Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and ... · present this primer on Regional...

NoticeThis document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Governmentassumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

Table oof CContents

Note From the Director..........................................................................................................iii

Making the Case for Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination......1What Can Make This Happen?........................................................................................................1About This Document.......................................................................................................................1What Does Collaboration Mean to Transportation Operations?.......................................................2

The Practice of Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination............5Overview..........................................................................................................................................5Structure: The Table for Regional Operations Collaboration and Coordination................................6Processes: Facilitating Collaboration...............................................................................................9Products: Outputs to Chart the Course and Outcomes to Measure Progress.................................11Resources: Linking Needs to Sources...........................................................................................15Performance Improvement: Monitoring and Improving Regional Operations.................................17

Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination and the Regional ITS Architecture Development Process............................................................19

The Relevance of the Regional ITS Architecture............................................................................19Defining the Regional ITS Architecture..........................................................................................19Leveraging the Regional ITS Architecture Process........................................................................20

A Self-Assessment—Where Are You in Regional Collaboration and Coordination?...............22

Applications of Regional Operations Collaboration and Coordination Planning for Transportation Operations...................................................................................................24

TRANSCOM’s Regional Approach to Operations..........................................................................25Southern California ITS Priority Corridor........................................................................................26Maryland CHART...........................................................................................................................28Capital Wireless Integrated Network (CapWIN).............................................................................29Baltimore Regional Operations Coordination (B-ROC) Project......................................................31Montgomery County ATIS..............................................................................................................32Cross-Jurisdictional Signal Coordination in Phoenix......................................................................33San Antonio’s Advanced Warning to Avoid Railroad Delays (AWARD) Project..............................34San Antonio Medical Center Corridor Project.................................................................................35Phoenix’s Roadway Closure and Restriction System (RCRS).......................................................37Ventura County Fare Integration....................................................................................................38

Note FFrom tthe DDirectorOffice of Travel Management, Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration

More than ever, the safe, reliable, and secure operation of our Nation’s transportation systemsdepends on collaboration and coordination across traditional jurisdictional and organizational boundaries.Nowhere is this more apparent than in our metropolitan regions where numerous jurisdictions, agencies,and service providers are responsible for safely and efficiently operating various aspects of the transporta-tion system. Many of these operations activities in a metropolitan region must cross agency and jurisdic-tional boundaries to be successful. They may include traffic incident management, emergency manage-ment, communications networks, traveler information services, response to weather events, and electronicpayment services. These regional operations activities depend on collaboration, coordination, and integra-tion to be effective and truly benefit those that use or depend upon the regional transportation system.

In this light, the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Travel Management is pleased to present this primer on Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination. The ideabehind this document is based on the realization that for regional operations activities to be effective,those managers directly responsible for operating the system on a day-to-day basis must collaborate andcoordinate continuously. They need to agree on a shared operations vision, a concept for how regionalactivities should be operated over time, what measures to use to assess effectiveness, and how to makeimprovements to achieve desired expectations in operating performance.

The need for regional operations collaboration and coordination to achieve safe, reliable, and secure transportation was an important theme at the National Dialogue for Transportation Operations Summit,held in Columbia, Maryland, in October 2001. The Summit brought together over 240 professionals representing academia, planning, engineering, safety, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, and freight, as wellas elected and appointed officials from local and regional governments. The summit was complementedby a very successful working group sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and the FederalTransit Administration, on “Linking Planning and Operations.” This working group met three times overa 15-month period with a charge to envision ways to make transportation planning and transportationoperations work better together to benefit transportation users. The participants represented professionalsin the transportation operations, transportation planning, and public safety communities from local,regional, State, and Federal agencies.

This introductory document encourages and enables regional operations collaboration and coordina-tion for transportation managers and public safety officials from cities, counties, and States within a met-ropolitan region. These managers and officials may include traffic operations engineers and managers,transit operations managers, police officials, fire officials, emergency medical services officials, emer-gency response managers, and port authority (e.g., air and water) managers. The primer can help thesemanagers and officials understand what regional operations collaboration and coordination means, why itis important, and how to get started. In many cases, this document will also help those local, State, orregional agencies currently engaged in some aspects of regional operations collaboration and coordination

Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination - iii

iv - Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination

build on what they are already doing well and work toward addressing broader regional transportationoperations and public safety issues.

