transportation planning and operations acrossmodal and jurisdictional boundaries in a more integratedfashion, helping to build a foundation for longer-termlinking of planning and operations.

As a first step toward developing these partnerships,identify universities in the region that have transportationresearch programs. Contact key faculty to discuss whatthey are currently doing with regional transportation dataand what capacity they may have to play a more significantrole in developing regional data management products.

Use Operations Data to Develop More EffectivePerformance MeasuresOperational data is also essential for the development ofmany performance measures (see Case 7). For example,measuring and monitoring travel time reliability hashistorically been difficult due to the lack of detailed data.Reliability can now be developed measured by collectingloop detector or traffic camera data at frequent intervals(two minutes or less), processing the data to determineinstantaneous speeds, aggregating speed information tospecified time intervals (20 seconds to 15 minutes), thenstoring the data for later analysis. MPOs and DOTs can usethese measures to identify segments with poor travel timereliability, improve performance measurement, and bettertarget public investments.

Use Operations Data to Improve PlanningAnalysis ToolsData gathered through transportation systems manage-ment activities can be valuable to transportation planners

Case 6: ARTIMIS: The Kentucky-Ohio Planning DataPartnership

The Advance Regional Traffic Interactive Managementand Information System (ARTIMIS) covers the GreaterCincinnati area with ITS equipment deployed over 88miles of highway. ARTIMIS has brought together theOhio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council ofGovernments (Cincinnati area MPO), the Ohio DOT,the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, FHWA, the City ofCincinnati, and the Northern Kentucky Area PlanningCommission. The partnership was forged in order tocreate a framework for standardizing and applyingdata made available through ITS, choose appropriatetechnology, collaborate on archiving decisions, andcontrol data quality.

Developing the partnership proved challenging,however. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet noted,“The cultural barrier is the marriage between planningand operations necessary to obtain planning datafrom a system mostly run by operations personnel.”Over time and through several meetings, planning andoperations personnel have made significant progresstowards coordination with respect to archiving data. Inpursuit of better data processing techniques, theUniversity of Kentucky initiated an archived datamanagement system (ADMS) study with the intent ofestablishing a permanent ADMS in Kentucky. One ofthe advantages of the University’s involvement is that,as an outside party, it assists in overcoming barriersbetween the planning and operations functional areas.

Contacts:Robert Bostrom: [email protected],Mei Chen: [email protected],David Gardner: [email protected]

Case 7: Washington State DOT Uses Archived Datafor Improved Performance Measurement

In the late 1990s, Washington State DOT engaged theUniversity of Washington to use years of archivedtraffic data to explore benefits of operationalimprovements such as ramp metering and incidentresponse programs. Based on these historicperformance data, the University built analytical toolsto demonstrate benefits from the proposed operationsinvestments. The University now provides ongoingsupport for operations investments.

Contact Toby Rickman: [email protected]


for improving travel demand models and developing otheranalytical tools. While planners have traditionally relied onaverage values and national standards for many analyticaltasks (such as volume-delay relationships in the HighwayCapacity Manual), planners may now have access to datasuch as the variation in traffic volumes and travel timesthroughout the day, crash frequency and location, vehicleclassification counts, and transit rider origin-destinationdata (see Case 8). The availability of more detailed opera-tions data can lead to better travel demand forecastingmodels, including models that are more sensitive to theeffects of operations strategies.

Use Archived Data to Inform Management andOperations PlanningWhile archived data can be useful to transportationplanning agencies, it can also help those responsible formanagement and operations to plan internally and coordi-nate their activities for the most effective results. Forexample, by archiving and processing existing data, trafficmanagement center staff can observe network performancecharacteristics on a weekly or monthly basis. This provides

Case 9: Data Sharing Between Agencies in thePortland, Oregon, Metropolitan Region

In the Portland Metropolitan Area, several agencieshave collected transportation operations data for manyyears. The Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) uses loop detectors at ramp meters andalong freeways to measure freeway volumes. The Cityof Portland determines traffic volumes from loopdetectors placed within the City. Portland’s transitagency, Tri-Met, collects extensive transit data usingautomatic vehicle location (AVL), global positioningsystems (GPS), and other advanced technologies.

Technological advances have increased data sharingand planning for future collaboration. For example, afiber optic cable connecting Metro (Portland region’sMPO), ODOT, City of Portland, and Tri-Met facilities hasenabled Metro to receive data from each agency. Tri-Met’s bus movement data is being used by ODOT, theCity of Portland, and Metro to detect corridorcongestion. In the future, ODOT hopes to use the datato evaluate the efficiency of traffic signal timing. Metrohas used the operations data in planning andprogramming processes to quantify the benefits of ITSand compare operations projects with traditionalroadway expansion projects.

Contact Dick Walker: [email protected]

a tool to assess how TMC activities are affecting systemperformance and also helps operations managers frametheir role within the broader transportation planningprocess.

LESSONS LEARNEDSome regions have developed advanced data sharingarrangements (see Case 9), while other regions are justbeginning to consider opportunities for to share data. Yet,certain common challenges have emerged regardless of aregion’s data sharing sophistication. This section high-lights some of the lessons regions have learned in increas-ing their capacity to share data across organizational andjurisdictional boundaries.

Sharing Data Will Focus Attention on DataQuality ConcernsSharing data often brings to light inaccuracies. Significanterrors are common in electronically collected data due tosystematic bias or simply from basic equipment malfunc-

Case 8: Operations Data for Transportation Planningin Montgomery County, Maryland

In the past, the Maryland-National Capital Park &Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) maintained anextensive traffic count program. These traffic countsprovided the foundation for identifying congestionproblems and calibrating the area’s travel demandmodels. With reductions in funding, the traffic countprogram was scaled back and then eliminated. At thesame time, M-NCPPC was being asked to providebetter information on congestion locations so thatsystem improvements can be targeted to the mostcost-effective locations.

As a result of this situation, M-NCPPC staff membersdetermined that they needed to depend on thecounty’s advanced travel management system (ATMS)as their principal source of planning data. The agencyis currently developing systems to make the bestpossible use of this operations data. The process hasgenerated great interest from the planning staff in howthe ATMS functions and has led to more sustainedcommunication between planning and operationspractitioners in the region.

Contact Rick Hawthorne: [email protected]


tion. Errors may be difficult to identify within large isolateddata sets, but often become apparent when the dataoverlaps with data from another source or when they areused for a new purpose. For example, data collected byinduction loops may normally be used to time a signal ormeasure service at particular intersections. When thesedata are put to use in an effort to develop an integratedcorridor signalization plan or to calculate vehicle speeds, itmay become apparent that equipment has been operatingimproperly. Ultimately, these discoveries are valuablebecause they lead to more accurate information fordecisionmaking, or at least a better understanding of thequality of the data that exist. Nonetheless, the discovery ofdata quality and consistency problems can cause frustra-tion, and agencies may be deterred from sharing data bythese prospects.

The malfunction of transportation data collection equip-ment is common, in part because many agencies cannotallocate resources to properly test and maintain theequipment. In regions that have experience implementingITS solutions, stakeholders are learning the importance ofincorporating rigorous equipment maintenance systemsinto their ITS deployment plans. Ensuring reliable transpor-tation data sets has benefits beyond the agencies that relyon the data for analysis. Public agencies that have tried toencourage private sector use and distribution of ITS dataare finding that high quality data are important for gettingprivate sector stakeholders involved.

Privacy and Security Concerns RequireAttentionSome useful data may not be appropriate to share forreasons related to security, personal privacy, or businessconfidentiality. For example, security concerns may requirelimited distribution of a strategic emergency response routeor details of the transport of certain dangerous materials.Freight shippers and carriers may not want to reveal totheir competitors data on their transportation activity.Personal information about individual travelers must alsobe kept private in most cases. Data privacy issues canbecome disruptive during the process of establishing datasharing agreements unless these issues are addressedforthrightly and early on in the process. Modern databasetools can facilitate specific data accessibility for each userand prevent access to confidential information. Butsignificant planning still is needed to organize dataappropriately and to educate data partners about measuresto protect confidentiality.

Begin With the End in MindData sharing can save staff time and resources, but it alsorequires staff time and funding to establish procedures andto maintain data collection devices and networks. For anygiven data sharing proposal, it is important to begin with alist of customer-oriented outcomes that can follow fromdata sharing. This will ensure that the effort remainsfocused and build support among potential partneragencies and funding bodies. Benefits may includereduced resources devoted to surveys and traffic studies,ability to make use of new tools for faster and moreaccurate forecasting procedures, and ability to providestronger State, Federal, and public support for transporta-tion investments.

Increase Data Integration and Access RatherThan Changing Data OwnershipSome transportation management officials have theperception that sharing data means losing control of dataor that it will lead to loss of decisionmaking authority. Thiscommon perception can prevent a full exploration of datasharing options, such as pooling data in a central locationversus simply establishing better connections betweenexisting data sources. Past experience suggests thatagencies should emphasize changing database coordina-tion and access, not changing database ownership.

Key Resources on Data Sharing

Data Partnerships, Making Connections forEffective Transportation Planning, TRBTransportation Research Circular E-C061. http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?ID=2990

Sharing Information between Public Safety andTransportation Agencies for Traffic IncidentManagement, NCHRP Report 250, 2004. http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=3748

The Roadway INFOstructure: What? Why? How?,Transportation Research Circular, November 2003.http://gulliver.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2066

Archived Data User Service (ADUS): AnAddendum to the ITS Program Plan, Version 3,September 1998. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_pr/41401!.htm


2.3

BACKGROUND“What gets measured gets managed.” This often-repeatedmaxim recognizes that performance measurement can focusthe attention of decisionmakers, practitioners, and thepublic. By focusing attention on the operating performanceof the transportation system, performance measures serveas an important mechanism for increasing awareness ofmanagement and operations approaches within theplanning process. Performance measures provide a meansto link a transportation agency’s perspective with theexperience of those who use the transportation system.The act of defining performance measures and trackingperformance often requires communication and coordina-tion between those who manage operations for thetransportation system and those involved with planningand policy development. Those who manage operationsoften have data and expertise on real-time system perfor-mance. Planners and policymakers can use this informationin order to set goals, track progress, and make investmentdecisions.

What Is Performance Measurement?Performance measurement is a process of assessingprogress toward achieving predetermined goals, includinginformation on the efficiency with which resources aretransformed into goods and services, the quality of thoseoutputs (how well they are delivered to clients and theextent to which clients are satisfied) and outcomes (theresults of a program activity compared to its intendedpurpose), and the effectiveness of government operationsin terms of their specific contributions to program objec-tives.10

Exhibit 5: Classes of Performance Measures

Performance measures have many functions. They can beused to:

Frame what attributes of the transportation system aremost important;

Provide information on current conditions and trends;

Evaluate the success of implemented and ongoingprojects;

Provide a metric for communicating withdecisionmakers and the public about past, current, andexpected future conditions; and

Serve as criteria for investment decisions in thetransportation planning process.

Performance measures can be grouped into three catego-ries (See Exhibit 5 for examples):

Input measures – which generally address the supplyof resources;

Output measures – which address the delivery oftransportation programs, projects, and services; and

Outcome measures – which address the degree towhich the transportation system meets policy goalsand objectives.

While input and output measures are the easiest toimplement, outcome measures focus on the effects that thetraveling public most cares about – issues such as traveltime and delay, safety, and reliability. Increasingly, MPOs,transit operators, and DOTs are becoming customer-focused, which increases attention to the development of

10 Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for HighwaySegments and Systems – A Synthesis of Highway Practice, NCHRPSynthesis 311, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.


Performance Measures Bring Focus toCustomer-Oriented OutcomesPerformance measurement has traditionally been in therealm of planners and policy analysts as part of theplanning and investment prioritization process. Metricstended to be those that can be modeled and used for long-term investment decisionmaking, such as average traveltimes and miles of congested roadways.

Increasingly, transportation agencies are moving toward acustomer-oriented focus and want to develop performancemeasures that reflect what is most important to transporta-tion system users (see Case 10). Examples of performancemeasures that focus on management and operationsinclude:

Total or average hours of incident-related delay

Consistency of peak and off-peak travel times

Extent of real-time information provision (e.g., lane-miles or intersections for which information isavailable; number of ways to access such information)

Transit on-time performance

11 Survey of MPOs on Linking Planning and Operations, Association ofMetropolitan Planning Organizations, January 2004.

outcome measures. Still, outcome-oriented performancemeasurement is minimally practiced in many regions. Asurvey of MPOs asked, “Does your planning processreflect measurements of actual system performance, liketravel time, reliability, and incidence of non-recurringcongestion?” Of those that responded, 45 percentanswered no.11

How Can Performance Measurement CreateStronger Linkages Between Planning andOperations?Performance measures can help link planning and opera-tions by focusing attention on customer-oriented out-comes and elevating attention to M&O strategies withinthe transportation planning process. Increased coordina-tion and collaboration among operations and planning staffcan also help instill operations thinking into policy andplanning decisions.

Outcomes are beneficial for both planners and operators,as shown in Exhibit 6.

Key ways in which performance measures strengthen suchcollaboration are described below.

Exhibit 6: Benefits of Collaboration for Performance Measures


By addressing issues that are important to transportationsystem users, performance measures can focus helpattention on management and operations where theexperience of transportation system users is considered ina more immediate sense.

Case 10: Focusing on the Customer: WashingtonState DOT

As part of Washington State DOT’s efforts to defineperformance measures for traffic congestion, theagency moved beyond traditional measures ofaverage travel speeds to define measures focused ontravel reliability (e.g., though use of a “buffer index”* toaccount for non-recurring delay). These measureswere developed through coordination betweenplanners and operators, and involve ongoingcoordination in tracking performance. Prior to thiseffort, non-recurring delay did not receive thissystematic consideration.

WSDOT publishes a quarterly report on the State’stransportation system titled Measures, Markers, andMileposts. Also referred to as the Gray Notebook, thereport highlights the status of current projects, detailswhere transportation funds are being used, andupdates progress on management and operationsmeasures such as incident clearance time and travelinformation provision. Washington State DOT hasfound the customer-oriented performance measuresto be very effective in drawing attention to the benefitsassociated with its transportation investments and inbuilding credibility for the agency.

According to a Washington State DOT staff person:“The Secretary felt that by building the State DOT’saccountability, the agency could attract more funding.The Secretary focused on making the case thatWSDOT is on top of things. The best way to do that wasthrough operations data because it gets at aspects ofthe system that the public cares about.”


* The Buffer Index expresses the amount of extra timea traveler must allot for each trip in order to be on time95 percent of the time. As an index, this measure isuseful for comparisons regardless of travel time andtrip distance. The measure can also be presented inactual minutes of extra time required in cases whereone wishes to evaluate reliability for a particular trip.Typically, the index is calculated for each roadsegment, and a weighted average is calculated usingvehicle-miles of travel as the weighting factor.

Thus, the process of developing and implementingeffective performance measures can motivate collaborationbetween transportation operations and planning staffs.Moreover, advances in ITS and real-time monitoring oftraffic mean that operators have access to an incredibledepth of traffic data that can be used to measure moreaccurately the real traffic conditions experienced by users.This information brings to light a range of issues, such asincident-related delay and reliability, which are importantcustomer issues but have not traditionally been includedas performance measures.

Performance Measures Elevate the Status ofM&O ApproachesEfforts to focus on system performance often result inbetter recognition of the value associated with M&Oapproaches. Data on system performance can highlight thevalue of investments in programs that minimize incident-related delays, provide information on real-time travelconditions, and improve emergency response times byshowing how they can improve transportation systemreliability and reduce travel times for customers. The limitednumber of tools to quantify the benefits of operationalstrategies is often noted as a constraint in bringing greaterattention to M&O strategies. However, there is a growingnumber of tools on the market today to predict the effectsof operational strategies on system performance. (SeeExhibit 7 for examples of several tools.) Some agencies alsohave found success in measuring performance before andafter implementation of operations-oriented projects.

Given increased traffic congestion, limited road space, andfunding constraints, public decisionmakers in many areasrecognize the limitations associated with constructing newtransportation infrastructure to meet regional transporta-tion goals. Use of performance measures and measurementof the benefits of M&O strategies, can help thesedecisionmakers to appreciate the value of M&O ap-proaches toward meeting both short-term and long-termgoals (see Case 11).

Performance Measures Help Inform PolicyDecisionsBy focusing attention on system characteristics that areimportant to the traveling public, performance measurescan help planners focus on the day-to-day experience oftransportation system users. This provides importantbalance in settings where planners have been exclusivelyfocused on very long-term development of the network.


With greater focus on the day-to-day characteristics of thesystem, the issues faced by operators such as incidentresponse, work zone management, and provision of travelerinformation take on greater importance. As a consequence,mid- and long-term planning will reflect greater consider-ation of management and operations planning and invest-

Case 11: Elevating M&O Strategies: North CentralTexas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

At NCTCOG, the MPO for the Dallas-Fort Worth region,data on system performance were used in developingan annual performance report to the MPO board (e.g.,region-wide lane-miles of congested roadway, transiton-time performance). The performance reportpresented a forthright statement to local officialsabout the significant transportation, air quality, andfunding constraints facing the region. Theperformance report helped local officials appreciatethe important place of M&O strategies in the regionaltransportation vision.

Measurement of performance in terms of incident-based delay also yielded positive impacts in theplanning process in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.When estimating vehicle emissions many regionsthat struggle with air quality issues do not considerthe delay (and associated pollution) caused byincidents. As a result, incident response programsare undervalued. In response to this situation,NCTCOG estimates the contribution of incident delayto regional emissions. As a result, the MPO is able totake credit in its air quality conformity analysis foremissions reductions resulting from a successfulincident response program.

Contact Natalie Bettger: [email protected]

Exhibit 7: Sample Tools for Measuring Performanceof M&O Strategies

IDAS (ITS Deployment Analysis System) – a sketchplanning approach focused on helping practitionerswith specific ITS investment choices. IDAS draws ona database of a diverse set of ITS project evaluationsin order to provide comparative costs and benefitsover a range of possible ITS alternatives.Comparisons may be less precise than othermethods because they do not account for specificlocal conditions, but the tool is relatively simple tooperate and has low data requirements. Moreinformation on IDAS can be found at: http://www.camsys.com/idas03.htm

PRUEVIIN (Process for Regional Understanding andEvaluation of Integrated ITS Networks) – an analysismethodology containing techniques, programs, anddata sources designed to assess the benefits ofseveral integrated ITS services at the corridor level.Once set up, PRUEVIIN can be used repeatedly byboth planners and operations personnel to exploreoptimal system arrangements, accounting for dailyvariability in travel demand, weather, and incidents.PRUEVIIN has modest data requirements butrequires significant effort to operate. An application ofPRUEVIIN can be found at: http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13605.html

DYNASMART-P – a software tool developed for trafficoperations planning applications under FederalHighway Administration’s Dynamic Traffic Assignment(DTA) research program. DYNASMART-P combines(1) dynamic network assignment models, usedprimarily in conjunction with demand forecastingprocedures for planning applications, and (2) trafficsimulation models, used primarily for trafficoperations studies. DYNASMART-P overcomes thelimitations of traditional static assignment andsimulation models by using advanced trafficmodeling techniques to capture the dynamics ofcongestion formation and dissipation associated withtime-varying demands and network conditions.Potential applications include:

Providing dynamic traffic assignment methods fortraditional transportation planning analyses.