As envisioned in this document, regional operations collaboration and coordination is a deliberate,continuous, and sustained activity that takes place when transportation agency managers and officialsresponsible for day-to-day operations work together at a regional level to solve operational problems,improve system performance, and communicate better with one another. The document provides guidance on the five key elements that are associated with successful regional operations collaborationand coordination activity—structure, process, products, resources, and performance measures to gauge success.

Finally, the development of this primer was guided by three important principles:

1. The value of regional operations collaboration and coordination results from having formalized and sustained activity between operators and service providers in metropolitan areas regarding regional operations policies and projects that cross agency and jurisdictional lines.

2. Where regional operations collaboration and coordination takes place, institutionally, is not the question. What gets done is the important challenge. The focus is on improving operational perform-ance for safe, reliable, and secure transportation systems across a region to better serve the customers.

3. The regional operations collaboration and coordination activity must be closely linked to the metropoli-tan transportation planning and decision-making processes governed by Federal law. Stronger linksbetween operations and planning will result in meaningful programs and investments as well asimproved service to the customer across modes, agencies, and jurisdictions.

We believe that regional operations collaboration and coordination can be a beneficial activity, espe-cially in any metropolitan region confronting the pressures of operating transportation systems in the faceof growth in demand, congestion, incidents and emergencies, weather, and customer service requirements.We look forward to working with organizations, agencies, and interest groups to advance the ideas pre-sented in this primer.

Jeffrey LindleyDirectorOffice of Travel Management

onsider the Possibilities for Safe, Reliable, andSecure Transportation . . .

During incidents and emergencies, transportation systemoperators and public safety officials improve responsetimes and decision-making by effectively coordinating andcommunicating with each other.

During a major highway reconstruction project, publictransit services and traffic operations successfully worktogether to manage demand.

Under the spotlight of special events, public transit ser-vices, traffic operations, and public safety services movegoods and people and minimize negative effects on thecommunity by coordinating transportation operations andtravel demand management.

Freeway ramp meters work together with arterial signalsystems to balance demand throughout the regional network.

Traffic signals coordinated across multiple jurisdictionsmanage mobility and demand to meet community needs.

Road users hear reliable, timely, and relevant news aboutweather conditions and traffic situations thanks to aregional traveler information service that seamlesslydelivers information across jurisdictions, agencies, andmodes.

Customers move easily between travel modes andacross jurisdictions because of a multijurisdictional andmulti-agency electronic payment service strategy for tran-sit, parking, and tolls.

Hazardous materials moving through an urban area areelectronically identified, monitored, tracked, and coordi-nated by regional traffic management and public safetyagencies to ensure safe, secure, and efficient intermodalmovement.

Real-time information about regional transportation sys-tem conditions and performance shared across agenciesand jurisdictions enables better management ofresources.

Regionally accepted system performance standards andperformance measures drive transportation resourceinvestment decisions.

What Can Make This Happen?These outcomes can be made possible when agency

department heads or managers, responsible for day-to-day operations, work together to solve operational prob-lems, improve system performance, and communicatesuccessfully with one another through deliberate collabo-ration and coordination. Regional operations collabora-tion and coordination builds key relationships among theagencies and jurisdictions responsible for deliveringtransportation and public safety services in a metropoli-tan region, including traffic operations engineers andmanagers, transit operations managers, police officials,fire officials, emergency medical services (EMS) offi-cials, emergency managers, and port authority managers,as well as private sector representatives such as port andgateway operators and traffic reporting media. Theserelationships lay the foundation for effective regionaltransportation systems and services that cooperate in allsituations, under a range of conditions, and with otherrelated systems, for the good of the ultimate customers—those who depend upon the regional transportation system.

Serving the public well and planning for perform-ance excellence at the level of a regionwide systemrequires more than just the installation of equipment andcompletion of projects. This primer provides a reason-able framework to link the actions of the many trans-portation operators and service providers in a metropoli-tan region.

About This DocumentThis primer was written for transportation profes-

sionals and public safety officials from cities, counties,and States who are responsible for day-to-day manage-ment and operations within a metropolitan region. It isintended to help agencies and organizations, and theoperations people within them, understand the impor-tance of regional collaboration and coordination, how ithappens, and how to get started. This document may alsobe of interest to agencies such as metropolitan planningorganizations (MPOs) already involved in regional col-laborative efforts by helping them build on previous success.

Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination - 1

Making tthe CCase ffor RRegional TTransportation OOperationsCollaboration aand CCoordination

C

2 - Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination

Following this brief overview of the meaning andimportance of regional collaboration and cooperation arefour main sections as follows:

● The Practice of Regional Transportation OperationsCollaboration and Coordination. This section pro-vides a framework and associated steps for success-fully moving from theory to practice. The frame-work consists of five elements—structure, process,products, resources, and performance—that, whentaken together, help a region begin and/or evolvetoward continuous collaboration and coordinationregionwide.

● Transportation Operations Regional Collaborationand Coordination and the ITS ArchitectureDevelopment Process. The process of developing aregional ITS architecture can be the impetus for newor more effective collaboration and coordination. Inthe same way, regional operations collaboration andcoordination can provide a platform for initiatingITS architecture development in a region that hasnot begun the process. This section describes thesynergistic interplay of these two processes inimproving regional operations.

● A Self-Assessment—Where Are You in RegionalCollaboration and Coordination? Agencies can usethis self-assessment tool to determine if they arestarting from the beginning or building upon exist-ing efforts to create and sustain effective collabora-tion and coordination within their regions.

● Applications of Regional Transportation OperationsCollaboration and Coordination. This section pres-ents examples of how some regions are already ben-efiting from greater collaboration and better coordi-nation. The examples show the positive effects ofthis regional teamwork on transportation system performance.

What Does Collaboration Mean toTransportation Operations?

Collaboration on regional operations policies andprojects by operators and service providers in metropoli-tan regions is essential for the following reasons:

1. Collaboration enables regional strategic develop-ment of projects and policies that have regionaleffects on users, including activities such as incidentmanagement, advanced traveler information servic-es, public safety/EMS/security, special events, elec-tronic payment services, and performance measures.

2. Collaboration among operators and service providershelps answer questions like:

● How should our transportation system operate overthe next 5 years to ensure its safety, reliability, andsecurity?

● How should the elements of our transportation sys-tem integrate and evolve over time?

● What stakeholders should be at the table sharinginformation and making operations decisions?

Strategic Thinking—The Key to RegionalTransportation Operations Collaboration

and Coordination

Domestic Security.The events of September 11, 2001, focusednational attention on the need to respond toattacks on our homeland, both real andthreatened, especially in densely populatedurban areas. The extraordinary response to thiscrisis shown by regional transportation andpublic safety agencies proved key in savinglives and evacuating those in imminent danger.This sobering experience reminds us of theimportance of regional planning for operationsin planning responses to such events. SinceSeptember 11, many metropolitan areas havedeveloped or refined homeland securityinitiatives that respond to a variety of threats,including nuclear, biological, and chemical, andthat address first response, command andcontrol, communications, emergencyevacuation, consequence management, andcontinuity of operations.

Example: In the aftermath of September 11,New York City’s transportation systemcontinued to function well due to coordinationamong not only the city’s agencies, but alsothose of the region around it. An intricatesystem of communication among more than400 agencies in the region ensured, forexample, that road, bridge, and tunnel closureswere coordinated and drivers remainedinformed, ultimately maintaining the flow ofroadway traffic throughout the region.

● Who is accountable for improved system perform-ance and what measures should be used for deter-mining that improvement?

System operators within a metropolitan region aremost likely to achieve measurable improvement in thesafety, efficiency, and quality of service that customersexperience in their day-to-day use of a regional trans-portation system when they work together to developstrategies and tactics. The successful conception, devel-opment, implementation, and execution of these regionalstrategies and tactics may be used to achieve a new levelof interjurisdictional/interagency functionality in thetransportation system. Collaboration should go beyondsolving a problem. Its purpose should be that of combin-ing the knowledge, expertise, and information of manyagencies across jurisdictions to produce and operate anefficient regional transportation system.