Assessing impacts of ITS and non-ITStechnologies on the transportation network in theplanning process.

Assessing impacts of different traffic operationand control strategies.

Supporting decisionmaking for work zoneplanning and traffic management.

Evaluating incident management strategies.

Evaluating congestion pricing schemes thatvary with location, time, and prevailing roadwayconditions.

DYNASMART-P is available from McTrans SoftwareCenter: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/. For furtherinformation contact Henry Lieu at FHWA,[email protected].


ment needs. Greater understanding of operations issues byplanning staff can also help in setting transportationpolicies.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESThere are a number of opportunities to use performancemeasurement to build stronger linkages between planningand operations. Following are some ways to take advan-tage of performance measures in this way.

Involve Operations Managers in the Process ofDeveloping Performance MeasuresAgencies responsible for major investment decisions oftentake the lead in developing performance measures.However, it is critical that this process involve practitionerswho are concerned primarily with day-to-day operation ofthe transportation system. The operator’s perspectiverelates closely to near-term concerns of the travelingpublic. Though operations practitioners have clearexpertise to contribute the performance measure develop-ment, a focused effort may be required to ensure that theyunderstand the importance of their involvement in theprocess and the importance of performance measures beingsupportive of regional goals.

Incorporate Operational Performance MeasuresInto Strategic and Long-Range TransportationPlan (LRTP)Performance measures in the LRTP should be driven by thegoals and objectives of the plan, which in turn, shouldreflect the region’s vision for its transportation system.Customers (including the general public, freight shippers,and others) are increasingly concerned about operationalperformance of the transportation system, including thereliability of the system and the availability of informationabout travel conditions that can inform the best travel time,mode, and route (see Case 12).

Incorporating operational performance measures into theLRTP provides an avenue for operators and customers(through public involvement) to get involved in theplanning process. It can provide better information tocustomers and stakeholders on the progress being madetoward desired goals and objectives, and can, therefore,serve to make long-range plans more real to the public.Moreover, incorporating performance measures helps to

ensure that regional transportation system managementand operations programs receive adequate attention inprioritization of projects for funding.

Use Operations Data for Tracking Performancein Annual or Quarterly ReportsPeriodic performance reports provide an excellent mecha-nism to make planning more relevant to everyday experi-ence. A number of MPOs, transit operators, and StateDOTs use performance reports to inform decisionmakersabout the trends in system performance.

Such reports work as a linkage in a number of ways:

First, they provide a realistic view of systemperformance improvements achievable throughmanagement and operations investments.

Second, they provide operations managers withguideposts and goals that provide some measure of

Case 12: Incorporation into Strategic Plans:California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Caltrans developed performance measures into theagency’s strategic plan. The agency linkstransportation system performance measurement toinformed decisionmaking by focusing on measuresthat reflect the role that the transportation systemplays in achieving broader State objectives. Themeasures are focused on outcomes and addresssystem-level characteristics rather than specificprojects. Some of the measures oriented towardsystems management and operations include:

Number of corridors with reasonable alternativesduring closures, and

Hours of both recurring and non-recurring delayby mode.

Caltrans seeks to use the measures to improvepartnerships with stakeholders and to improvelinkages with non-transportation issues (such aseconomic development and shifting demographics).The agency has developed an operations-orientedstrategy to provide a framework for coordinatinginstitutional linkages and partnerships that arenecessary for successful systems management.

Contact Joan Sollenberger:[email protected]


how operations programs are contributing to the long-term goals of the system.

Third, they support policy that is realistic aboutsystem constraints and that supports the role ofmanagement and operations in maintaining acceptabletransportation performance.

Agencies that report performance measures in a quarterlyor annual performance report encourage a sustainedcommunications link between planning and operationsstaffs. Even a very simple report providing one or twoperformance measures can have a positive effect inbroadening the discussion over investment priorities.There are many cases where a particular activity or projectrequires temporary coordination or exchange betweenplanners and operators, but sustaining such communica-tion is critical for changing the everyday perspective ofthese departments to routinely consider operations toolswithin the planning process. Routine, sustained, perfor-mance reporting is, therefore, particularly valuable (seeCase 13).

Use Performance Measures to Motivate Dataand Tool DevelopmentGiven the rapid evolution of automated travel data collec-tion technology, it is helpful to discuss performancemeasures beyond those that are supported by currentcapabilities. As one element of a performance measurementeffort, transportation agencies within a region may jointlywish to define the most appropriate measures and associ-ated data needs, without allowing current resources to limitthe discussion. This can be used to establish goals fordata collection and measurement and to provide somefocus in reviewing the stream of evolving transportationinformation technologies.

LESSONS LEARNEDThe very characteristics that make performance measure-ment a useful linkage between planning and operations canalso make performance measurement a complex challenge.The process often demands new data and tools and mayrequire new levels of coordination between agencies ordepartments. The following lessons have emerged fromagencies that have faced such challenges.

Begin With Simple Output MeasuresSome regions focus on output measures, which are oftensimpler than outcome measures. For example, the MaricopaAssociation of Governments performance measuresinclude the number of signals coordinated and the percent-age of cross-border signals coordinated between cities.While not specifically related to the customer, suchmeasures can still succeed in increasing policy andinvestment focus on the region’s M&O progress. Outputmeasures are particularly effective where there is alreadysome appreciation among local decisionmakers for thevalue of M&O solutions. Using simpler output perfor-mance reporting can inspire the attention and collaborationnecessary to design measures that address the mostimportant aspects of the system performance.

Do Not Expect a Clean and Simple ProcessDefining performance measures takes time and may notyield immediate, refined outputs. This is particularly thecase when the process is working to attract a broaderaudience. When new stakeholders and perspectives aredrawn to participate, the process becomes more complex;

Case 13: Annual Performance Reporting in theAlbuquerque Region

The Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG),the MPO for the Albuquerque metropolitan area,demonstrates the region’s transportation systemperformance through an annual publication calledLocal Motion. This performance information isavailable to the public on MRCOG’s Web site and isintended to educate the public, the staff of localgovernments, and elected officials. Local Motionsummarizes continuously collected traffic count dataon freeways, arterials, and collector streets. Everythree years, Local Motion includes a report card forthe area’s transportation system to assist indeveloping the long-range MetropolitanTransportation Plan. The report card rates the systembased on criteria that relate to management andoperations such as emergency vehicle responsetime, congestion levels, and miles of roadway withITS coverage. As a result of these performancereports, transportation officials and the public areable to evaluate the success of existing programsand target future projects accordingly.

Contact Sheila ter Bruggen: [email protected]


deciding on concrete characteristics to measure raisesdifficult questions about the fundamental objectivesserved by the transportation network. Agencies shouldapproach performance measurement with awareness thatthe effort will be a challenge. Initial performance measuresmay not be perfect, but initial steps are apt to attractgreater interest and advance the effort.


2.4

BACKGROUNDFirst required in ISTEA, congestion management systems(CMS) emphasize the role of management strategies toaddress traffic congestion within the regional transporta-tion planning process. Because the CMS is a Federalmetropolitan planning requirement with a specific policygoal of emphasizing systems management and operations,it can serve as a strong link between planning and opera-tions.

What Is a Congestion Management System?A CMS presents a systematic process for managing trafficcongestion and provides information on transportationsystem performance. A CMS should include alternativestrategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing themobility of persons and goods to levels that meet State andlocal needs.12 A CMS can take a variety of forms. At thecore, a CMS should include system for data collection andperformance monitoring, a range of strategies for address-ing congestion, performance measures or criteria foridentifying when action is needed, and a system forprioritizing which congestion management strategies wouldbe most effective (see Exhibit 8).

A CMS is required in metropolitan areas with populationexceeding 200,000, known as Transportation ManagementAreas (TMAs). In TMAs designated as ozone or carbonmonoxide non-attainment areas, the CMS takes on a greatersignificance. Federal guidelines prohibit projects thatincrease capacity for single occupant vehicles unless theproject comes from a CMS.13 Federal requirements alsostate that in all TMAs, the CMS shall be developed andimplemented as part of the metropolitan planning process.

How Can a CMS Create Stronger LinkagesBetween Planning and Operations?The CMS process is one of the few federally definedcomponents of the metropolitan planning process thatconsistently involve transportation operations. A CMS cancreate stronger linkages between planning and operationsby helping to raise awareness among the planning commu-nity of the efficiencies that operational strategies contrib-ute and by exposing operations managers to regionalplanning. A CMS can be an integral component of theplanning and programming process when CMS perfor-mance measures and strategy evaluations are fully utilizedin the development of the long-range plan and TIP. Theselinkages are described below.

A CMS Can Expose MPOs to a Broader Rangeof Strategies for Addressing CongestionFederal regulations require that through the CMS, plannersgive serious consideration to strategies that have ademonstrable impact on congestion and that a CMSinclude an assessment of the cost effectiveness ofstrategies. A CMS must consider strategies that “improveexisting transportation system efficiency.” Thus, the CMSdevelopment process highlights opportunities to addresscongestion using cost-effective operations strategies thatmight otherwise be overlooked.

In cases where the CMS considers a broad range ofstrategies, the planning staff involved in CMS develop-ment is exposed to a diverse set of management andoperations solutions. For example, some CMSs includeoperations strategies that address non-recurring conges-tion. These types of strategies are more likely to beincluded in a transportation plan when they are put forth aspart of the CMS process.

Exhibit 8: A CMS Must Do the Following

Measure multimodal transportation systemperformance

Identify the causes of congestion

Assess alternative actions

Implement cost-effective actions

Evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions

12 Federal Register, Part III, FHWA, FTA, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Management and Monitoring Systems, Section 500.109.

13 Safety improvements and the elimination of bottlenecks are exceptionsto this restriction.


A CMS Puts Performance Measures IntoPracticeA large part of the CMS process involves the developmentand implementation of performance measures (see Case 14).In fact, every CMS is required to use performance mea-sures to evaluate congestion mitigation strategies.14 Asdiscussed in the performance measures subsection above(Section 2.3), performance measures can help link planningand operations by focusing attention on customer-orientedoutcomes and elevating attention to operations strategieswithin the transportation planning process. Because thedevelopment of a CMS entails a multi-agency, publicprocess, the CMS performance measures are regionallyendorsed, meaning that a broad range of stakeholders havea say in them. When the process successfully engages adiverse set of stakeholders, it can function as an educa-tional tool, bringing attention to performance measurementand to operations strategies that can efficiently addressregional mobility concerns.

14 In this regard, many of the opportunities to link planning and operationsdescribed in Section 2.3 (Performance Measurement) exist within the CMSprocess.

Case 14: Wilmington, Delaware, CMS ConsidersSystem Impacts of Forecasted Growth

Representatives from a diverse group of Federal,State, county, and city agencies developed the 2003CMS for the Wilmington Area Planning Council(WILMAPCO). WILMAPCO’s CMS takes a systemsapproach to addressing congestion by carefullyconsidering the regional effects of local solutionsbefore making recommendations. As an integralpart of the WILMAPCO planning process, the CMSbegins by assessing the performance of the systemwith the following metrics: volume/capacity,intersection level of service, percent of postedspeed, and transit utilization. These metrics areevaluated for four different land-use/growthscenarios developed through the regional planningprocess. The CMS evaluates strategies foraddressing congestion, with priority given todemand management, then roadway operations,and finally capacity additions. The system impactsfrom projected economic, population, andemployment growth is also used to prioritizemitigation strategies. Recommendations are thenevaluated and prioritized in the region’s long-rangetransportation plan. The most recent WILMAPCOCMS can be found at http://www.wilmapco.org/cms/index.htm

Contact Dan Blevins: [email protected]

A CMS Can Promote a System-level Approachby Operations ManagersWhile the CMS can expose planners to new operationsstrategies, it also can help operations managers viewproblems at the regional, cross-jurisdictional systems level.When a CMS is explicitly driven by regional goals andobjectives, and when operations managers are involved inthe CMS development and implementation, it affords anopportunity for operations managers to recognize howtheir transportation strategies support the underlyingobjectives of the region’s transportation planning andprogramming. In addition, the CMS allows operationmanagers to see their congestion mitigation strategies onthe table along with a diverse range of alternative strate-gies. This presents an opportunity for interjurisdictionaldiscussions about which strategies work in coordination.In some cases, a planning agency will specifically prioritizecoordination between different congestion mitigationstrategies, thus providing an incentive within the CMS foroperations staffs to work together.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESRegions have a number of opportunities to use the CMS toadvance planning and operations coordination. Followingare several opportunities.

Involve Operations Managers in CMSDevelopmentAlthough the CMS is the responsibility of the MPO, theexpertise of transportation operations managers is vital todeveloping and evaluating congestion mitigation strate-gies. Because the CMS typically considers a diverse set ofstrategies, it has the potential to attract a wide range ofstakeholders. A concerted effort to engage operationsmanagers in CMS development and implementation is likelyto be rewarded, not only by a more effective CMS, but alsoby the information sharing that occurs during CMSdevelopment.

Some actions may help draw additional stakeholders to theCMS process:

Define clear roles for operating agencies. Examples ofroles for operations practitioners includebrainstorming operations oriented congestionmitigation strategies, identifying congestion datasources and measurement techniques, developing


Case 15: Approaches to Integrating CMS intoPlanning

MetroPlan (Orlando, FL) CMS Process Mapped intothe Regional Planning Process

Contact David Grovdahl:[email protected]

Salt Lake City Region - Using the CMS to Promote aBalanced Transportation Program

The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), theMPO for the Salt Lake City area, uses its CMS as atool to assist in the development of the Long-RangeTransportation Plan and the TIP. First, it determineslevels and locations of congestion using modeledpeak-period delay, GPS speed data, and archivedfield data. Second, specific locations prone tocongestion are addressed directly with proposals oftransportation system management (TSM) and traveldemand management (TDM) solutions that competefor funds. Third, sponsors of capacity-increasingprojects receive guidance from WFRC on which TDMand TSM strategies would be effective for theirprojects. Finally, the CMS effects the project selectionprocess by using models to identify areas most likelyto experience future congestion. Results are given tothe Long Range Planning Team for consideration inthe plan. As part of its ongoing CMS analysis, WFRCevaluates the effectiveness of congestion reliefstrategies by collecting “before and after” data onimplemented projects.

Contact Kip Billings: [email protected]

balanced performance measures, and identifyingapproaches to strategy implementation.

Summarize CMS actions that have been implementedto date. This can help stakeholders to see that theprioritization of projects and strategies through theCMS process actually influences funding andimplementation priorities. To improve thisunderstanding, consider identifying specific strategiesthat have been implemented because of theiridentification and performance within the CMSprocess.

Propose CMS strategies for non-recurring delay. ACMS should include a full range of operationsstrategies, including strategies that seek to reducerecurring and non-recurring delay. Raise the issue ofnon-recurring delay with the CMS team and identifycurrently listed and new strategies to reduce thissource of congestion. Some examples of strategies toreduce non-recurring delay include incident responseprograms, work zone management strategies, andevent coordination.

Integrate the CMS Into the Planning ProcessThe CMS can best link planning and operations when it isexplicitly integrated into the development of regionalplanning and programming documents, including the long-range plan, the TIP, and the unified planning work program(see Case 15). Making this integration transparent andconsistent will help to ensure that the CMS processattracts a range of stakeholders and serves as a focus forplanning and operations collaboration. One way to link thelong-range plan with the CMS is to require that theperformance measures used in the CMS evaluation also beused to evaluate the performance of the long-range plan.The CMS can be linked to the TIP by prioritizing projects,in part, based on their performance in the CMS evaluationprocess.

Ideally, a CMS involves transparent performance measuresthat have been developed through regional consensus andthat reflect regional objectives. If the CMS applies theseperformance measures accurately and consistently, itwould be appropriate to use the CMS directly in determin-ing regional funding priorities.

Including CMS strategies within the MPO’s annual UnifiedPlanning Work Program (UPWP) can be an effective way topromote planning and operations collaboration. The UPWPdefines the MPO’s short-term (1–2 year) planning prioritieswithin a metropolitan planning area, and involves a time


frame that is more familiar to those involved in managementand operations activities. Many of the strategies discussedin a typical CMS are well suited to short-term MPOprogrammatic reporting. Similarly, strategies commonlyaddressed within the UPWP, such as TDM programs andongoing regional management and operations programs,are appropriate for inclusion in a CMS.

Use the CMS to Build a System for RapidResponse to Congestion IssuesIn addition to linking with longer term planning goals andforecasts, a CMS can be designed to swiftly address small-scale congestion problems that threaten the efficiency ofthe regional transportation network (see Case 16).Prioritization criteria and funding set–asides can beestablished to support small-scale projects and programsthat do not justify a larger corridor analysis. By buildingthe capacity of the regional planning agency to deliverimmediate solutions, the planning agency can become moreresponsive to the needs of the traveling public and morerelevant to the transportation management and operationscommunity.

LESSONS LEARNEDSince the passage of ISTEA in 1991, regions have beeninvolved with the CMS process, and have learned a greatdeal about the benefits and the challenges of building andmaintaining a comprehensive CMS. This section highlightsa few of the lessons that most closely relate to planningand operations coordination.

CMSs Can Play a Larger Role in IntegratingPlanning and OperationsIn some regions, the CMS functions primarily as a routineanalysis and data collection process, isolated from mostplanning and programming and from ongoing managementand operations efforts. Such regions could be capitalizingon an opportunity to highlight and coordinate operationsstrategies. The CMS can play a more active role in theregional planning and programming process if it is used toanalyze and prioritize regional projects. This will also helpto attract stakeholders to the CMS process.

For several reasons, the CMS process has beenmarginalized in some regions. However, many of thesechallenges can be overcome. For example, while intensivedata collection activities have turned some stakeholdersaway from the CMS process, the effort required to collectdata relating to congestion has become easier withongoing implementation of ITS technologies, and in somecases, data are actively collected to support advancedtraveler information systems. In reality, the CMS is aparticularly useful tool to engage diverse practitionersbecause it considers multiple modes with congestionmitigation in mind. The CMS should be promoted as aprocess to encourage focused, performance-basedmultimodalism.

If policy weight is given to the CMS project prioritizationprocess, other challenges may arise due to resistance fromstakeholders who see the possibility of losing currentlevels of support. While this is a significant challenge, thedebate that it inspires is an opportunity to engage stake-holders in a conversation about regional performancemeasures and how they fit into congestion managementstrategy investments.

Comparison of Operations Strategies WithOther Strategies Presents ChallengesThe quest for rigorous evaluation criteria is a significantchallenge to the CMS process. Some CMS projects do notlend themselves to quantitative analysis of their effective-ness. Other CMS projects can be quantified, but not in away that facilitates comparison with other types ofstrategies. For example, comparing the effectiveness ofdemand management strategies with system managementstrategies may present problems because they differ intheir immediate objectives.

A diverse set of analysis tools is an important componentof a successful CMS (see Case 17). In some cases, specific

Case 16: The Miami Region CMS Can Respond toShort-Term Transportation Needs

Miami’s RUSH (Resourceful Use of Streets andHighways) addresses congestion bottlenecks that donot justify a full corridor study. Projects that cost lessthan $500,000 and that are determined to haveinsignificant environmental impacts are prioritized bymember agencies. A lump sum of TIP money is setaside for projects that will be selected through theRUSH process, allowing for swift implementation ofthe designated improvements.

Contact Jesus Guerra: [email protected]


tools and methods will be needed to evaluate strategies.Many regions are seeking tools that can capture the effectsof regional management and operations strategies. Regionsthat have invested in the development of such tools andmethods have found benefits through a more versatileCMS process.

Case 17: New York City Region’s Tools forManagement and Operations in the CMS

The New York City Region MPO uses the PostProcessor for Congestion Management Systems(PPCMS) as a methodology for predicting the impactsof incidents on freeways. PPCMS uses the estimationof delay as a result of freeway incidents incombination with analysis of incident data obtainedfrom eight U.S. metropolitan areas as the basis for itscalculations. This tool is focused exclusively onaccounting for non-recurring delay.

Contact Aizaz Ahmed: [email protected]

Key Resources on Congestion ManagementSystems

FHWA Resource Center CMS Course: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/courses_mp.htm#scms

FHWA Peer Exchange on the CMS for the Albany,NY, region: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Peer/Albany/albany_peer.htm

CMS for the Wilmington, DE, region: http://www.wilmapco.org/cms/

CMS for the Salt Lake City, UT, region: http://www.wfrc.org/programs/cm.htm


2.5

BACKGROUNDIn developing strategies to fund M&O activities, regionshave an opportunity to promote new relationships andarrangements that support broad regional systemsmanagement perspective and better link operations withregional planning. For example, a planning and program-ming process that places a high priority on interjuris-dictional coordination can encourage normally indepen-dent practitioners to collaborate and identify opportunitiesfor shared equipment and facilities. Funding strategies canalso be used to help ensure implementation of M&Oobjectives developed through the planning process or toattract new operations stakeholders to planning forums.This section discusses strategies that use funding andresource sharing to improve coordination betweenplanning and operations.

What Is Funding and Resource Sharing?Funding and resource sharing refers to a variety ofarrangements by which transportation and other operatingagencies collaborate to submit funding requests, developpooled funding mechanisms, or share equipment andfacilities. As a linkage mechanism, this also refers to effortsto coordinate between visions of transportation systemsmanagement that are discussed in plans and the regionalfunding policies and commitments that are needed to makethose visions a reality.

What Are the Sources of Funds for Managementand Operations Efforts?A number of funding sources can support management andoperations activities and equipment. In practice, however,funding for system management and operations must oftenrely on the discretionary budgets of individual jurisdictionsand/or agencies.

Federal policies allow several funding sources to be usedfor regional systems management and operations pro-grams. In TEA-21, the Federal-aid Highway Programcontinued eligibility for Federal funding of operating costsfor traffic monitoring, management, and control systems.Such operating costs can include both the establishmentand continuous operation of management systems such asintegrated traffic control systems, incident managementprograms, and traffic control centers.

For projects located in air quality non-attainment andmaintenance areas, Congestion Mitigation and Air QualityImprovement Program (CMAQ) funds may be used foractivities that demonstrate a reduction in traffic delay oremissions. CMAQ can support an individual M&Oprogram for up to 3 years.15 Examples of projects eligiblefor CMAQ funds include the implementation of ITSstrategies, enhanced signalization projects, and intersec-tion improvements.

Although there are greater Federal funding opportunitiesfor management and operations than many regionsperceive, the bulk of funds typically must come from Statesand localities. State and local funding processes make itdifficult to fully integrate planning and operations bycreating separate categories of funds for capital andoperations expenses.

Degrees of Funding and Resource CoordinationThe structure of resource sharing arrangements mayevolve over time in response to changing regional needsand changing relationships between agencies. Initially,sharing may be limited to supplying staff, equipment, orfacilities in support of regional meetings or other regionalcollaboration activities. If appropriate, participating publicand private organizations may develop more formal sharingarrangements, including pooling of funds and otherresources to sustain cooperative regional efforts. In someregions, agencies may provide funding to support aregional entity charged with leading regional collaborationor an entity that owns and operates regional transportationsystem assets. Exhibit 9 illustrates this range of resourcestrategies.

15 Eligibility requirements for CMAQ are listed in 23 U.S.C. 149(b).


TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESAll regions lack sufficient funds to implement the fullspectrum of transportation projects and programs desiredby the region. Sometimes, competition for resourcesbetween and within agencies can hinder regional coordina-tion and prevent the region from achieving the full benefitsof system-wide M&O strategies. This section discussessome approaches to funding and resource sharing that canhelp to build bridges between planning and operationspractitioners.

Link Funding to Planning Goals and ObjectivesIncreasingly, local and regional transportation plansinclude language supporting improved transportationsystems management, promoting more efficient use ofexisting infrastructure, and adopting a more customer-oriented approach to transportation service provision. Yetthe funding and staff resources to support the implementa-tion of such planning objectives are often lacking. Forexample, a plan might state that regional coordination tomaximize efficiency of the existing system is a top priority,but no funding is then allocated toward regional incidentmanagement programs, corridor management strategies, orregional traveler information systems.

Several approaches have been used to more closely linkfunding to operations goals. One approach is to have

regional stakeholders determine minimum budget require-ments to support long-range transportation plan objectivesin each program area (see Case 18).16 Based on theseminimum requirements and total funding availability, eachprogram area is assigned a target budget. Projects slated toreceive new funding are then prioritized based on whetherthe target has been met for each proposed project’sprogram area. For example, if new roadway construction istargeted to receive 40 percent of the transportation budgetand the current TIP devotes 50 percent of its funding tothis category, then other program categories (such asM&O) would receive higher priority when selectingprojects in a new TIP.

Some regions employ a project prioritization process thatdeliberately assigns more weight to projects that supportregional management and operations objectives, asoutlined in the region’s long-range plan. This approachencourages planners and operators to work together whenassessing the cost-effectiveness of management andoperations strategies. In these cases, the likelihood thatmanagement and operations programs receive significantfunds depends on how M&O criteria are weighted relativeto other prioritization criteria. At a minimum, this approachwill assist stakeholders in clearly articulating where M&Oinvestments should be positioned amongst the region’scompeting transportation needs.

16 Program areas include, for example, ITS, bicycle and pedestriansystems, transit programs, and roadway construction.

Source: Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination, FHWA, 2003.

Exhibit 9: Range of Resource Strategies


Develop Innovative Operations FundingSourcesNew funding mechanisms can help to create bridgesbetween planners and operations managers. One strategyis to fund certain M&O efforts as part of the initial capitalinvestment for a project (e.g., ITS equipment that enhancescorridor management activities, see Case 19). Planners andoperators increasingly see that funds for management andoperations associated with a particular project or corridorare best secured in coordination allocations for major newconstruction or rehabilitation. Working together, plannersand operators can make the case that proper managementof new transportation facilities will maximize the long-termbenefits of the initial investment. Some areas have requiredconsideration of M&O by developing a checklist forproject sponsors.

In the search for funding for system operations, someregions have turned to land developers. The practice ofrequiring developers to fund transportation improvementsas a way to mitigate the transportation impacts of theirprojects is well established, but relying on this as a sourceof management and operations improvements is relativelynew (see Case 20). Developer concessions can provide animportant source of revenue, and can also encourage moredetailed planning for management and operations pro-grams. In order to require developer-funded improvements,local governments typically must show how the manage-ment strategies can mitigate transportation impacts, such

Case 19: Hampton Roads Region Includes ITS inLong-Range Investment Planning

The Hampton Roads region incorporated ITS into theMPO’s project selection process for regional SurfaceTransportation Program and CMAQ fundingprograms. ITS projects are scored for their capacity tosupport planning objectives. As a result, several ITSplans and projects have been funded through thisprocess, including a regional roadway informationsystem, a centralized traveler information system,signal system upgrades, and implementation of thelocal Smart Traffic Centers. ITS is also a distinctelement of the MPO’s long-range plan. The currentdraft of the region’s 2026 Plan includes long-rangeinvestments for future ITS projects.

Contact Camelia Ravanbakht: [email protected]

Case 18: Albany New York’s Funding PrioritizationProcess

The Capital District Transportation Commission(CDTC) is the MPO for the Albany, NY, metropolitanarea. CDTC brought together a wide range ofstakeholders from 1993 to 1997 to develop a newapproach to long-term planning. This effort involvedworkshops, conferences, nine topical task forces,and a yearlong public review. The product was amore integrated approach to long-term planning andnew prioritization procedures that acknowledge theimportance of a variety of transportation options frommanagement and operations strategies to TDM tosmart growth.

One critical outcome of this long-range planningprocess was a new method for funding allocation. Itdefined the distribution of all regional funds among17 project categories, consistent with the proportionsagreed upon through the planning process. Projectsin a given category could not be added to a new TIP ifthe current TIP projects exceeded the designatedfunding percentage for that category. This processhas worked to balance the distribution of funds in away that is more consistent with the plan’s statedpriorities. For example, road construction projectshave consistently used more than their target shareof regional dollars because of a backlog of TIPprojects in this category. Consequently, no newroadway construction projects have been added tothe TIP, allowing other classes of projects (such asITS) to come closer to their target share of regionalfunds.

Contact John Poorman: [email protected] 20: Developers Fund Operations inMontgomery County

In Montgomery County, Maryland, an impact fee forlarge developments has replaced the use of somediscretionary transportation funds. This new fundingsource has helped to promote coordination betweenplanning and operations. The county’s public worksdepartment is using these impact fees to fundoperations equipment, such as monitoring camerasand signal timing improvements. In one instance, amajor development funded an electronic messagesign that indicates when transit parking is filled atmore central rail stations, encouraging vehicles touse station parking lots located further from theregion’s core.

Contact Emil Wolanin:[email protected]


as improvements to traffic flow in a particular corridor. Thisfunding opportunity may also prompt local governments tomore thoroughly identify management and operationsneeds so that individual funding opportunities can worktogether to support an integrated operations approach.This is critical, since operations must typically be appliedon a system rather than spot location basis.

Planning and operations coordination can also be strength-ened when transportation management strategies areviewed as a potential source of transportation dollars.Pricing mechanisms are an effective tool for managingtransportation demand and achieving more efficient use ofexisting facilities. Moreover, new technologies, such aselectronic toll collection, can enable greater use of pricingwhile reducing collection costs. They can also serve togenerate funds for both management programs and newinfrastructure. As such, these transportation managementstrategies naturally capture the interest of planners anddecisionmakers, opening the window for a broaderdiscussion between planners and operations managers.

As a first step toward incorporating some of the fundingstrategies such as those discussed above, examine regionalplanning documents for goals or objectives that supportregional systems management activities. Consider howsuch objectives are supported with funding, performancemeasures, or decision criteria in the plan. Develop recom-mendations for future plan updates that could promotefunding for management and operations objectives, suchas project prioritization criteria that favor M&O strategiesor multi-jurisdictional operations initiatives.

Build on Emergency Response Needs to CreateRegional Momentum for CollaborationThe recent focus on improving emergency preparednessand response has heightened the need for coordinationbetween planning and operations. Increased transportationresources are available to conduct emergency responseexercises and planning. Explore these funding sources aswell as opportunities to use existing emergency manage-ment activity to initiate regional interagency collaboration.

Prioritize Multi-Jurisdiction Funding RequestsA number of MPOs give preference to collaborativefunding requests in the project prioritization process (seeCase 21). This encourages funding requests for ITS andother systems management initiatives that are coordinatedbetween organizations and jointly submitted by different

agencies and jurisdictions. Inter-jurisdictional collaborationis frequently a stated objective or strategy in regionaltransportation plans, so preference for these fundingrequests is well justified. Such coordination can help topromote a regional systems management approach.

Integrate Capital Investments and M&O Withina Single Budget ProcessState and regional management and operations activitiesare often lumped under broad operations budget catego-ries. These operations categories are usually assessedthrough a process that is separate from the capital invest-ments planning and budget process. Where this is thecase, MPOs might consider ways of incorporating specificmanagement and operations activities as individual budgetitems within the capital investments budget.

Along the same lines, transportation agencies mayconsider addressing management and operations costsassociated with a particular project as part of the capitalinvestment decisionmaking process. This can link planningand operations by explicitly addressing M&O investmentsthat would be required to optimally integrate the proposedproject. This would provide a stronger motivation toinclude operators in the discussion of the M&O costsassociated with capital investments. (NOTE: This discus-sion does not imply that routine operating costs would besupported with Federal funds.)

Case 21: Salt Lake City Region Encourages AgencyCooperation through ITS

In the Salt Lake Region, the MPO has programmedCMAQ funds for ITS and traffic managementactivities. The Utah DOT, the Utah Transit Authority,and local cities and counties then work together toagree on projects to use these funds, both for capitalimprovements and for operating assistance. Thiscooperation has led to the development of one trafficmanagement system that all play a role in and toincreased interagency management and operationscoordination.

Contact Doug Hattery: [email protected]


Share Office FacilitiesSharing office facilities inspires enhanced collaboration. Insome cases, office sharing is arranged intentionallybecause there is recognition that transportation agenciesworking in the same space may do their job more effec-tively (see Case 22). A common example is a traffic manage-ment center shared by traffic operators, transit staff, andpublic safety personnel. In this case, the planning anddevelopment of the facility functions to inform all stake-holders about the importance of regional coordinationbetween practitioners.

At times, sharing of facilities is not by design. Groups thattypically work independently may be required to shareoffice space due to funding or facility limitations. Someagencies that have found themselves unintentionally co-located have discovered that this makes an importantdifference in the degree of communication betweenpractitioners. When planners and operators are co-located,they are more likely to communicate about their projects,

develop new personal relationships, and discover opportu-nities to assist each other.

In many cases, there is a tradition of agency and jurisdic-tional independence, and some practitioners may havenever considered options for sharing facilities or equip-ment. The increased efficiency and professional ties thatcan grow from such cooperative arrangements suggest thatthis should be a more conscious part of institutionalconsideration.

Use the Unified Planning Work Program toDefine Commitments to M&O PlanningPlanning agencies continue to face the perception thatmanagement and operations planning is a secondaryactivity to other MPO and State DOT responsibilities. Assuch, when agencies are facing staffing and fundingshortfalls, it can be difficult for them to initiate regionalsystems management activities. Some MPOs have foundthat specific enumeration of regional management andoperations activities in the agency’s Unified Planning WorkProgram (UPWP) is a way to ensure that such activities areimplemented (see Case 23). This also builds the under-standing that the MPO intends to take a leadership role onregional M&O issues.

Case 22: Central Ohio Regional Transportation andEmergency Management Center (CORTRAN)

In 2001 the Mid-Ohio Regional PlanningCommission (MORPC) recognized the need for amulti-jurisdictional operations facility wheretransportation and emergency agencies work sideby side to manage traffic, transit, incidents, andemergencies. MORPC conducted a feasibility andcost study, involving stakeholders in theidentification of funding opportunities and in thedevelopment of an operational concept, functionalrequirements, and overall design of the facility.Following the study, CORTRAN evolved into acollaborative effort between State, county, and citytransportation agencies, as well as emergency andpublic safety agencies. When the facility is finished,CORTRAN will have 50 to 60 full-time staff to controlthe Columbus Freeway Management System, tooperate a transit computer-aided dispatchingservice, and to monitor video feeds of the localroads. The expected benefits of CORTRAN includeimproving incident management, coordinatedemergency response, avoiding duplicate facilities,and providing a single source for media andcommunications. MORPC continues to support theCORTRAN effort by including it in the TIP with Stateand local funds, and by guiding the partners informing an intergovernmental agreement.

Contact Erika Witzke: [email protected]

Case 23: Maricopa Association of GovernmentsUses the UPWP to Support M&O

Through the development of an initial regional ITSarchitecture, stakeholder agencies and jurisdictionsin the Phoenix metropolitan area recognized the needfor a Regional Concept of Transportation Operations.The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), theregion’s MPO, wanted to ensure that this M&Oplanning work took place in a timely fashion becauseit was central to ongoing M&O coordination activities.By including the Regional Concept of TransportationOperations project in MAG’s UPWP, staff ensuredfinancial support for this critical activity. The projectwas completed in 2003 and is the firstcomprehensive example in the United States for anurban transportation operations plan.

Contact Sarath Joshua: [email protected]


Use Funding as a Tool to Attract Participation inM&O DiscussionsFunding is a powerful tool for promoting participation.When groups are unaccustomed to coordinating withmany other agencies or perceive that such coordinationwould provide more hardship than benefit, one way toovercome this barrier is to provide additional resources tosuch groups in exchange for participation in collaborativeefforts. In some cases, MPOs have attempted to createtraining programs or other forums to promote the consider-ation of management and operations strategies (see Case24). There are inevitably difficulties in getting somejurisdictions or stakeholder groups to the table, particularlywhen a forum or activity is not part of an establishedregional process. MPOs have had success in overcomingthese barriers by linking participation to funding access.For example, a jurisdiction may become eligible for match-ing funds only by participating in a management andoperations training program. Or a public safety group maygain access to new sources of funds contingent upon itsparticipation in regional M&O forums.

LESSONS LEARNEDThis section reviews some lessons learned through effortsto secure funding for M&O programs. Past experience hashighlighted some of the challenges associated with usingresource sharing as a means to link planning and opera-tions, and provides insight on potential ways to overcomethese challenges.