Building on existing ad hoc relationships, agenciesand jurisdictions within the region can use a commonframework for setting expectations, managing resources,sustaining relationships, and establishing responsibilities.The action steps provided by this framework will be usedin developing the structures, processes, products,resource plans, and performance measures necessary in a regional approach to collaboration, strategic thinking,and information sharing. The combination of knowledge,expertise, and information that results when agenciessuccessfully collaborate offers the following advantages:

● Well-developed relationships among key agenciesand jurisdictions,

● A shared vision among operators and public safetyproviders for regional transportation system performance,

● A regional concept of operations,

● Information sharing on a regular basis, and

● Integration of regional systems and organizationalprocesses.

Strategic policies, programs, procedures, protocols,and projects of regionwide scope and benefit, such astraffic incident management programs or emergencyresponse/management plans, usually depend on integra-tion and/or interoperability for optimum performance.They therefore require regional collaboration and coordi-nation. By concentrating on issues that cross agency andjurisdictional boundaries, disparate operators and serviceproviders work together to improve the services they

provide. Whether the task is as broad as homeland secu-rity or as specific as electronic payment services, theapproach will prove integral to defining visions and goalsfor ongoing, strategic regional transportation operations.

Regional collaboration takes into account the activi-ties of a diverse array of non-transportation entities (e.g.,public safety officials, major employers, chambers ofcommerce, convention and visitors’ bureaus, port author-ities, and special interest groups) that routinely affect ordepend upon transportation. Whether it is an emergencymanagement plan or next year’s Mardi Gras that systemoperators face, collaboration and coordination encouragesa regional perspective regarding transportation systemperformance rather than focusing on narrower issuesinvolving single components of the system or a limitedset of stakeholders.

By collaborating to define a regional strategy andperformance standards and the evolution of the system,operating agencies can better develop a seamless trans-portation system. Potential benefits of a regional operat-ing strategy include a single form of payment for transitthat crosses many jurisdictions; regional traffic informa-tion provided to travelers in a uniform format; reduceddelay of traffic around construction projects; and coordi-nated highway incident response and related traffic management.

Regional operations collaboration and coordinationis an ongoing, iterative effort. Collaboration often initial-ly occurs due to a specific need or problem of regionalsignificance such as special event planning, major recon-struction, a natural disaster, or a hazardous material inci-dent. Having addressed the problem, regions may recog-nize the value of regional collaboration for improvingperformance (better working relationships and proce-dures, improved communications, reduced delays). Withthe application of new technology and better


Regional operations collaboration andcoordination within a metropolitan regionhelps to:● Shape, develop, manage, and evolve

policies, programs, procedures, protocols,and projects

● Enable the elements of the transportationsystem to work better and together for allcustomers across modes, functions, andjurisdictions


Figure 1. Regional collaboration and cooperation evolves from afocus on problem solving to a focus on integrated transportationsystems.

information-sharing procedures, collaboration and coor-dination can lead to an integrated regional transportationsystem where agencies routinely work together to makethe region’s transportation system work better for all cus-tomers—travelers, employers, businesses, commuters,public safety agencies and many others. Figure 1 showsthis progression from problem solving to performanceimprovement, leading eventually to a focus on regionaltransportation system integration.

For example, following Hurricane Floyd, the NorthCarolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), work-ing with other regional transportation and public safetyorganizations, developed plans for providing timelyinformation to travelers during emergency evacuationsby using variable message signs, highway advisory radio,and other real-time communication media. Seeing thevalue of this traveler information system, NCDOTexpanded this regionwide effort to use the same systemsto notify travelers about planned or ongoing reconstruc-tion activities on several bridges that link the barrierislands of North Carolina’s Outer Banks. The collabora-tion that began with an emergency evacuation not onlyresulted in improved performance of the emergencyevacuation procedures, but also provided a forum and a precedent for expanding this regional teamwork toinclude operations during reconstruction projects.