Funding Constraints Can Elevate M&OSolutionsAlmost every transportation agency identifies inadequatefunding as a major concern. At the same time, virtuallyevery agency acknowledges that funding constraints are amajor impetus for advancing management and operationsstrategies. Planners often become champions for manage-ment and operations strategies only when they recognize aserious discrepancy between available funds and the costof new capital investments necessary to maintain regionalmobility (see Case 25). This does not imply that plannersshould wait until desperate times before offering regionalleadership on management and operations coordination,nor does this imply that practitioners should choosebetween funding roadway construction versus fundingoperational improvements. Rather, the lesson is thatperiods of severe funding shortfalls should be seen asopportunities to educate a broader regional constituencyabout management and operations solutions.

Case 24: Examples of Using Funding to AttractParticipation

The North Central Texas Council of Governmentscreated training on sustainable development thatincorporated management and operationspriorities. The MPO used access to a new sourceof local matching funds as an incentive to getlocal jurisdiction managers to participate.

In order to demonstrate to public safety officialsthat participation in regional incidentmanagement discussions can lead to tangibleresults, the Maryland DOT paid for the retrofit ofpolice facilities to accommodate CoordinatedHighways Action Response Team (CHART)equipment and staff, and paid for additional Statepolice vehicles in order to improve responsetimes to incidents.

Case 25: Washington DOT Policy on Funding

Washington State DOT had to address a severedisparity between transportation needs and revenuesin its 20-year transportation plan. The plan prioritizesinvestment choices as follows:

1. Maintenance, traffic operations, and preservationactivities are top priorities and are first in line foravailable revenues.

2. Highway safety, environmental retrofit, economicinitiatives, and a Puget Sound core system ofHOV lanes are high priorities and are second inline for available revenues.

3. Revenues remaining after the above priorities areaddressed go to other highway mobilityimprovements.

Traffic operational solutions are considered as thefirst step in addressing a congestion problemidentified in the plan. The stated goal of operationalstrategies is to reduce delay of both people andfreight on the State’s system. The plan definesoperational strategies to include traveler informationsystems, safety enhancements, ramp metering inpeak hours, service patrols and incident responseteams, signal timing and HOV lanes, and improvingadvanced technology applications for commercialvehicles.



MPOs and DOTs May Resist New OperationsProgramsBoth MPOs and State DOTs tend to be reluctant to committo new management and operations programs. This isgenerally because of the perspective that these activitiesare continuous and therefore commit the agency to providefunding every year or else face the unpopular option ofcutting an existing program. Consequently, MPO and DOTleaders prefer that such ongoing funding requirements beleft to local jurisdictions. This can create a situation inwhich management and operations activities are a patch-work of programs from various jurisdictions, limiting theirefficiency and effectiveness at the regional scale. Thislesson highlights the need for education about the value ofregional operations coordination.

Perspectives Differ on the Value of DedicatedM&O FundingPractitioners voice significantly different perspectivesregarding how funding sources can best be structured topromote management and operations more consistentlyduring the planning process. Some practitioners find thatmanagement and operations strategies are hindered byregional, State, or Federal restrictions on how particularfunds can be spent. From this perspective, fundingcategories tend to prevent systems managers from usingthe most efficient approach to manage the transportationsystem. For example, one region maintains that ITSearmarks have been detrimental to integrated planningbecause they tend to set ITS on a separate track from othertransportation planning activities. In some cases, this maylimit exposure to ITS strategies for the planners andstakeholders who are involved in regional transportationplanning.

Other practitioners have observed that the absence offunding sources specifically designated for managementand operations can make it difficult to include suchprojects in the long-range transportation plan (see Case26). Although M&O activities are frequently funded underbroad operations or TDM categories, this often means thatthey are not specifically listed in the funding program. Bycreating more narrowly defined M&O funding categories,MPOs and State DOTs can make it clear to agencies andjurisdictions that such projects are appropriate uses forregional, State, and Federal funds. They also elevate theprofile of such activities among transportation practitioners.

Case 26: Baltimore Region Considers M&O ProjectCategories

Staff members for the Baltimore RegionalManagement and Operations Partnership submitteda traffic detection and real-time traffic operationsproject for consideration in a recent update of theregional transportation plan. The project did nottechnically fit under the capacity expansion or themaintenance and system preservation categories.Ultimately, this project was lumped together withother projects in a general TDM/TSM category. For thenext plan update, the Partnership has recommendedthat it work with the MPO to revise project categoriesso M&O projects can be considered alongsidetraditional capital projects.

Contact Eileen Singleton: [email protected]


2.6

BACKGROUNDToday, a range of technological advances and newtransportation priorities provide opportunities to linkplanning and operations through institutional arrange-ments. For example, technological advances have allowedthe deployment of ITS systems that cross many jurisdic-tional boundaries, requiring coordination in funding andoperations. Transportation agencies that have traditionallyfocused on planning, programming, and maintainingroadway capacity additions are now focusing more onmanaging and operating a mature system. There is alsogreater need for public and private sector collaboration andfor more cooperation among public agencies, partly inresponse to funding limitations and partly in response tothe increasing system performance effects of non-recurringincidents. As a result of these changes, transportationagencies are taking on new responsibilities and exploringnew relationships. This section discusses how institutionalarrangements can be put to use to strengthen the linkagesbetween operations and regional transportation planningand programming.

What Is Meant by Institutional Arrangements?Institutional arrangements refer to agreements andorganizational structures both within transportationagencies and between agencies. This can mean forums thatregularly bring together transportation planners andoperations practitioners. It also refers to arrangements thatpromote involvement of management and operationspractitioners in planning processes or that promote aregional planning perspective within an operationsenvironment.

New institutional arrangements are created for a number ofreasons. There may be a seminal event (e.g., hosting amajor national or global event, or responding to a majornatural disaster) that motivates planning and operatingagencies to coordinate more effectively. New arrangementsmay also be conceived to manage new programs (e.g., ITS),

to respond to new State or Federal mandates, or to takeadvantage of new funding sources. Moreover, arrange-ments are often formed to achieve a specific regionaloperations objective, such as regional management of workzones, coordinated incident management, or ITS deploy-ment. Sometimes these regional institutional arrangementsbroaden their mandate over time to include coordinationamong a range of regional management and operationsstrategies.

Some institutional arrangements may link planning andoperations for a specific process (e.g., an interagencycommittee that oversees the development of performancemeasures). Many regions have other types of institutionalarrangements that focus on M&O more broadly, and canserve as a link to regional planning activities. The circum-stances that lead to institutional innovation may differacross regions (see Case 27). Several examples of arrange-ments that better tie together planning and operationsinclude the following:

Regional management and operations committeeswithin the MPO or other regional body,

Regional collaborations that function as independentpartnerships between transportation and public safetyorganizations (for example, committees that allowpolice and fire personnel to coordinate transportationoperators on emergency response plans),

Transportation agencies that include both operationsand planning divisions (often State DOTs and transitagencies), or

Regional traffic management centers co-managed bypublic safety officials and traffic operations staff.

How Can Institutional Arrangements ImprovePlanning and Operations Coordination?Institutional arrangements such as those discussed abovecan improve the linkage between planning and operationsin a number of ways. They enable the development of aregional vision for systems management and operations,which in turn creates an opportunity for addressingtechnology-oriented solutions, short-term coordinationgoals, cooperative funding, and coordinated implementa-tion processes. Some arrangements create a more central-ized point of contact for regional operations responsibili-ties, increasing the sense of accountability and, conse-quently, increasing the need to coordinate.

Some institutional arrangements help operations stakehold-ers to see how their own contributions promote regional


transportation functions. This is important because manypublic and private transportation providers and users thatare not involved in the transportation planning andprogramming process have few other opportunities to viewthe system form this regional perspective. New forums ororganizations that focus specifically on management andoperations can attract these stakeholders who previouslyhad no satisfactory way to be engaged at the regionalscale. Expanded stakeholder participation not only bringscritical new perspectives to the task of enhancing regionalmanagement and operations, it also increases the numberof local agencies and jurisdictions that consider regionalgoals in developing their own operations strategies. Inaddition, when new stakeholders perceive benefits to their

own interests from regional coordination, they will helppressure elected officials to secure funding for regionalmanagement and operations solutions.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESSome common strategies have emerged for buildinginstitutional arrangements that can better link planning andoperations. Changing institutional relationships andbehavior is a tremendous challenge and requires a sus-tained effort. But laying the groundwork for such changecan begin immediately. The following approaches canhighlight opportunities for existing institutions to bettercoordinate planning and operations and prompt leaders toconsider where new institutional arrangements may beneeded.

Designate an MPO Stakeholder Forum onRegional Management and OperationsAn increasing number of MPOs support interagencycommittees that deal directly and regularly with themanagement and operations of regional transportationsystems. In hosting such committees, the MPO facilitates avital forum where interjurisdictional coordination, fundingstrategies, and data sharing can be addressed (see Case28). In addition, the MPO can use the committee’s diverseoperations expertise to inform M&O issues in regionalplanning documents and in the MPO’s annual workprogram. The forum allows operations managers toincrease their awareness of broader regional trends, needs,and strategies.

Developing an effective structure for these MPO commit-tees can be difficult. One reason is that regional manage-ment and operations planning must often deal with narrowtechnical issues. Example might include how to provideback-up power at signals, use of various signalizationsoftware programs, and measures of effectiveness forsignals. These forums may be invaluable as an informationexchange for operations practitioners, but less useful as aforum for addressing broader coordination issues. As aresult, some MPOs have created separate subcommitteesfor technical and policy issues. A technical subcommitteefocuses on the details of equipment coordination, while thepolicy committee addresses regional funding strategies andprioritization of regional operations initiatives. Periodicmeetings of the full committee allow exchange betweentechnical and policy staff.

Case 27: Examples of Circumstances That Led toNew Institutional Arrangements

Recent Institutional Change—The HamptonRoads Planning District Commission is theproduct of the merger of two smaller MPOs. At thesame time that these two MPOs merged, the twomajor transit agencies in the region also merged.These shifts established the need for institutionalchange as well as interjurisdictional andinteragency coordination. A culture of enhancedcollaboration and communication arose at thetime when ITS opportunities were beginning tobe taken seriously in the planning process. Thechallenges associated with ITS implementationhighlighted the benefits of a more collaborativeregional environment.

Institutional Boundaries Dictate MPOLeadership—The Kansas City metropolitanregion is divided between two States, making itdifficult for one State DOT to take the lead onoperations coordination. As a result, the Mid-America Regional Council (the region’s MPO)has taken on a leadership role in managementand operations issues out of necessity.

Overwhelming Need—The New York Tri-StateMetropolitan Area includes 15 major transit,roadway, and port operating agencies in theStates of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.Under these circumstances, the need forregional operations coordination was so extremethat an agency devoted to coordinatingconstruction projects, emergency response, andtraveler information services was conceived.Today, this multi-agency body can bring acoordinated management and operationsagenda to the planning table.


Attract Stakeholders With Specific RegionalOperations ProgramsOne way to achieve greater stakeholder participation instakeholder forums is to focus the forums’ discussions onspecific operations concerns (see Case 29). This makes itclear to both operations practitioners and policy makerswhen the forum is within their area of expertise. Forexample, someone who manages first responders is morelikely to attend a committee dealing with regional incidentmanagement than a committee dealing with the very broadtopic of regional management and operations coordination.A focused forum will also likely benefit from participantswho have a grasp of both the technical and the institu-tional challenges associated with regional coordination forthat specific topic.

Freight transportation planning is an area where focusedforums have been successful. Engaging shippers, freightcarriers, and freight terminal operators in the regionalplanning discussion has been challenging, in part becausethe long time frame of planning is foreign to most privatesector entities. Freight companies may also be mistrustfulof government planners, and concerned about divulgingproprietary business information. Some regions, however,have successfully developed forums or task forces

specifically to address regional freight operations planning.Part of the success has come from a committing fundstoward short-term freight corridor improvements andmaking clear that the committee input would influenceactual freight management investments. Such committeeshave managed to bring freight needs and perspectives tothe planning process, helping to promote a regionalperspective on operations challenges (see Case 30).

Involve Regional Operations Forums in thePlanning ProcessRegional transportation operations collaborations andtraffic management centers (TMCs) increasingly offerforums for integrated operations that are independent ofother regional bodies. These organizations may havespecific mandates, such as running a regional incidentmanagement program, providing real time traffic informa-tion, and coordinating emergency management plans. Theyoften provide a unique opportunity to bring together thepublic safety and operations management communities,and thus are well positioned to address broader operationsissues.

Regional transportation operations collaborations andTMCs can provide valuable input to the planning process.At the same time, State and regional planners shouldensure that these organizations are aware of the planningcycle and planning decisions that could influence regionalmanagement and operations initiatives.

Case 28: National Capital Region’s Management,Operations, and ITS Task Forces

The National Capital Region TransportationPlanning Board (TPB) initiated an ITS Task Force in1997. After the region received Federal fundingearmarked for ITS, the task force attracted interestfrom a number of agencies in the region. Theseagencies were among those collaborating todevelop CapWIN, a wireless, integrated, mobilecommunications network that supports coordinationbetween public safety and transportation agencies.Later that year, the TPB divided the Task Force into atechnical task force and a policy task force. Thisfacilitated the direct involvement of policy-levelofficials in ITS activities, while maintaining thecapacity to address technical details associated withITS integration and coordination. In 2001, the TPBchanged the names of the two task forces to theManagement, Operations, and IntelligentTransportation Systems (MOITS) Policy Task Forceand the MOITS Technical Task Force to reflect abroader focus on management and operations froma regional perspective.

Contact Andrew Meese: [email protected]

Case 29: Wasatch Front Regional CouncilPromotes Traffic Management

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Wasatch FrontRegional Council (WFRC) recognized that it neededto make better use of the existing transportationsystem by expanding traffic signal coordinationwithin the region. WFRC hosted a forum for city andcounty engineers to address signal coordination.This coordination helped gain the support oflegislators. Based on growing interest, a signalcoordination committee was formed under the UtahDOT. Committee members included representativesfrom cities, counties, WFRC, and the Utah TransitAuthority. Over time, the committee’s focusexpanded, and it evolved into the current trafficmanagement committee. A significant achievementof the committee was the implementation of thetraffic management system led by UDOT.

Contact Doug Hattery: [email protected]


In addition to offering a forum for coordination on day-to-day operations issues, a growing number of regionaltransportation operations collaborations are leadinglonger-term, interagency operations planning (see Case 31).Specifically, the functions of these organizations havegrown to cover:

Integration of personnel from multiple agencies intofocused program implementation teams;

Integration of equipment through sharing ofcommunications infrastructure, specialized vehicles,and data; and

Source of funding for coordinated operationsactivities, both through pooled funds fromparticipating agencies and through direct State andFederal funding awards.

Consequently, through the development of regionaloperations plans, regional organizations collaborations canensure that operations goals, objectives, and strategies areincluded in the regional transportation planning process.These operations plans not only help to address immediateoperational needs, but also allow operations managers tocome to the planning table with an integrated set ofstrategies. In this manner, operations managers can moreeffectively advocate for appropriate policies and coordi-nated funding within the regional planning and program-ming process.

Case 31: Central Florida’s Regional OperationsConsortium Helps Attract Federal Funds

The Central Florida Regional TransportationOperations Consortium began as an ITS WorkingGroup seeking to improve interagency coordinationon ITS projects. Agencies involved include the StateDOT district office, turnpike and expresswayauthorities, several cities and counties, the regionaltransit agency, and the local State highway patroltroop. The group formalized this relationship in aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU). The object ofthis MOU is to:

Establish the organizational structure topromote coordinated decisionmaking andinformation sharing in planning, developing,and funding a Regional TransportationOperations Consortium of operatingagencies within the Central Florida regionfor the deployment, operation, andmaintenance of ITS initiatives.

In May 2003, FHWA awarded a $20 million grant forthe Florida model deployment program. Theexistence of a body that was actively collaborating onoperations played an important role in the contractaward. FHWA recognized the value of this strategicpartnering in making the most effective use of ITSdeployment dollars.

Contact David Grovdahl:[email protected]

Case 30: Puget Sound Freight Roundtable

In 1994 the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC),the MPO for the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, inpartnership with the Economic Development Council,convened public and private freight sectorrepresentatives to form the Regional Freight MobilityRoundtable. The Roundtable was initially created tobetter involve the freight shipper and carrier industry inthe regional transportation planning and projectselection process. The first task of the Roundtablewas to provide input on freight issues to the update ofthe Metropolitan Transportation Plan (1995). Sincethen, the Roundtable has become a mutuallysupported and widely respected “communication hub”and has influenced public and private transportationdecisions in several ways. It informally advisesFederal agencies, the PSRC, the State, and localsponsors on freight needs and the potential impact ofproposed strategies and project packages on freightmobility. It educates policy-makers and the public onfreight issues. And it helps to develop performancemeasures and analysis necessary to studymultimodal and intermodal freight movement. Thebenefits from the Roundtable extend equally to all ofits public and private sector freight members.Roundtable participants have been learning how theMPO and other funding processes work and how to beheard, increasing the awareness of freight with thepublic, decisionmakers, planners, and otherRoundtable members. The planning process nowconsiders freight transportation improvements andevaluates the effects of policy proposals, capitalimprovements, and operations projects on freight.

Contact Peter Beaulieu: [email protected]


Define an Organizational Structure for the MPOThat Reflects the Importance of RegionalOperationsMPOs have historically been organized around long-rangeplanning and programming of capital projects. In recentyears, many MPOs have expanded their role to includegreater involvement in regional systems managementissues (see Case 32). Some agencies have chosen funda-mental restructuring to reflect a growing responsibility forregional management and operations. MPOs shouldconsider the potential benefits of an institutional structurethat reflects a heightened focus on managing the regionalnetwork.

One option for such a restructuring is to develop a divisionwithin the MPO that is specifically responsible for regionalsystem M&O coordination. Such a division may becharged with promoting data sharing programs, coordinat-ing operations between jurisdictions, ensuring intermodalcoordination, and leading ITS planning. The advantage ofsuch a structure is that practitioners within the regionalplanning agency are more likely to be familiar with thetiming and details of the planning and funding process,and thus able to be effective in advancing systemsmanagement programs. An operations arm of an MPO mayappear more accessible and carry more legitimacy withoperations staff in the other bodies such as the State DOT,local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and private fleetoperators.

Link Planning and Operations Within StateDOTs and Transit AgenciesUnlike MPOs, most State DOTs and regional transitagencies traditionally have included both planning andoperations functions. They have an opportunity to bettercoordinate planning and operations without some of theinterjurisdictional and interagency challenges faced byMPOs. Some DOTs have bridged this gap because of theinitiative taken by both planners and operators. Plannersget involved in operations activities in cases where policyissues become integral to operations decisions (e.g.,developing policies regarding the use of HOV lanes).Operators assist planners in some technical aspects ofprioritizing needs according to specific objectives, and byhelping to apply performance measures.

The development of a statewide plan offers additionalopportunities to link planning and operations. In somecases, an operations committee or operations division hasled development of portions of the statewide plan (see

Case 33, page 2-37). This is a valuable means for raisingawareness of the planning process within the operationscommunity, while bringing operations expertise into theplanning process.

Building bridges between staff members is a critical step inbreaking down intra- and inter-agency barriers. Agenciesand jurisdictions should explore options for a staffexchange between agencies to promote such connections.Identify specific projects for which a staff exchange wouldbenefit both agencies while exposing staff members to newinstitutional processes and cultures. Work toward a regularexchange program that will build a network of interagencyor interdivisional relationships and experience.

Reinforce Institutional Links by IntegratingOperations Into Project Design and DeliveryOperations practitioners should be involved in projectdesign at the earliest possible stage in order to ensure thatprojects support, or at the very least, do not conflict withregional operations strategies. Institutional relationshipsbetween planning and operating agencies are supportedwhen practitioners collaborate to accommodate ITS, transit,and operations flexibility into design during the earlystages of the project development process. In some cases,management and operations options are only possible ifthey are funded as an integrated element of a broaderinfrastructure project. To ensure that operations strategiesare embedded in capital projects, MPOs should take stepsto ensure that appropriate operations stakeholders becomepart of the early stages of the project development anddesign process. This includes key constituents who maynot participate in an existing regional operations forum(e.g., major employers, shippers, major housing or commer-cial developers, and special events managers).

LESSONS LEARNEDInstitutional arrangements that have worked well in someregions have fallen apart in others. Below are severallessons learned from institutional arrangements that havebeen developed in the field.

Approaches for Attracting Diverse StakeholdersA number of hurdles have emerged for regions attemptingto develop institutional arrangements suited to implementregional management and operations initiatives. One of themost common challenges is getting public safety officialsinvolved (see Case 34). Regions routinely struggle toattract public safety officials to meetings that cover


Case 32: Innovative Institutional Arrangements

Operations in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Institutional StructureThe institutional structure of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the MPO for the San FranciscoBay Area, promotes parity between transportation planning and operations. MTC is heavily involved in operationsactivities, such as the Freeway Service Program, the ITS Early Deployment Plan, a traffic engineering technicalassistance program, and an advanced traveler information system.

To reflect its growing role in operations, MTC reorganized its structure into two units: operations and policy. Theoperations branch is concerned with bridge and highway operations, transit coordination and access, andadvanced systems applications. The policy branch focuses on planning, finance, programming and allocations,and legislation and public affairs.Contact Ann Flemer: [email protected]

The Chicago Area Transportation Study’s Institutional Structure Includes OperationsThe organizational structure of the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) reflects management and operationsas a significant force in the region’s transportation decisionmaking. Institutionally, CATS is divided into four corefunctional groups: planning, programming, operations, and development. The operations group consists of threesupport divisions: transportation management, operations analysis, and advanced technologies. Thetransportation management division analyzes strategies, programs, and protocols (such as expressway rampHOV lanes) to provide recommendations for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The operations analysisdivision focuses primarily on addressing intermodal freight movement within the region and provides input to theRTP process. It collects and analyzes freight data, participates in national forums on freight operations andplanning, and assesses regional traffic signal issues. The advanced technologies support division is responsiblefor assisting in the ITS component of the RTP, the development of the regional ITS architecture, and the multi-stateGary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS Corridor.


Case 33: Operations Division Does Planning atWSDOT

Washington State DOT is developing a statewidemultimodal transportation plan. For the first time, theoperations division of the agency is leading thedevelopment of the highway component of this plan.This represents the DOT’s realization that operationsissues form the foundation for the State’s highwaystrategy and priorities. The State thus determined thathighway system operations expertise was needed atthe leadership of this component of the plan.Because the operations division has developedsufficient familiarity with the planning process overseveral years of collaboration, the DOT feltcomfortable with this division leading a component ofthe statewide plan.


Case 34: Tailoring Workshops for SpecificStakeholders in Hampton Roads

The Hampton Roads Planning District Commissionhas faced challenges in getting emergency plannersto participate in regional M&O planning efforts. Theyachieved success by using the MPO’s emergencyplanning committee to host workshops on ITS foremergency management.


broader issues of operations coordination. Some regionsattribute the problem to differences in managementapproaches between public safety officials and othertransportation agencies; many public safety managementpractices follow a strict command structure and lessconsensus-oriented decisionmaking. Some regions havefound that demonstrating the benefits of involvement topublic safety officials can increase their engagement.Benefits of coordination in some regions have led to betterexchange of information about emergency response routes,active management of traffic to facilitate faster response,and access to funds for better communications equipment.Others have found success through implementation ofregional traffic management centers. When public safetyofficials are involved in cooperative management of theseTMCs, a forum is created for communication and forlearning more about each other’s roles.

Regions have also faced challenges in engaging a commit-tee of diverse stakeholders on the sometimes broad and

amorphous topic of regional management and operations.By focusing a committee narrowly (e.g., on freewaymanagement, or on corridor signal synchronization), asponsoring agency may be more effective in drawingpractitioners from diverse agencies and jurisdictions.Practitioners tend to participate in a committee if they areconfident that it relates to their expertise. However, thismore focused approach to regional management andoperations has drawbacks. Some regions have found thethreat of redundancy in activities when management andoperations committees are narrowly focused. Moreimportantly, the opportunity to integrate various specificoperations activities is diminished. These challenges areinspiring agencies to seek more creative techniques fordrawing a broad range of stakeholders to the table forintegrated regional M&O discussions. Appropriate use oftask forces and subcommittees appears to offer the bestsolution.

The Importance of Interagency Staff RelationsTransportation agencies often cite personal relationshipswithin and between agencies as one of the most importantfactors influencing the likelihood of regional planning and

Case 35: Strong Ties between Planning andOperations in Maryland

Although there is not a formal structure forcollaboration among planners and operators inMontgomery County, Maryland, the Operations Divisionof Montgomery County Department of Public Worksand Transportation (DPWT) and the MontgomeryCounty Department of Parks and Planning in theMaryland-National Capital Park & PlanningCommission (M-NCPPC) find numerous opportunitiesto work together for improved transportation systemperformance. Their working relationship was solidifiedin part by a former transportation coordinator at DPWTwho moved to M-NCPPC. This opened new channelsfor communication as the former operationspractitioner could bring operations issues to theplanning agency, communicate with operators, andgive credibility to M-NCPPC among transportationoperators. The relationship between DPWT and M-NCPPC continues to be strengthened by suchrelationships between personnel, but it is no longerdependent upon individuals within the agencies. Thefamiliarity with each other’s practices and long historyof cooperating on projects has helped these agenciesto seize opportunities for collaboration.

Contact Emil Wolanin:[email protected]


Key Resources on Institutional Arrangements

Organizing for Regional TransportationOperations: An Executive Guide, FHWA/ITE, July2001. http://www.ite.org/library/reg_trans_ops.asp

What have we learned about ITS: Cross-CuttingInstitutional Issues, FHWA. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/EDLBrow/@@401!.pdf

Wide-ranging Internet resources on institutionalissues relating to implementation of ITS. http://www.its.dot.gov/EVAL/docs_instissues.htm

operations coordination. In some cases, key staff membershave spent time in both operating agencies and transporta-tion planning agencies (see Case 35). This breadth ofexperience creates a familiarity with the structures, pro-cesses, and cultures in both operating and planningenvironments, enabling more frequent and effectivecoordination. In other cases, many of the transportationpractitioners scattered among different planning andoperating agencies have connections through theiruniversity background, and have maintained an interestand capacity to communicate and work together towardregional transportation solutions.


2.7

BACKGROUNDA regional ITS architecture17 establishes a framework forimplementing ITS projects at the regional level (see Exhibit10). Because the development of the architecture is aFederal requirement,18 it presents a strong opportunity toenhance collaboration between a region’s operations andplanning practitioners. The development, use, and mainte-nance of a regional ITS architecture serves to highlight theimportance of operations strategies that can improvetransportation system performance, including strategiesthat address recurrent and non-recurrent congestion. Thearchitecture can also help to ensure that these projects areincluded in the region’s long-range plan and TIP.

Because operations managers participate in developmentof the regional ITS architecture, they may work closely withtransportation planners and are exposed to the region’splanning and programming process. Planners who engagein the development of the regional ITS architecture willdevelop greater appreciation for the use of integratedcommunications and data technologies to enhance theefficiency of the transportation system. In addition, thearchitecture development process can highlight forplanners the importance of integrating ITS technology andmanagement considerations into regional plans.

What Is a Regional ITS Architecture?ITS projects make use of electronics, communications, orinformation processing to improve the efficiency or safetyof a surface transportation system. Such informationtechnology is generally most effective when systems areintegrated and interoperable. Recognizing this fact, the U.S.DOT has established the National ITS Architecture toprovide a common structure for the design of ITS projects.The National Architecture describes what types ofinterfaces could exist between ITS components and howthey will exchange information and work together to deliverITS user service requirements.

To implement ITS projects supported by the HighwayTrust Fund, Federal regulations require that a region mustdevelop a regional ITS architecture, using the National ITSArchitecture as a resource.19 The purpose of developing aregional ITS architecture is to illustrate and documentregional integration so that planning and deployment ofITS projects can take place in an organized and coordi-nated fashion.20 Once developed, any ITS project in theregion that receives funding from the Highway Trust Fundmust adhere to the regional ITS architecture. A region canbe specified at a corridor, metropolitan, statewide, ormultistate level, although the Metropolitan Planning Areais the minimum regional size within a metropolitan area.

19 23 CFR Part 940.3.

20 This is described in the FHWA rule and companion FTA policy publishedin January 2001 to implement Section 5206(e) of TEA-21.

17 This section focuses primarily on regional ITS architectures. There arealso statewide ITS architectures, and many of the same points may apply.The focus here is on the regional architecture because this is where theMPO role is likely to be greatest.

18 The Federal requirements related to ITS architectures apply for allregions wishing to receive Federal funds for ITS projects after April 2005.

Exhibit 10: A Regional ITS Architecture Must Include

Description of the region

Identification of participating agencies andstakeholders

Operational concept, including roles andresponsibilities of participating agencies andstakeholders

Any agreements needed for operation

System functional requirements

Interface requirements and informationexchanges with planned and existing systems

Identification of applicable standards

The sequence of projects necessary forimplementation


How Can the Regional ITS Architecture CreateStronger Linkages Between Planning andOperations?The regional ITS architecture serves as a focal point forcoordination and collaboration between planning andoperations practitioners. In a broad sense, the regional ITSarchitecture presents an accessible way for transportationplanners to become more familiar with integrated manage-ment and operations activities and capabilities. It can alsohelp to engage operations managers in regional planning,including establishing transportation investment priorities(see Case 36).

Each of the discrete steps involved in the development,implementation, use, and maintenance of the regional ITSarchitecture provides opportunities for coordination andcollaboration between planners and operators. In fact, thesuccess of the regional architecture depends on plannersand operators working together and bringing their expertiseand perspective to bear throughout this process. Exhibit 11illustrates some examples of these complementary perspec-tives as they relate to each step of the regional ITSarchitecture development process.21 These steps arereviewed in further detail after Exhibit 11.

Step 1 (Getting Started) in the development of the regionalITS architecture involves defining the stakeholders andpeople that will be involved, building consensus in theregion, and establishing an overall plan for development(e.g., regional definition, timeframe, basic scope of servicesto be included). Operators bring to this process familiaritywith operations stakeholders and potential leaders, and anunderstanding of service boundaries and areas of jurisdic-tional overlap. Planners bring experience working withdiverse stakeholder groups and with elected officials, andability to build regional consensus.

Step 2 (Gathering Data) of the development processassembles an inventory of existing and planned ITSsystems in the region, defines the roles and responsibilitiesof stakeholders, and documents the ITS services to beprovided and the functional requirements of each service.Operations practitioners are vital to this step because theybring a detailed understanding of existing ITS systems,particularly of systems that support interfaces that crossstakeholder boundaries. Operators also play a key role inidentifying candidate ITS services that can addressregional needs. Planners bring an understanding of theregion’s transportation needs, through detailed knowledgeof the region’s long-range plan and transportation invest-ment programs. This perspective is critical to ensure thatthe architecture accounts for any new facilities or servicesplanned for the region, and for the evolution of the systemin general. Planners and operators then work togetherdirectly to discuss integration opportunities as part of thedevelopment of the operations concept and definition ofsystem functional requirements.

Step 3 (Defining Interfaces) identifies the interconnectionsbetween systems and defines the information flow betweensystems. As in Step 2, operations stakeholders bring to thisprocess a unique understanding of ITS systems, includingconnection points and information flows. Through theirefforts to collect, organize, and disseminate data ontransportation system conditions, operators work dailywith information flows within and between ITS systems.Because only a portion of the possible informationexchanges suggested in the National ITS Architecture willbe included as interconnects in the regional architecture,the planning perspective is useful to hone in on those thathelp support the needs (and corresponding services) of theregion.

Case 36: Hampton Roads Region: ITS PlanningKicks Off an Era of Collaboration

In the Hampton Roads metropolitan area of Virginia,planning and operations coordination began whenthe region was preparing to deploy ITS technologies.An initial meeting was held with planners, trafficengineers, and other regional stakeholders. By theend of this meeting, most of the stakeholders sawthe need for improved coordination. Everyoneexchanged contact information and, from this pointforward, have been coordinating to let each otherknow about events and activities relating to ITS. Fromthis initial meeting, the ITS committee was formedand has been collaborating effectively ever since. Thecommittee includes officials from the local MPO,planning and public works departments in thevarious jurisdictions, transit agencies, Navy, ports,State police, and many different offices within VDOT.


21 See Regional ITS Architecture Guidance, U.S. DOT, October 2001, for adetailed description of these steps.


Exh

ibit

11: R

egio

nal I

TS A

rchi

tect

ure

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

cess

and

Exa

mpl

es o

f How

Pla

nner

s an

d O

pera

tors

Can

Con

trib

ute

Cor

e Pr

oces

sPl

anne

rsO

pera

tors

Un

de

rsta

nd

ch

an

ge

s in

re

gio

na

l n

ee

ds,

fun

din

g,

an

d s

erv

ice

op

po

rtu

nitie

s

Un

de

rsta

nd

IT

S in

ve

nto

ry c

ha

ng

es

Un

de

rsta

nd

ch

an

ge

s in

te

ch

no

log

ies a

nd

sta

nd

ard

s

�

��6. M

ain

tain

ing

th

e

Arc

hit

ectu

re

Sh

ou

ld d

eve

lop

pla

ns t

ha

t re

fle

ct

the

IT

S

arc

hite

ctu

re

Sh

ou

ld in

clu

de

op

era

tio

ns p

roje

cts

in

inve

stm

en

t p

rog

ram

s

Imp

lem

en

t M

&O

str

ate

gie

s,

pro

gra

ms,

an

d

pro

jects

Pa

rtic

ipa

te in

de

ve

lop

ing

IT

S s

tra

teg

ic p

lan

s

to d

eta

il IT

S o

pe

ratio

na

l n

ee

ds

��

��

De

ve

lop

in

ve

stm

en

t p

rog

ram

s f

or

the

re

gio

n

(TIP

an

d U

PW

P)

Wo

rk w

ith

Sta

te D

OT

, co

un

tie

s,

an

d o

the

r

ag

en

cie

s in

pla

nn

ing

an

d p

rog

ram

min

g

Pro

vid

e le

ad

ers

hip

in

exe

cu

tin

g n

ew

ag

ree

me

nts

De

fin

e p

roje

ct

se

qu

en

cin

g

De

ve

lop

lis

t o

f a

ge

ncy a

gre

em

en

ts

Ide

ntify

IT

S s

tan

da

rds

Se

t M

&O

prio

ritie

s a

nd

se

qu

en

ce

activitie

s

De

ve

lop

re

latio

nsh

ips a

nd

ag

ree

me

nts

with

oth

er

ag

en

cie

s in

vo

lve

d in

op

era

tio

ns

Un

de

rsta

nd

eq

uip

me

nt

co

sts

an

d a

pp

lica

ble

sta

nd

ard

s��

��

4. Im

ple

men

tin

g t

he

Arc

hit

ectu

re

Asse

ss a

nd

en

su

re in

terc

on

ne

ctivity o

f

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n in

fra

str

uctu

re

Un

de

rsta

nd

use

r n

ee

ds a

nd

are

as o

f se

rvic

e

inte

rfa

ce

Su

pp

ort

th

e p

lan

nin

g p

roce

ss

Su

pp

ort

pro

ject

imp

lem

en

tatio

n��5. U

sin

g t

he A

rch

itectu

re

Ide

ntify

in

terc

on

ne

ctio

ns

De

fin

e in

form

atio

n f

low

s

Un

de

rsta

nd

ho

w t

ech

no

log

y d

ep

loym

en

ts

sh

ou

ld w

ork

in

co

nce

rt

Co

llect,

org

an

ize

, a

nd

dis

se

min

ate

da

ta

ne

ed

ed

fo

r syste

m o

pe

ratio

ns

��

��

3. D

efi

nin

g In

terf

aces

Are

re

sp

on

sib

le f

or

de

ve

lop

ing

mu

ltim

od

al

syste

m p

lan

s

Use

da

ta o

n r

eg

ion

's e

co

no

my,

lan

d u

se

s,

infr

astr

uctu

re,

an

d m

od

e-s

pe

cific

tra

ve

l

De

ve

lop

in

ve

stm

en

t p

rog

ram

s d

esig

ne

d t

o

imp

rove

syste

m p

erf

orm

an

ce

Inve

nto

ry s

yste

ms

De

term

ine

ne

ed

s a

nd

se

rvic

es

De

ve

lop

op

era

tio

na

l co

nce

pt

De

fin

e f

un

ctio

na

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

Are

re

sp

on

sib

le f

or

exis

tin

g e

qu

ipm

en

t

Co

llect

an

d u

se

re

al-tim

e d

ata

fro

m t

raff

ic

mo

nito

rin

g s

yste

ms

De

fin

e t

ech

nic

al re

qu

ire

me

nts

of

exis

tin

g a

nd

pla

nn

ed

syste

ms

��

��

��2. G

ath

eri

ng

Data

Un

de

rsta

nd

re

gio

n-w

ide

tra

ffic

pa

tte

rns

Un

de

rsta

nd

pe

rsp

ective

s o

f d

ive

rse

sta

ke

ho

lde

r g

rou

ps

Wo

rk w

ith

an

d r

esp

on

d t

o n

ee

ds o

f e

lecte

d

off

icia

ls a

nd

te

ch

nic

al sta

ff in

re

gio

n

Are

fa

mili

ar

with

re

gio

na

l vis

ion

an

d lo

ng

-

ran

ge

pla

n

Ide

ntify

ne

ed

De

fin

e r

eg

ion

Ide

ntify

sta

ke

ho

lde

rs

Ide

ntify

ch

am

pio

ns

Kn

ow

op

era

tio

na

l ch

alle

ng

es a

cro

ss t

he

syste

m

Un

de

rsta

nd

se

rvic

e b

ou

nd

arie

s a

nd

cro

ss-

jurisd

ictio

na

l is

su

es

Wo

rk w

ith

sta

ke

ho

lde

rs t

ha

t ca

n a

ffe

ct

syste

m p

erf

orm

an

ce

on

a d

aily

ba

sis

��

��

��1. G

ett

ing

Sta

rted


Step 4 (Implementing the Architecture) defines severaladditional products that bridge the gap between theregional ITS architecture and regional ITS implementation.During the project sequencing step, operations experts areinstrumental in identifying project elements that aredependent on other projects, estimating project costs, andidentifying any regional ITS standards to be used inprojects. Planners contribute an understanding of aregion’s existing short- and long-term project priorities andcan assist with assessing ITS project benefits to theregional transportation system. Planning and operationsstakeholders contribute to developing a list of agencyagreements – operators because they typically maintainsome existing agreements, and planners because they canprovide leadership in the lengthy process of executing newagreements.