Overview

The five major elements shown in figure 2 form aframework on which managers with day-to-day responsi-bilities for providing transportation and public safetyservices can build sustained relationships and createstrategies to improve transportation system performance.The intent of the framework is to help institutionalizeworking together as a way of doing business amongtransportation agencies, public safety officials, and otherpublic and private sector interests within a metropolitanregion. The framework is important because in mostregions, institutional barriers exist that make collabora-tion difficult. These barriers include resource constraints,internal stovepipes in large agencies, and the often nar-row jurisdictional perspective of governing boards. Theframework is intended to guide operators and serviceproviders in overcoming these institutional barriers.

The framework creates structures through whichprocesses occur that result in products. It implies a com-mitment of resources needed to initiate and sustainregional collaboration and coordination and for imple-menting agreed upon solutions and procedures. The col-laborative spirit is motivated by a desire for measurableimprovement in regional transportation system performance. The five elements of the framework areinteractive and evolving. A brief description of each element follows.

The regional structure that supports collaborationand coordination within a region is the set of relation-ships, institutions, and policy arrangements that shapethe activity. It provides the “table” at which operatorsand service providers sit with public safety and other keytransportation constituencies. This “regional table” mayrange from an ad hoc loose confederation to a formalentity with legal standing and well-defined responsibili-ties and authorities. It may be facilitated by or emergefrom existing entities or be newly formed.

Processes are the formal and informal activities per-formed in accordance with written or unwritten, but col-laboratively developed and accepted, policies involvingmultiple agencies and jurisdictions in a region. Processesdescribe how the “regional table” works to achieve itsobjectives.

The products of collaboration and coordination arethe results of processes. They include a regional conceptof operations, baseline performance data, current per-formance information, and operating plans and proce-dures that inform regional entities (public and privatesector) about how the regional transportation systemmust operate over time (including planned improvements).

Resources govern what is available within the regionfor sustaining and implementing the regional concept ofoperations and other operations plans on an ongoingbasis, not just plans for special events, issue resolutions,or the completion of specific projects. The resourcesinclude staff, equipment, and dollars.

The performance element comprises how perform-ance will be measured, and individual and collectiveresponsibilities for monitoring and improving regionaltransportation system performance. Regional perform-ance objectives, which are established collaboratively,most commonly address public safety, mobility, security,economic development, and environment.

This document includes a self-assessment tool inwhich all of the elements are summarized, so that thereader can shape collaboration and coordination opera-tions in a regional context with a better understanding ofwhat already exists to build on and what is needed tomove forward.


The PPractice oof RRegional OOperations CCollaboration aandCoordination

Figure 2. The framework for regional collaboration andcoordination is formed by five major elements.


Structure: The Table for RegionalOperations Collaboration andCoordination

Structure consists of the relationships that enableregional collaboration, coordination, and related commu-nication. It functions as the table (literally and figurative-ly) around which operators and service providers meet todiscuss regional needs and possibilities for improvingtransportation system operations. Furthermore, it com-bines formal and informal arrangements through whichindividuals, organizations, and jurisdictions engage todevelop regional solutions and strategies.

These mechanisms range from ad hoc/informal rela-tionships to formal structures with legal standing. Theyinclude personal relationships among leaders and staffmembers of key operating agencies and neighboringjurisdictions who recognize common problems andopportunities and agree to work together to improveregional transportation systems performance. Thesestructures may evolve into a broad-based regional part-nership among public and private sector interests acrossmultiple jurisdictions. Several examples illustrate thevariety of structural approaches to regional collaborationand coordination:

● Ad hoc arrangements based on long-term relation-ships or immediate needs emerge during majorreconstruction projects or roadway incidents whereagencies agree to collaborate in the time during andafter the event, but no formal, long-term agreementsgovern the collaboration.

● Formal, multiagency partnership agreements areoften used for single or recurring special events(such as for political conventions or IndependenceDay celebrations), and full-time staff are dedicatedto planning for operations prior to the event. Formal,multiparty agreements may remain in place after theevent.

Legal entities, such as Houston’s TranStar,Vancouver’s Translink, and the New York City region’sTRANSCOM, were formed to improve management ofeach region’s transportation system. These organizationsare managed by governing boards and work throughpartnerships with regional agencies to continuouslyaddress a range of operations issues.