Step 5 (Using the Architecture) is where the regionalarchitecture directly supports the planning process, asspelled out in DOT’s guidance. This occurs, for example,through increased stakeholder participation in the long-range plan development and through better system andinter-jurisdictional integration. The architecture can directlysupport the selection of projects for the TIP. The architec-ture can also serve as the basis for an ITS strategic planand play a role in the development of corridor plans.Likewise, Step 6 (Maintaining the Architecture) providesfurther opportunity for planners and operators to partici-pate in continuing forums to address ongoing operationspriorities and integration opportunities.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESMost regions either have completed an initial ITS architec-ture or currently are in the process of developing one.These experiences have demonstrated a number of linkageopportunities, as discussed below.

Designate the MPO to Lead the Developmentof the Regional ITS ArchitectureFederal regulations do not specify which agency shouldlead the development of a regional ITS architecture. Inpractice, a variety of agencies have taken the lead indifferent regions. At the regional scale, MPOs are ulti-mately responsible for ensuring that the regional ITSarchitecture requirements are met for the purpose of usingFederal funds.

In regions where MPOs lead or are heavily involved in thedevelopment of the architecture, there is a strong opportu-nity for coordination with broader planning processes (seeCase 37). MPOs often have expertise in collaborating with abroad set of stakeholders who can work toward solutionsto regional transportation issues. Concurrently, MPOs canbenefit from exposure to a process that focuses onmanagement and operations strategies, since this may beunfamiliar territory for them.

Given the authority that most MPOs have in regionaltransportation decisionmaking, they are in a uniqueposition to ensure that the ITS architecture informs thetransportation planning process. For example, datacollection for planning purposes is not typically a highpriority of operating agencies; the MPO can ensure that

Case 37: NCTCOG: MPO Leads the RegionalArchitecture

Over the past 6 years, the North Central TexasCouncil of Governments (NCTCOG) has been anadvocate for the collaborative development of ITS inthe region. In 1998, the MPO, Texas Department ofTransportation districts, transit and toll authorities,and other stakeholder groups signed amemorandum of understanding agreeing tocoordinate in the planning, implementation, andoperation of ITS. As a result of this MOU, NCTCOGbegan leading regular meetings to enhanceunderstanding of ITS, discuss methods fordeployment, and develop a regional ITS architecture.Some participants were skeptical of the MPO’scapacity to lead the architecture development, butthey recognized the important resources that the MPObrought to the process. NCTCOG offered expertiseand authority with respect to funding sources.NCTCOG also brought experience with diversestakeholders and provided the region-wide and long-term perspective vital to the architecture.Through this multi-jurisdictional interaction,representatives have started to coordinate mobilitycrews on the freeways, cameras, variable messagesigns, and other ITS programs. Currently, thearchitecture is evolving from a statement that defineswhere the region wants to be in future years into astaged deployment plan. NCTCOG is preparing toinclude the architecture in the long-range plan anduse it in the short-range plan for prioritizing corridorsfor capital investment.

Contact Natalie Bettger: [email protected]


this need is recognized in the architecture. In addition, theMPO’s experience with regional funding strategies allows itto inform stakeholders about funding opportunities orconstraints during the course of developing the ITSarchitecture.

In some regions where the MPO has not led the regionalITS architecture process, the MPO has been asked toadopt the architecture. Although this is not a Federalrequirement, adoption of the architecture by the MPO doesprovide another opportunity to broaden the range ofstakeholders. Similarly, it encourages the MPO to ensurethat the priorities of the ITS architecture are consistentwith the needs and objectives enumerated in the regionaltransportation plan.

Make the Regional ITS Architecture Part of anIntegrated Regional PlanOnce a regional architecture is created, it is important that itserve as a resource for planning, programming, designing,and deploying ITS projects. The architecture should serveas a tool to improve regional thinking on operations. Oneway to promote the architecture’s use is by incorporating itinto the region’s long-range transportation plan (see Case38). This helps encourage consistency between proposedITS projects and the architecture and ensures that addi-tional integration opportunities are considered.

Making the architecture part of the long-range plan alsohelps give operations managers a stake in the planningprocess. The architecture provides a point of entry to thebroader planning effort, and allows operations managers tosee how the ideas embodied in the architecture are framedwithin the context of the region’s transportation policies,initiatives, and activities.

Following are some steps that can begin to link the ITSarchitecture with the regional plan:

Get involved with the regional architecture. Your areamay already have completed an initial regionalarchitecture or may be in the midst of developingone.22 Consider what your agency can contribute tothe development of the architecture and how thearchitecture may affect your agency’s activities.

Identify how the architecture incorporates regionalgoals and objectives. The ITS architecture shouldrelate to other planning documents, particularly thelong-range or regional transportation plan. Review thegoals, objectives, and strategies set forth intransportation plans and note the opportunities forcoordination with the regional ITS architecture. If youdo not see cross-referencing in these documents,consider appropriate mechanisms to better link thearchitecture with planning documents.

Adopt a regional ITS architecture. A completedregional ITS architecture will provide the greatestbenefit if relevant agencies use it as a framework toinform decisionmaking and promote communication.Attempt to identify all agencies that have beeninvolved with the architecture development and anyadditional agencies that might make decisions relatingto transportation operations and ITS. Encourage theseagencies to adopt the architecture to guide ITS-relateddecisionmaking.

Link the Architecture to the TIPUltimately, the goal of the architecture is to facilitate theefficient deployment and use of ITS equipment, networks,and management structures to create a safer and moreefficient transportation system. This requires prioritizationof resources over a long period (see Case 39). U.S. DOTrequires that the architecture includes a sequence ofprojects.23 Developing the sequence is a consensusbuilding process that considers costs and benefits,technological feasibility, and project readiness. While notintended to be a formal ranking of ITS projects, the projectsequence can be carried over to the TIP process. Both

Case 38: Chicago Area Planning Integration of ITSArchitecture

In the Chicago metropolitan area, the NortheasternIllinois Regional ITS Architecture was used to updatethe Regional ITS Vision, the Regional ITS IntegrationStrategy, and the Deployment Action Plan. Theupdated ITS plan then became a key input to thelong-range Regional Transportation Plan as the firststep in deployment.

22 The best way to identify the status of your region’s ITS architecture isthrough the State DOT or MPO. You can also check the following statusWeb site maintained by U.S. DOT’s ITS Joint Programs Office http://www.its.dot.gov.23 FHWA Rule 940.9(d)6 and FTA National ITS Architecture Policy Section5.d.6.


activities aim to use local knowledge and consensus-building to determine the most suitable sequence ofprojects to create a transportation network that best meetsthe region’s needs.

Some MPOs have connected the ITS architecture to theproject development process by way of a checklist that ispresented to all project sponsors (see Case 40). This is asimple and useful way to promote incorporation ofconsistent ITS elements into appropriate projects, particu-larly in areas where reference to the architecture tends tocome late in the project development process. Whenproject sponsors are prompted to consider ITS early inproject development, ITS will be better integrated intoprojects and will be more likely to improve system effi-ciency. Consider developing a checklist for projectsponsors that describes important ITS considerations.

Build From the Architecture’s OperationalConceptThe regional ITS architecture includes an operationalconcept that defines the institutional relationships amongthe organizations involved in the deployment and opera-tion of regionally integrated ITS systems. Consider usingthis operational concept as a starting place for linkingplanning and operations more broadly. Consider how theoperational concept can function to guide operationscoordination beyond ITS.

Build a Sustained Forum Around Maintenanceof the ArchitectureA region’s ITS priorities and organizational approach willneed to evolve along with the region’s travel patterns,available funding, and technological capabilities. Projectimplementation may also be a catalyst for maintenance ofthe architecture. As projects come into final stage of designthe regional architecture should be reviewed to see if thereis any impact to the capabilities documented in the regionalarchitecture. Likewise, the architecture will need to respondto changes in the region’s long-term goals and objectives.For these reasons, agencies should consider proceduresand responsibilities for maintaining the regional ITSarchitecture as needs evolve within the region. Therequirement to maintain the regional ITS architectureprovides an opportunity to institutionalize certain planningand operations linkages.

Without active engagement, stakeholder participation has atendency to fall off when the architecture is complete.Agencies can identify activities to maintain involvement ofa core group of stakeholders. Such a group can also serveto help coordinate transportation planning and operationsmore broadly. A good way to keep the stakeholder groupactive is to involve it in on-going regional transportationplanning and programming activities. In addition, a numberof regions have maintained engagement by designating a

Case 39: Anchorage Prioritization Process for ITSProjects

The Anchorage area MPO facilitated development ofAlaska’s regional ITS architecture. The architectureincludes short- and mid-range priorities and systemmaintenance strategies. Anchorage has been able tobuild consensus around a prioritization process thatacknowledges both mid-term operational needs andlong-range planning goals. This was achieved byengaging operations managers as well as plannersand decisionmakers in the development ofarchitecture’s project selection criteria.

Contact Vivian Underwood: [email protected]

Case 40: Salt Lake City Region: ITS ConsistencyChecklist

The MPO for the Salt Lake City region has developeda checklist of ITS considerations for project sponsors.This checklist includes the following:

Briefly describe how this project fits in with theregional ITS integration strategy.

Note on the regional architecture diagrams howthis project fits with regional ITS.

Briefly describe what connections andarchitecture flows are planned to existing ITS aspart of this project.

List stakeholders that have been and/or will beinvolved in project concept development.

Briefly describe how this project will facilitateimplementation of other future elements of theregional architecture.

Contact Wayne Bennion: [email protected]


steering committee and by developing a regional ITSarchitecture Web site.

Although a single agency may be designated to maintainthe architecture, it is important that a diverse set ofstakeholders remain actively engaged in the architecturereview and maintenance processes. These groups ofstakeholders can also function as ongoing forums whereplanning and operations practitioners ensure that theiractivities are coordinated.

LESSONS LEARNEDWith many regions in the midst of ITS architecturedevelopment, there is a wealth of perspectives on how theprocess is working. Two lessons relating to planning andoperations coordination have been expressed frequently.

Stakeholders Take Interest in ConcreteBenefitsA number of regions have labored to attract a diverse rangeof stakeholders to participate in the regional ITS architec-ture process. While coordinating ITS may already providebenefits to many planning and operations stakeholders,practitioners may not readily link these benefits with themore abstract architecture process. This challenge hasbeen successfully addressed in several ways. Manyregions have found that the architecture tends to attractmore interest if it is promoted as a step to enhance existingsuccessful ITS initiatives (see Case 41). This may be atraffic management center, an incident response program,

or some other initiative that is particularly important to thestakeholders being targeted. Furthermore, to better engagestakeholders in developing the operations concept, real-world operations situations or scenarios can be used toguide the discussion and make the concept more acces-sible. Finally, all stakeholders take interest when funding isat stake. Greater participation has been achieved byhighlighting the linkage between the ITS architecture andaccess to Federal funds, or by communicating ways thatthe architecture will delineate regional ITS investmentpriorities.

The ITS Architecture Can Be Expected toEnhance Collaboration Over TimeFHWA’s ITS architecture rule requires that the regionalarchitecture be developed by April 8, 2005. After thisdeadline, Federal funds cannot be used for ITS projects inthe region until a regional ITS architecture has beendeveloped. Understandably, many regions that have notyet developed an architecture are focusing their attentionon satisfying this Federal requirement. As a result, some ofthe more complex institutional issues are not being fullyaddressed in these initial regional architecture plans. Oncethe deadline is satisfied, regions that have recognized thisvalue will have the opportunity to refocus on aspects ofthe architecture that help collaboration between jurisdic-tions and between ITS and regional planning processes.Ongoing implementation and maintenance of the architec-ture affords numerous opportunities to implement some ofthe collaboration opportunities that become apparent in theinitial architecture development.

Key Regional ITS Architecture Resources

Regional ITS Architecture Guidance: Developing,Using, and Maintaining and ITS Architecture foryour region, U.S DOT, October 2001. http://www.its.dot.gov/aconform/Guidance.htm

Regional ITS Architecture Maintenance Website:http://www.its.dot.gov/aconform/Guidance.htm

Joint ITS Program Technical Assistance Site:http://www.its.dot.gov/itsweb/Technical/technical.htm

Case 41: Kansas City Scout: Inspiring Participationin the Architecture

Kansas City Scout is an extensive freewaymanagement system for the bi-state Kansas Citymetropolitan area. The system came about prior todevelopment of a regional ITS architecture. Accordingto ITS planners in the region, existence of KansasCity Scout made it easier to engage stakeholders inITS issues going forward. The success of the systemhas drawn interest from cities throughout the region.These jurisdictions understand that further expansionand development must be consistent with theregional architecture, and based on the success ofKansas City Scout, they see the value in intra-regional coordination.

Contact Ron Achelpohl: [email protected]


2.8

BACKGROUNDSome projects are especially likely to bring togetherplanners and operators. For example, any regional manage-ment and operations projects require involvement of Stateor regional transportation planners. Such planners may beneeded to manage regional funding opportunities, tocoordinate across jurisdictions and modes, or simply toprovide regional leadership. Exhibit 12 lists some examplesof such regional M&O projects.

What is Meant by Regional M&O Projects?Regional management and operations refers to themultimodal, cross-jurisdictional systems, services, andprojects that are implemented to optimize the performanceof the existing infrastructure. These systems, services, andprojects are designed to preserve capacity and improvesecurity, safety, and reliability of transportation systems.Regional M&O projects include a diverse range of activi-ties (as illustrated in the breadth of activities included inExhibit 12).

How Can Regional M&O Projects CreateLinkages?Regional M&O projects can help to link planning andoperations in a number of ways. For example, if an MPOleads an operations-oriented project, MPO planners maywork closely with operations agencies, developing a betterunderstanding of operations in the process. When regionalplanners understand the role of management and opera-tions, there is a greater likelihood that regional M&Oprojects will be supported in the long-range planning andprogramming process. From another perspective, as long-range plans increase their focus on regional M&O projectsto maximize the efficiency of a mature transportationsystems, planners will require more involvement andexpertise of operations practitioners. Regional M&Oprojects can also educate operations managers aboutbroader regional planning and policy objectives that cutacross modes and jurisdictions.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIESThis section highlights opportunities to link planning andoperations through specific types of regional M&Oprojects. Nearly every M&O project can strengthen theplanning and operations link in some way, so theseexamples should be considered as illustrative rather than asa comprehensive list. Indeed, the very existence of regionalM&O projects may be an indication that a region hasdeveloped some coordination between planning andoperations. For example, an effective regional incidentmanagement program requires input from operationsmanagers as well as some institutional awareness at theState and regional planning level to recognize the need andto fund such a program. Through the ongoing implementa-tion and expansion of regional M&O projects, planningand operations coordination will continue to evolve in aproductive manner.

Work Zone Management ProgramsThe goal of work zone management programs is to reducethe impact of roadway construction and maintenance onmobility and safety. Travelers are often frustrated whenthey perceive that the impacts of highway construction

Exhibit 12: Examples of Regional M&O Projectsand Programs

Arterial management systems

Work zone management systems

Emergency management

Electronic toll and fare collection

Special event coordination Automated trafficenforcement

Traffic incident management

Road weather management

Traveler information services

Commercial vehicle operations

Traffic detection and surveillance

Freight management

Development of HOV/HOT lanes


activities have been poorly managed resulting in conges-tion and delay. In response to customer concerns and thepotential for efficiency gains, work zone managementprograms have become a focus of regional operationsthinking and have gained recognition as an important areafor interagency and interjurisdictional coordination.

Work zone management is inherently an operationsconcern, since it focuses on strategies for minimizingdisruption to the roadway system. However, planners canplay a significant role in helping to ensure that construc-tion and maintenance projects scheduled for a corridor areconsidered early in the planning and programming processto minimize the impacts of multiple work zones. Plannerscan also help to ensure coordination between jurisdictionswhen scheduling roadwork.

Traditionally, conducting the work during off-peak hoursminimized work zone mobility impacts. This has becomemore difficult as peak-periods are spreading and the timewindow for conducting work is shrinking, making it criticalto plan for work zone impacts early in the project develop-ment process. It is also typically more expensive to do workduring off peak hours, consuming a larger share of scarceresources. Planners are beginning to get involved in workzone management at the corridor level, including learningthe details about the work and exploring regional optionsto mitigate traffic impacts (e.g., development of serviceroads or advance preparation of alternate routes). Workzone management issues can even be considered duringthe regional project prioritization process.

Through involvement in work zone management programs,planners gain exposure to traffic management strategiesthat may have broader application for addressing short-term regional concerns. Concurrently, planners offerexpertise in public information distribution, stakeholderinvolvement, and transportation system network behavior.For these reasons, the MPO often serves as a good forumfor coordinating work zone management between agenciesand jurisdictions.

Major transportation construction projects also offer anopportunity to demonstrate the capacity for managementand operations strategies to mitigate impacts to theregional traffic network. Such mitigations could includetravel demand management services and their promotion,temporary signal timing adjustments on alternate routes, oradvanced traveler information strategies (such as variablemessage signs) to keep travelers apprised of real timeconditions before they reach the work zone. Implementa-tion of such strategies can be a way to demonstrate their

potential for broader application to address regional trafficdisruptions.

Regional Incident Response ProgramsIncident management is the process of managing multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional responses to highway trafficdisruptions. Efficient and coordinated management ofincidents reduces their adverse impacts on public safety,traffic conditions, and the local economy. These programstypically require involvement from a wide range of stake-holders including State and local law enforcement agen-cies, fire and rescue agencies, HAZMAT clean-up services,towing and recovery companies, and public and privatetraveler information providers. Due to the wide range ofactors involved, these programs provide a mechanism tolink operations stakeholders and help to jumpstart otherregional operations efforts. Several regions have spon-sored conferences to share information and best practiceson incident management. Conferences provide opportuni-ties for operations practitioners to work with planners toexpand services and discuss facility design issues thataffect the efficiency of incident response efforts.

In some regions, MPOs have taken the lead role in advanc-ing coordinated incident response and freeway servicepatrol programs (see Case 42). Because traffic incidents areresponsible for such a large portion of regional congestion,MPOs are becoming more active in incident response.When the MPO takes the lead, it provides an importantopportunity for broader involvement by the MPO inthinking about day-to-day management of transportationfacilities. In addition, operations managers within theregion may come to see the MPO as a more relevant playerand, consequently, participate more actively in the MPO’sactivities.

Special Events ManagementTransportation practitioners often comment on the powerof major special events to promote unparalleled levels ofplanning and coordination between otherwise discon-nected transportation agencies. This condition is particu-larly evident for special events that bring broad national orinternational attention to a particular city, such as majorsporting events or high-profile conventions (see Case 43).

A special event can serve as a catalyst for the developmentof a new model for planning and operations coordination –a model that can potentially continue to function long afterthe event has occurred. To sustain and build upon the


collaborative attitudes that are common during specialevents, it is important that stakeholders consider inadvance how to build from these events. Planners andoperations representatives can work together to discussopportunities to build from successful event coordination.

Regional Signal CoordinationSignal coordination programs, traditionally conducted inisolation by individual cities, are now being conductedacross jurisdictions. Interconnecting traffic signals andoptimizing signal timing has been shown to reduce traveltimes by 8 to 25 percent along an arterial or corridor. Someregions are also working to integrate arterial signalization

systems with transit operation, emergency operations, and/or freeway management efforts.

Cross-jurisdictional signal coordination is often led by acity, usually a large central city coordinating with smallersurrounding cities. But MPOs and other regional agenciesalso can lead regional signal coordination efforts, and inthe process help to strengthen ties between planners andoperators (see Case 44). For example, some MPOs haveformed a traffic signal coordination committee made upprimarily of local government traffic engineers and publicworks managers. The committee works together to craft awritten agreement on signal timing that is consistent withregional planning objectives and also acceptable to thelocal jurisdictions. The involvement of the regional planningagency can help to bring all the necessary stakeholders tothe table while ensuring that the signal coordination supportsregional air quality planning, ITS deployments, transitoperations, and other regional initiatives.

HOV Lane DevelopmentSome new transportation infrastructure projects inherentlyinvolve consideration of regional M&O issues as well asregional planning and policy issues. HOV lane (or HOTlane) development is a prime example. HOV lane construc-tion involves all of the engineering and operationalconsiderations associated with traditional freeway laneadditions plus a range of planning and policy concerns.For example, HOV lane projects must address detailedoperational considerations for lane access points as theyrelate to overall system performance. HOV lanes alsorequire State and regional policy considerations such ashours of operation, vehicle occupancy requirements foraccess, exceptions to HOV requirements, and policiesrelating to emergency and special event use of HOV lanes.These are frequently controversial topics related to broaderregional demand management efforts. MPOs and StateDOT planning agencies are usually more versed in thebroader policy considerations, but operations practitionersare needed for the consideration of operations constraints.As a result, HOV projects tend to generate numerousopportunities for new professional connections betweenplanning and operations (see Case 45).

Transportation Emergency Preparedness andSecurity PlanningAgencies involved with transportation management andoperations are increasingly focused on disaster prepared-ness planning and emergency response coordination –

Case 42: Bay Area Freeway Service Patrol

Established in 1992, the Bay Area Freeway ServicePatrol (FSP) is a joint project between theMetropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways, theCalifornia Highway Service Patrol, and the CaliforniaDOT. The 74 FSP trucks patrol 450 miles of the BayArea freeways to clear crashes, remove debris, andhelp stranded motorists without a fee. FSP’s fastresponse time helps to reduce congestion andsecondary crashes. Patrol trucks are equipped withadvanced communications equipment, including anautomatic vehicle location system to assist indispatch. As an indication of its widespread success,on March 24, 2003, FSP recorded its 1 millionth driverassist.

Contact Rod McMillan: [email protected]

Case 43: Dallas/Fort Worth Region Olympic BidLessons

In preparing a bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics, theDallas/Fort Worth region worked collaboratively todesign a system of managed lanes throughout theregion. Through this planning exercise, operationsmanagers and planning staff learned that managedlanes were the only feasible way to provide rapidpriority travel to particular sites. Although Dallas didnot win the Olympic bid, the planning exerciseresulted in some important lessons about theflexibility of a regional managed lane network.

Contact Dan Lamers: [email protected]


coordination that should take place at the regional scale. Anumber of regions have established a management andoperations committee that focuses on day-to-day opera-tions activities, with a transportation emergency prepared-ness subcommittee that focuses on longer-range planningand training programs related to emergency management.Arrangements such as these serve to facilitate bettercoordination between planning and operations.

Recent efforts to model emergency situations have appliedtraditional planning tools to improve transportationmanagement practices. These models often combine GIS,travel demand forecasting procedures, and simulation ofemergency scenarios to assist in emergency responseplanning (see Case 46). Setting up and running thesemodels may require involvement of both regional transpor-tation planners and system operations experts.

Regional Traffic Management CentersRegional traffic management centers (TMCs) are typicallyinvolved with M&O projects and programs such as thosediscussed in this section. A TMC may serve as headquar-ters for incident management activities and is also likely tobe an important participant in planning for emergencypreparedness and for special events. TMCs can also createadditional opportunities for improving planning andoperations coordination.

For planning agencies, being involved in the developmentof a TMC can serve as a unique bridge from a capitalproject focus to management and operations coordination.Planners familiar with the capital project development

Case 44: Kansas City Operation Green Light

Operation Green Light is a joint effort between Stateand local governments to synchronize traffic signalson 1500 intersections throughout the Kansas Cityarea in order to improve traffic flow and air quality. TheMid-America Regional Council (MARC), the area’sMPO, is the umbrella under which the Missouri andKansas Departments of Transportation and 17 areacities work together to develop coordinated timingplans and signal communication systems. Thecoincidence of several key events helped bringOperation Green Light into existence. In 1998, MARCallocated funds to study the impact of traffic signalcoordination on emissions reduction. That same yearthe Missouri DOT and the Public Works Departmentof Kansas City conducted a study addressingcommon hardware standards for traffic signalequipment. In the summer of 1998, the two studieswere combined and resulted in a recommendationfor regional signal timing coordination. With its recenteligibility for CMAQ funds, the Kansas City region wasable to initiate Operation Green Light. At the presenttime, the region is assembling resources andworking with local agencies to deploy signal timingplans. Operation Green Light is expected to reducetraffic delays, improve traffic flow, reduce emissions,and assist in managing changes in traffic patternsresulting from a new freeway management system.

Contact Ron Achelpohl: [email protected]

Case 46: Operations Coordination Peaks forNebraska’s Emergency Management Exercises

The Nebraska Department of Roads has beeninvolved in extensive disaster preparedness trainingexercises. They have observed high levels ofcollaboration and cooperation among agencydivisions and regions during the exercisedevelopment and execution process. These trainingexercises have led to a better understanding of thephysical assets and expertise available to eachagency and region, helping to promote greatercollaboration in day-to-day management andoperations activities.

Contact Jim Schmailzl: [email protected]

Case 45: HOV Projects Drive Coordination atWashington State DOT

There have been major debates within the Seattleregion regarding who has driving privileges in theHOV lanes. Operations managers at the state DOTrecognized that these policy concerns were thedomain of planning practitioners. Planners whobecame involved with HOV policy development had tolearn everything about the operation of such facilitiesso that they could make well-informed policydecisions. As a result of taking the time to understandthe systems operations issues associated with HOVoperations, these planners have gained a broaderconnection with operations staff and have beenexposed to “operations thinking.”



process usually lead the process of funding, designing,and constructing a TMC facility. But the TMC develop-ment process can also stimulate a broader discussion ofwhat takes place within the traffic management center, suchas:

Who must be involved in its design and management?

How will the activities be sustained?

How will it link with other centers?

What is the ultimate scope of management activitiesthat could occur in the center?

These topics can help engage operations management andplanning agencies in a broader discussion of M&Ocoordination.

A number of regions report that the operation of regionalTMCs has helped build broader cooperation in regionalM&O efforts (see Case 47). For example, some TMCs areco-managed by the State police. This ensures that thisconstituency is consistently involved in broader policyconsiderations about the center’s roles and responsibili-ties. In other regions, emergency management practitionershave witnessed the benefits of operations technologies(e.g., signal priority exemption for emergency vehicles), andas a result become more interested in regional ITS planningand deployment.

As the operations community looks to expand its role inthe regional transportation planning process, these multi-agency working relationships can prove to be critical. Theability to bring a multi-agency perspective to the planningtable should enhance the decisionmaking process andresult with increased system performance as, for example,incidents get cleared in a more timely and effective manner.

Cross-cutting Regional Implementation ActionsWhile the previous discussion of how to exploit theselinkage opportunities referred to particular regional M&Oactivities, the following short-term actions apply to a widerange of regional M&O programs. These are some ex-amples of how agencies can use existing M&O projects tobuild a broader regional link between planning andoperations.

Identify multi-jurisdictional M&O programs thatshould involve the MPO. MPOs have skills that arerelevant to integrated management and operationsstrategies. These skills include experience withbringing together diverse stakeholders, awareness ofhow to distribute information to the general public,

and familiarity with a broad array of fundingopportunities. Unfortunately, MPOs are not alwayswell informed about the range of active regional M&Oactivities. MPO staff should identify management andoperations programs within the region and assess theextent of MPO involvement. Consider strategies toincrease MPO involvement in programs that aredominated by operations practitioners.

Expand stakeholder participation in existing M&Oprojects. Many regions have nascent regional M&Oprojects and programs with involvement from a limitednumber of regional stakeholders. For example, signalcoordination efforts and special event managementprograms often include no more than a few localgovernments. Identify opportunities to expand theseprograms so that they embrace a larger portion ofregional stakeholders, becoming true cooperativeregional systems management and operations efforts.

Use specific M&O successes to sell new regionalcoordination efforts. Agencies can identify successfullocal examples of coordination between regionalplanning and M&O projects or programs. Examplesmay include a special event where regionaltransportation services were particularly wellcoordinated, a successful interjurisdictional work zonemanagement effort, or a multi-jurisdictionalsignalization coordination plan that took into accountthe needs of multiple modes. Identify factors thatcontributed to the success of such efforts, and work toreplicate the success in other regional M&O projects.

Case 47: Austin’s TMC is Building New InteragencyConnections

In its initial several weeks of operation, the CombinedTransportation, Emergency and CommunicationsCenter (CTECC) in the Austin, Texas regiondemonstrated its capacity to increase coordinationbetween traffic operations, emergency services, andpolice departments. For example, by facilitating directcommunication between the traffic operations andemergency services staff, the center has increasedawareness about traffic impacts caused by accidentsso that emergency vehicles are less likely tounnecessarily block traffic. As the region considersnew projects in the future that involve emergencyservices, the CTECC will provide a forum to involvethe broad range of management and operationsconstituents in regional planning.

Contact Brian Burk: [email protected]


LESSONS LEARNEDImplementation of regional M&O projects has exposednumerous challenges and highlighted some promisingways to overcome them. Many of the lessons learned arespecific to one type of M&O project or program and arediscussed at length in other resources. This sectionreviews several lessons that apply broadly to regionalM&O efforts.

Organizing at Regional Scale May HighlightDifferences Between ObjectivesOperations practitioners and local decisionmakers are likelyto be concerned about centralizing the control of trafficmanagement at the regional scale. These concerns arelegitimate – local operators often have vital informationabout the particular issues in each jurisdiction that cannotbe readily communicated to regional agencies. What is bestfor regional management is not always best for particularlocal stakeholders. Any regional M&O effort must be opento discussing and accommodating issues related to theauthority of existing operating organizations. While it maynot eliminate local concerns, a focus on coordination ratherthan centralization is critical for the success of suchregional efforts, and is a prerequisite for engaging opera-tions managers in a broader regional planning dialogue.

Regional M&O Efforts Face Pressure toExpand in ScopeSome regions have faced a situation in which they set outto develop a specific regional M&O program and foundthat the discussion quickly expanded to cover a broadarray of management and operations efforts. Regionalcoordination, information sharing, and public involvementfor one particular program often illuminates needs andopportunities for regional coordination in other operationsareas. For example, when work zone management programsare coordinating with regional transit operators, it becomesapparent that incident management programs and regionalsignal coordination programs should be doing the samething. Similarly, efforts to establish an incident managementprogram may highlight poor coordination between variousjurisdictional traffic management centers.

Successful M&O task forces or consortiums shouldcarefully assess how much responsibility they wish to takeon beyond their original focused effort. Some groups havesuccessfully expanded beyond straightforward originalgoals such as work zone management, taking on broad

responsibilities for a range of regional management andoperations efforts. Other groups have determined that theirinstitutional arrangement left them best suited to focus ona specific M&O program and concluded that increasingdemands called for developing management and operationsoversight within the State DOT or MPO.


2.9

The previous eight sections discuss specific strategies thatencourage and support linkages between planning andoperations. Each of these strategies has a role within theexisting regional transportation planning process. Inaddition, these strategies should be coordinated to supportregional system management and operations. This sectionintroduces the idea of developing a Regional Concept forTransportation Operations (RCTO), a tool for ensuring thatmanagement and operation activities build toward acommon vision and relate to the broader regional planningprocess. An RCTO links planning and operations byproviding a coherent framework for considering operationsduring the planning process and by supporting thelinkages discussed in previous sections.24

An RCTO presents a regional objective for transportationoperations and describes what is needed to achieve thatobjective within a reasonably short timeframe, often threeto five years. The development of the RCTO shouldinclude participation by the MPO to ensure consistencywith the region’s vision and goals. It should also involvestakeholders that depend on regional operations coordina-tion (see Exhibit 13). The process of developing an RCTOrequires sustained collaboration among these stakeholders.

To date, only a small number of regions have developeddocuments similar to RCTOs. Therefore, rather thanfocusing on the few examples of how these instances havelinked planning and operations, this section describes ingeneral how an RCTO can support planning and opera-tions coordination and how it can support other strategiesdiscussed in this resource guide.

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN AN RCTO?An RCTO can vary significantly in scope depending on theregion and the range of programs it seeks to address (seeExhibit 14), but certain fundamental components must beincluded. An RCTO should describe 1) the operationsobjective, 2) the physical elements of the system, 3)relationships and procedures, and 4) resources required toachieve the RCTO goals. The issues that would typicallybe addressed within each of these sections are describedbelow.

Operations Objective: the desired operations outcomefor one or more activities or services at the end of athree- to five-year period. All stakeholders shouldagree upon this outcome, it should be consistent withregional goals expressed in regional planningdocuments, and it should be realistically achievablegiven the timeframe and available resources.

Physical Improvements: the equipment, technology,facilities, people, and systems needed to achieve theoperations objective.

24 For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Regional Concept forTransportation Operations: A Tool for Strengthening and Guiding RegionalTransportation Operations Collaboration and Communication, FHWA, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/rcto_white_paper/index.htm.

Exhibit 13: Management and operationsstakeholders who may help develop the RCTOinclude:

State DOTs

MPOs

Local planning departments

Local public works departments

Air/Sea ports

Local chambers of commerce

Transit agencies

Public safety/security agencies

Tourism bureaus

Major employers

Community groups

Toll authorities

Advocacy groups

Major freight shippers

Local jurisdictions

Commercial vehicle operators


Exhibit 14: Examples of services likely to benefitfrom regional coordination through a RCTO

Traffic incident management

Traveler information

Electronic payment services (e.g., transit,parking, tolls)

Emergency response and homeland security

Traffic signal coordination

Road weather management

Freight management

Work zone traffic management

Freeway management

Congestion management

Relationships and Procedures: the workingagreements, institutional arrangements, MOUs, andprocedures needed to achieve the operationsobjective.

Resource Arrangements: the funding and otherresource requirements (e.g., staff and equipment) andhow those resources are to be obtained and applied toachieve the operations objective.

HOW CAN AN RCTO LINK PLANNING ANDOPERATIONS?An RCTO links planners and operators by helping opera-tors participate in the planning process and by helpingplanners understand how operations can support theregion’s broader transportation goals. The RCTO buildsconsensus on the future of transportation operationsneeds. This provides stakeholders with a basis forproductively participating in regional decisions. It alsoprovides a framework for critically evaluating whether theproposed investments adequately support the operationsobjective.

Helping Operations Practitioners Engage in thePlanning ProcessAn RCTO can prepare management and operationspractitioners to be effective contributors within thetransportation planning process

An RCTO addresses a longer time horizon and abroader geographic range than is typical foroperations strategies. As a result, the RCTO allowsoperations practitioners to link their programs withfuture capital investments and potential operationsfunding sources.

An RCTO builds commitment among stakeholders fora common regional approach to operations (see Case48). Operations managers will have greater influence inthe planning process when diverse stakeholders havereached consensus on an operations objective for theregion.

Though longer than typical operations plans, thethree- to five-year timeframe of the RCTO is shorterthan many planning documents. The RCTO istherefore more likely to maintain interest of operations-minded stakeholder groups. These are groups thatmay not engage in the 20-year regional planningprocess. In this way, the RCTO serves as a bridgebetween stakeholders focused on very short-termoperations needs and those focused on the long-termevolution of the regional transportation system. Inaddition, the RCTO’s 3 to 5 year timeframe facilitatescoordination with the TIP (also 3 to 5 years).

Helping Planners Promote Management andOperationsAn RCTO can help planners and decisionmakers byrelating management and operations to broader regionalgoals and by describing individual operations programswithin a broader regional operations strategy.

An RCTO links management and operations strategieswith regional goals and objectives. This helpsplanners see the benefits of regional operationsinvestments and creates a common understanding ofregional management and operations.

An RCTO illustrates how individual management andoperations projects and programs fit into a broaderstrategy for regional transportation efficiency (seeCase 49). In this way, an RCTO helps plannersconsider how capital projects can be implemented in away that complements existing operations strategies.