To be effective, the regional operations collaborationand coordination effort must be linked to the regional

transportation planning process. Often, what passes forregional transportation operations collaboration is direct-ed primarily or solely toward installing a project, solvinga problem, or preparing for a special event. For regionalcollaboration and coordination to work, it must be part ofan ongoing, intentional, focused effort to improve systemperformance by identifying needs and opportunities andcollaborating on strategies and solutions that lead tostrategic investments.

Action Steps for Regional OperationsCollaboration and Coordination—Structure

❑ Identify key constituencies (e.g.,employers, shippers, developers,communities) who support bettertransportation systems performance.

❑ Enlist regional champions/leaders who arecommitted to working together (andencouraging others to work with them) insupport of better system performance.

❑ Develop a vision for regional transportationsystem performance that is shared byoperators, service providers, and planners.

❑ Establish operations as a regular item onthe regional planning agenda.

Who Participates?

At one level, the question of who participates refersto institutions, agencies, and organizations that initiate,facilitate, convene, and support regional collaborationand coordination activities. Within a metropolitan area,this will likely vary—it may be the State, the MPO, oreven a city or a county agency, depending on factors likethe scope of need, the range of responsibility, desiredoutcomes, and availability of resources.

At another level, that same question refers to thecollective representatives of collaborating agencies andorganizations (e.g., traffic, transit, police, fire, emergencymanagement). Together, they address problems andopportunities of regional significance that demandimproved information sharing, effective communications,integrated systems, and efficient use of resources.

Nontraditional stakeholders also need a voice inregional transportation operations. These stakeholderscan include chambers of commerce, boards of trade,tourism and visitor agencies, the towing and recoveryindustry, major shippers and carriers, and major employ-ers (or groups). These stakeholders may serve on adviso-ry boards, task forces, or other entities that provide inputto regional collaboration and coordination activities.

Participants must find value in the improvements toregional transportation system operations and perform-ance that result from their collaborations, or they areunlikely to continue their efforts. The owners and opera-tors of transportation system elements, in particular, must

perceive individual or collective value in working togeth-er in such an effort while simultaneously retaining con-trol of the systems that they own, operate, or manage.

Experience shows that little happens unless someoneor some group of people is committed to making it hap-pen. The initiators of the kind of regional collaborationneeded may be elected officials or senior agency offi-cials. Often, planning for a special event, incident man-agement, or major disaster provides the initial incentivefor elected officials and agency leaders to championregional collaboration. Such champions then become cat-alysts for bringing others together around the benefitsrealized through prior experience. They provide themotivational spark to keep individuals, agencies, and pri-vate sector entities from falling back into functional andjurisdictional stovepipes.

The Range of Organizational Approaches

Determining the most appropriate organizationalapproach for regional collaboration and coordinationdepends on the needs of the region, existing institutionalrelationships and processes, and the vision of regionaltransportation operating agencies and service providers.The organizational structure will vary, but may begin asan ad hoc arrangement among a few people or organiza-tions and evolve to more formal arrangements. Table 1illustrates this range of approaches.


Cross-Jurisdictional SignalCoordination in Phoenix

● The East Valley Task Force was formed bytransportation specialists from five differentArizona jurisdictions to identify areas forimprovement and establish standards forinteragency/interjurisdictional coordination.

● Regional traffic signal coordination wasachieved through careful planning andincreased coordination.

● Participants understand that the future oftheir transportation system depends onmaintaining and updating coordination andcommunication efforts. (For more, seepage 33.)


Table 1. Range of organizational approaches.

Processes: FacilitatingCollaboration

Processes are formal and informal activities per-formed in accordance with written or unwritten policiesagreed to in a collaborative fashion, involving multipleagencies and jurisdictions in a region (e.g., for informa-tion sharing, incident management, freeway manage-ment, emergency response).

The process aspect relates to the ways options arecreated and decisions are made to improve system per-formance. An effective approach ensures that investmentdecisions include full consideration of operations strate-gies along with capital improvements; operations activi-ties are addressed from a multimodal corridor perspec-tive; and operations thinking addresses other regionaleconomic, environmental, and mobility objectives. Theprocess for collaboration and coordination does not endwhen a project is completed or installed.