By providing a coherent operations strategy forconsideration during the planning process, an RCTOenables decisionmakers to fund critical operationsinitiatives and understand how they support regionalgoals. In this way, an RCTO provides elected officialswho must approve transportation plans and programs


Case 48: Developing the Regional Concept of Transportation Operations for the Phoenix Region

In the Phoenix metropolitan region, the need for an RCTO became clear during the process of developing theregional ITS architecture. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) ITS Committee found that operationsissues were being considered only at a very high level during the development of the architecture; there was littledetailed discussion regarding how to get from the current way of doing business to the end points defined in thearchitecture. As a result, the committee viewed the architecture as a longer-term goal and committed todeveloping a shorter-term detailed regional plan for operations coordination.When MAG’s ITS Committee initiated the process of developing the Regional Concept of TransportationOperations in 2001, several organizations had already been involved in regional transportation operationscoordination, including the MAG ITS Committee, AZTechTM, and the East and West Valley Traffic Signal TimingGroups. A consulting agency and a group of stakeholders from city, county, regional, State, and Federal agenciesdeveloped an initial Regional Concept of Transportation Operations. These stakeholders agreed on a commonvision and mission for the region’s transportation system operations. They then developed three- and five-yearoperational goals that would move the region toward this vision. To address these goals, the committee agreedon 11 initiatives and associated steps for action. For example, one initiative focuses on “transit signal priority”and the associated action is “plan, deploy, operate, maintain and evaluate a Transit Signal Priority pilot project.”This group of stakeholders also agreed on common operational performance measures that would be used totrack their progress.The group took several steps to insure success of the newly formed initiatives:

It developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be signed by each participating agency. The intentof the MOU is to acquire commitment from the participants to work towards the initiatives and coordinate withone another in managing and operating the region’s transportation system.

Existing regional forums or committees and a champion were assigned responsibility for one or moreinitiatives. The champion’s duties included being a leader for the area and reporting on the progress at theMAG ITS Committee meetings.

It committed to developing a guidance document that will help agencies to implement the actions describedin the RCTO (currently underway).

MAG’s current RCTO and additional discussion of the development process are available online: http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/project.cms?item=1395

Contact Sarath Joshua: [email protected]

with justification for promoting regional benefitsthrough local operations decisions.

Through the mechanisms outlined above, an RCTO allowsregional planners and operations managers to be proactiveabout coordinating operations strategies to serve regionalobjectives.

HOW CAN AN RCTO SUPPORT LINKAGEOPPORTUNITIES DISCUSSED IN THISGUIDE?From the discussion above, it should be clear that theRCTO links planning and operations in ways similar to thestrategies discussed in previous sections of this resourceguide (Sections 2.2 to 2.8). In fact, the RCTO can be a

valuable tool for integrating all of these strategies toimprove planning and operations coordination. Thefollowing discussion gives some examples of how theRCTO supports the linkage opportunities discussed inthese previous sections.

Data Sharing (Section 2.2): The RCTO is anopportunity to increase regional data sharing. Asdiscussed in Section 2.2, incompatible or conflictingdata between various agencies and jurisdictionsfrequently impede efforts to use of such data foroperations and planning. The RCTO is an opportunityto highlight the benefits of improved data consistency,awareness, and accessibility. By understanding suchbenefits, agencies can reasonably evaluate tradeoffsand consider compromises relating to data standards


Case 49: A Concept of Operations for Bay AreaFreeways

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MPOfor California’s Bay Area Region) played a key role indeveloping a concept of operations to improvefreeway management. MPO staff memberscoordinated closely with the State DOT and theCalifornia Highway Patrol to develop the Bay AreaFreeway Concept of Operations Project in 2001. Thiseffort built on existing coordination of freewaycongestion management, incident management, andtraveler information programs. The project pursuedthree objectives:

Identify potential improvements to policies,procedures, and practices would enhanceregional agency coordination

Define roles, responsibilities, and resources forfreeway operations.

Develop a plan of action for improving freewayoperations.

The project received input from top agencyexecutives, agency staff, and a range of public agencystakeholders. Immediate results have included aregional consensus defining what freewayoperations should look like in the near future,definition of some measurable objectives, and a planfor how the participating agencies can meet thesenew expectations. Some of the recommendedstrategies include integrating incident detection,developing overall data and video sharing policy, anddetailing a staffing and funding program.

Contact Rod McMillan: [email protected]

and protocols.

Performance Measures (Section 2.3): An RCTO canprovide a basis for developing management andoperations performance measures. Because the RCTOdefines regional operations objectives, physical needs,institutional relationships, and resource needs, it is theideal place to define metrics to assess the region’sprogress in each of these areas.

Congestion Management Systems (Section 2.4): TheRCTO can help ensure that individual managementand operations projects build toward integratedregional transportation objectives. Goals formanagement and operations may stretch beyondtraditional congestion management to include

objectives such as travel time reliability and intermodalcoordination. The RCTO can provide a framework sothat individual operations projects and programswithin the CMS are not implemented in an ad-hocfashion but, rather, contribute to an integratedstrategy.

Funding and Resource Sharing (Section 2.5): TheRCTO allows operations funding to be targeted towarda specific operations objective and revealsopportunities for efficient resource sharing. Section 2.5described how funding for operations is frequentlyallocated under broad categories (such as“management and operations”) with little specificreference to the activities that are to be funded. AnRCTO provides a more complete regional operationsvision that helps define specific programs during theplanning stage. This can raise the profile ofmanagement and operations programs among electedofficials and the public.

In addition, by defining some common operations goalsamong diverse stakeholders, the RCTO can identifyequipment and other resource needs that are common toseveral agencies. This creates an opportunity to identifyparticular equipment that might be jointly purchased andshared by a number of agencies, or to coordinate commontechnology or software to enhance compatibility andefficiency. Raising such opportunities a year or two inadvance is critical for developing coordinated strategies.

Institutional Arrangements (Section 2.6): Regularstakeholder forums and interjurisdictional meetings arefamiliar to participants in the regional planningprocess. However, some operating agencies may beless accustomed to such practices, and may questionwhether they are a valuable use of time and resources.The RCTO provides an important framework forensuring that such forums are directed toward clearlydefined and pragmatic operations coordination.Initially, meetings to prepare and advance the RCTOmay be the only forums where the participatingstakeholders can focus on regional operationsthinking. The RCTO also offers an opportunity toforge needed relationships with non-transportationagencies (such as emergency response and securityagencies).

Regional ITS Architecture (Section 2.7): Componentsof an RCTO correspond with components of theRegional ITS architecture discussed in Section 2.7. For


example, an RCTO’s “relationships and procedures”section should complement a regional ITSarchitecture’s discussion of critical agencyrelationships and information sharing. Where aregional architecture exists, it should both inform anddraw support from the RCTO. In regions where there isno regional ITS architecture, the RCTO will helpensure that the architecture is developed in a way thatinforms immediate operations decisionmaking andlinks to broad regional goals and objectives.

Regional M&O Projects (Section 2.8): The RCTO isdirectly related to the implementation of regional M&Oprojects. Section 2.8 describes the common practice ofallocating authority for all operations to localjurisdictions. The RCTO offers a means by which localorganizations can maintain such control of their ownmanagement and operations projects and programswhile increasing the likelihood that these programs willbuild toward an integrated regional managementstrategy.

.

THE FUTURE OF THE RCTOImplementing an RCTO involves significant chal-

lenges. For example, there will be challenges in directingresources toward a new regional coordination effort. Therewill be challenges in identifying stakeholders with thetechnical knowledge necessary to develop the RCTO yetwith sufficient decisionmaking authority to commitresources and formalize relationships. And of course, therewill be challenges in building regional consensus onoperations priorities. Based on the RCTO’s potential forlinking planning and operations and improving theefficiency of existing investments, these challenges are wellworth facing. Existing experience with concepts similar toRCTOs offers reason to be optimistic.

Self-Assessment | 3- 1

he following table is designed as a self-assessmenttool to help planning and operations practitionersconsider their current level of coordination and

identify potential linkage opportunities.25 If the answers are“no” to many of the questions for a given opportunity areathen this area may represent a good place to expandplanning and operations coordination. The previouschapter described a wide range of strategies to helpcoordinate transportation planning with transportationmanagement and operations. These strategies providepossible starting points for discussion within a region.

25 This self-assessment covers all of the linkage opportunities discussedin chapter 2 except for the regional concept for transportation operations(Section 2.9). The RCTO is not included in the self-assessment becausethis strategy is new and has been implemented in only a few regions.

33333 SELF-ASSESSMENTSELF-ASSESSMENTSELF-ASSESSMENTSELF-ASSESSMENTSELF-ASSESSMENT

T


Do

plan

ners

and

oper

ator

s kno

w o

nean

othe

r and

und

erst

and

each

oth

er’s

rol

es?

Do

publ

ic sa

fety

, priv

ate

sect

or, a

nd tr

ansp

orta

tion

oper

atio

ns p

ract

ition

ers

parti

cipa

te in

regi

onal

plan

ning

foru

ms?

Do

goal

s and

obj

ectiv

esad

dres

s ef

ficie

nt s

yste

ms

man

agem

ent a

ndop

erat

ions

?

Do

need

s as

sess

men

tsad

dres

s ins

titut

iona

lco

ordi

natio

n, sy

stem

flexi

bilit

y, an

d rel

iabi

lity?

Do

asse

ssm

ents

of

alte

rnat

ive p

lann

ing

scen

ario

s con

side

r the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

oper

atio

ns st

rate

gies

?

Do

plan

s arti

cula

te o

rre

fer t

o a

futu

re,

impr

oved

syst

em o

fre

gion

al o

pera

tions

?

Tran

spor

tatio

n Plan

ning

Proc

ess

Data

Shar

ing

Perfo

rman

ce M

easu

rem

ent

Cong

estio

n Man

agem

ent S

ystem

s

Hav

e an

y ag

enci

esid

entif

ied

and

asse

ssed

oppo

rtuni

ties t

o sh

are

data

?

Is th

ere

a pl

ace

whe

reag

enci

es an

d ju

risdi

ctio

nsca

n id

entif

y m

ost

avai

labl

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n-re

late

d da

ta w

ithin

the

regi

on?

Hav

e ag

enci

es e

xplo

red

or im

plem

ente

d sp

ecifi

cda

ta sh

arin

g pa

rtner

ship

sw

here

ben

efits

are

signi

fican

t?

Are

uni

vers

ities

with

inth

e reg

ion

invo

lved

with

data

man

agem

ent a

ndsh

arin

g?

Do

agen

cies

mak

e us

e of

avai

labl

e ope

ratio

ns d

ata

whe

n de

velo

ping

pla

nnin

gan

alys

is to

ols a

ndpe

rfor

man

ce m

easu

res?

Is th

e IT

S ar

chite

ctur

eus

ed to

info

rmop

portu

nitie

s for

shar

ing

data

?

Doe

s an

MPO

com

mitt

ee o

r tas

k fo

rce

have

expl

icit

resp

onsib

ility

for r

egio

nal

perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

men

t?

Are

man

ager

s w

ith d

ay-

to-d

ay o

pera

tions

resp

onsib

ilitie

s inv

olve

d in

deve

lopi

ng p

erfo

rman

cem

easu

res?

Are

regi

onal

perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

sth

at re

late

to o

pera

tions

incl

uded

in st

rate

gic/

long

-ra

nge

plan

s?

Is th

ere

an e

stab

lishe

dsc

hedu

le fo

rpe

rfor

man

ce re

porti

ng?

Has

the

agen

cy id

entif

ied

spec

ific

data

and

tool

sne

eded

to im

plem

ent

perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

s?

Is it

cle

ar to

deci

sion

mak

ers a

nd th

epu

blic

how

per

form

ance

mea

sure

s ar

e us

ed to

prio

ritiz

e ope

ratio

ns an

dca

pita

l inv

estm

ents

?

Do

CM

S m

eetin

gsin

volv

e ope

ratio

nsm

anag

ers a

nd p

ublic

safe

ty o

ffic

ials

?

Are

CM

S fin

ding

sex

plic

itly

disc

usse

d in

the

regi

onal

tran

spor

tatio

npl

an an

d ot

her p

lann

ing

repo

rts?

Are

ope

rato

rs a

ndpl

anne

rs a

war

e of

proj

ects

that

are

list

ed in

the

CM

S?

Do

CM

S st

rate

gies

take

non-

recu

rring

del

ay in

toac

coun

t?

Are

CM

S pe

rfor

man

ceev

alua

tions

link

ed w

ith a

fund

ing p

riorit

izat

ion

proc

ess?

Self-Assessment | 3- 3

Do

plan

ning

and

oper

atio

ns fu

ndin

gpr

ogra

ms l

ink

clea

rlyw

ith p

lann

ing

goal

s and

obje

ctiv

es?

Are

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

and

emer

genc

ypr

epar

edne

ss fu

nds

used

appr

opria

tely

to su

ppor

ttra

nspo

rtatio

n op

erat

ions

plan

ning

?

Are

ther

e fu

ndin

gin

cent

ives

to p

rom

ote

inte

rjuris

dict

iona

lco

ordi

natio

n?

Do

plan

ning

doc

umen

tsid

entif

y fu

ndin

g fo

rsp

ecifi

c m

anag

emen

t and

oper

atio

ns ac

tiviti

es?

Hav

e age

ncie

s ide

ntifi

edop

portu

nitie

s to

shar

eeq

uipm

ent o

r fac

ilitie

s?

Are

any

fund

ing

sour

ces

used

to le

vera

gepa

rtici

patio

n in

man

agem

ent a

ndop

erat

ions

coor

dina

tion?

Fund

ing a

nd R

esou

rce S

harin

gIn

stitu

tiona

l Arr

ange

men

tsRe

giona

l ITS A

rchi

tectu

reRe

giona

l M&

O Pr

ojects

Is th

ere

an a

ctiv

e fo

rum

for r

egio

nal m

anag

emen

tan

d op

erat

ions

?

Do

prac

titio

ners

invo

lved

with

spec

ific o

pera

tions

activ

ities

par

ticip

ate i

nth

e pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s?

Do

prac

titio

ners

invo

lved

with

regi

onal

ope

ratio

nsco

llabo

ratio

n pa

rtici

pate

in th

e pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s?

Has

ther

e be

en a

stra

tegi

c dis

cuss

ion

abou

tth

e ap

prop

riate

MPO

role

in re

gion

alop

erat

ions

?

Is th

ere c

oord

inat

ion

betw

een

plan

ning

and

oper

atio

ns d

ivisi

ons

with

in S

tate

DO

Ts a

ndtra

nsit

agen

cies

?

Is th

ere

any

staf

fex

chan

ge b

etw

een

plan

ning

and

oper

atio

nsof

fices

?

Are

man

agem

ent a

ndop

erat

ions

stra

tegi

esdi

scus

sed

durin

g pr

ojec

tde

sign

and

deliv

ery?

Is th

e M

PO a

ctiv

ely

invo

lved

with

the r

egio

nal

ITS

arch

itect

ure?

Are

ope

ratio

ns m

anag

ers

invo

lved

with

the r

egio

nal

ITS

arch

itect

ure?

Doe

s the

regi

onal

ITS

arch

itect

ure e

xplic

itly

addr

ess r

egio

nal p

lann

ing

goal

s and

obj

ectiv

es?

Do

agen

cies

that

spo

nsor

proj

ects

con

side

r ear

ly o

nw

heth

er p

roje

cts

are

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

ere

gion

al a

rchi

tect

ure?

Are

regi

onal

pla

nnin

gag

enci

es a

nd o

pera

ting

agen

cies

fam

iliar

with

the

arch

itect

ure’

s ope

ratio

nal

conc

ept?

Do

dive

rse

stak

ehol

ders

regu

larly

par

ticip

ate i

nar

chite

ctur

e m

eetin

gs?

Has

the

MPO

or a

noth

erre

gion

al b

ody

defin

edIT

S ar

chite

ctur

em

aint

enan

cere

spon

sibili

ties &

activ

ities

?

Doe

s the

pla

nnin

gag

ency

kno

w w

ho is

enga

ged

with

regi

onal

M&

O p

roje

cts?

Doe

s th

e M

PO g

etin

volv

ed in

any

man

agem

ent a

ndop

erat

ions

pro

gram

s?(e

.g.,

to fa

cilit

ate p

ublic

outre

ach,

regi

onal

coor

dina

tion,

or t

here

latio

nshi

p w

ith ca

pita

lpr

ogra

ms)

Has

ther

e be

en a

nydi

scus

sion

of ex

pand

ing

exis

ting

M&

O p

roje

cts t

oad

dres

s add

ition

alm

anag

emen

t iss

ues o

rin

clud

e add

ition

alju

risdi

ctio

ns?

Are

ther

e an

y M

&O

prog

ram

s th

at a

rere

cogn

ized

by

the

broa

der p

ublic

as b

eing

succ

essf

ul tr

ansp

orta

tion

prog

ram

s? If

so, i

s thi

ssu

cces

s us

ed to

pro

mot

ere

gion

al M

&O

?


Resources | 4 - 1

KEY WEB SITESFHWA: Systems Management and Operations Planner’sResourcewww.plan4operations.dot.govThe Institute of Transportation Engineers: TransportationSystems Management and Operationshttp://www.ite.org/management/index.aspFHWA: Regional Transportation Collaboration andCoordinationhttp://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/RegionalTransOpsCollaboration/note.htm

FHWA: ITS/Operations Resource Guidehttp://www.its.dot.gov/guide.htmlITS Joint Planning Office Electronic Documents Libraryhttp://www.its.dot.gov/itsweb/welcome.htmNational Associations Working Group for ITShttp://www.nawgits.com/FHWA: Office of Operationshttp://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/index.aspFHWA: Office of Planninghttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htmITS Americahttp://www.itsa.org

ONLINE TOOLSNational ITS Architecturehttp://itsarch.iteris.com/itsarch/Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment AnalysisSystem (IDAS)http://idas.camsys.com/FHWA Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) ResearchProgramhttp://www.dynamictrafficassignment.orgDYNASMART-P software packagehttp://www.dynasmart.com

ONLINE FORUMSTalking Operations Forumhttp://www.ntoctalks.com/talkingops/index.cgiITS Technology Forumhttp://www.ntoctalks.com/itsforum/index.cgiITS America Transportation Systems Operations andPlanning Forum (membership forum)http://www.itsa.org/new.nsf/vLookupForumIntro/Transportation+System+Operations+and+Planning!OpenDocument

44444 RESOURCESRESOURCESRESOURCESRESOURCESRESOURCES


Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation400 7th Street S.W. (HOP)Washington, DC 20590Toll-Free "Help Line" 866-367-7487www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

EDL Document No.: 14071Publication No.: FHWA-HOP-05-016

Date post:	24-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times