Information/Data Sharing—Critical to theSuccess of Collaboration

Information/data sharing is critical to effectiveregional operations collaboration and coordination.Information/data sharing is a collaborative effort to iden-tify problems, coordinate activities, and make a case forinvestment needs that includes anecdotal evidence, his-torical data, current conditions, and supporting analysis.The shaded areas of figure 3 show aspects of informa-tion/data sharing on which regional collaboration primarily relies. The information needed to support col-laboration is available only if stakeholders agree on waysto capture, archive, and share real-time performancedata.

Regional collaboration and coordination relies oninformation about current transportation system opera-tions and their projected performance under variouspotential scenarios. The strategic thinking associatedwith regional collaboration requires data accumulatedover time that can be mined to discover relationships,trends, and opportunities, and that can then be actedupon.

Analyses depend on meaningful performance dataand a reliable estimate of future requirements based onhistorical trends and knowledge of future needs. Theseanalyses enable operators regionwide to evaluate optionsfor achieving agreed-upon performance levels. The infor-mation generated by the analysis is used in outreach andeducation efforts to bring all stakeholders to a common

plan or concept of operations. The regional concept ofoperations drives decision-making (e.g., roles andresponsibilities, multilateral operating agreements, stan-dards, and protocols) among jurisdictions and agenciesthat enables the operators to implement improved practices.


Figure 3. Aspects of information/data sharing on which regionalcollaboration primarily relies.


Some specific examples of how metropolitanregions are collecting, sharing, and using information to improve regional transportation operations include:

● The San Diego Association of Governments createdan integrated data collection and dissemination sys-tem to be shared by all transportation agencies in theregion to coordinate incident management and pub-lic safety activities.

● CapWIN’s integrated wireless network allows trans-portation agencies to communicate directly witheach other as well as receive real-time and historicalinformation. (For more, see page 29.)

● TRANSCOM’s operations depend on real-time andarchived data shared among the involved agencies.The Operations Information Center collects and dis-seminates real-time incident and construction infor-mation to members and affiliated agencies, 24 hoursa day, and maintains a database of construction proj-ects. (For more, see page 25.)

● The Southern California ITS Priority Corridor net-work provides a resource for traveler information byenabling the integration of traveler information fromseveral sources. It also enables contingency controlduring emergencies by providing network linksamong the four Caltrans traffic management centers(TMCs), allowing one TMC to take control foranother if needed. (For more, see page 26.)

Range of Process Interactions

Regional collaboration and coordination helps moveregions along a spectrum from little to no information

sharing and collaboration, to ad hoc relationships builtaround specific issues or events, to more formal collaborative relationships with mutually agreed-uponobjectives and strategies, and finally, in some instances,to joint ownership and control of transportation facilitiesand services. This spectrum, illustrated in table 2, showssome of the ways that a region’s public and private sec-tor entities may interact.

Table 2. Range of process interactions.

Action Steps for Regional OperationsCollaboration and Coordination—Processes

❑ Make investments decisions based on thebest combinations of capital investmentsand operations strategies (performance-based planning).

❑ Ensure that the solutions (project) selectionprocess and criteria provide a level playingfield for operational improvements andinvestments. Tools are available to showthe benefits of operational improvements.

❑ Address operations activities (e.g., incidentmanagement, traveler information) inmultimodal corridor planning.

❑ Use operations performance audits (e.g.,corridor-wide) as a tool for guidinginvestment choices.

❑ Leverage operations to achieve regionalgoals (or meet other commonly soughtoutcomes).

Products: Outputs to Chart theCourse and Outcomes to MeasureProgress

In the regional collaboration framework, productsencompass the use of data, information, plans, and out-puts that result from structure and processes. These prod-ucts inform regional entities (public and private sector)about the operation of the regional transportation systemover time (including planned improvements). This aspectalso includes intermediate products such as studies, eval-uations, and pilot tests that support regional collaborationactivities. Some products may be the result of informa-tion-sharing processes (e.g., traffic monitoring, traveltime data, volume counts) discussed in the previous section.

Shared Regional Vision and Strategy

Developing a strategy is fundamental to regionalcollaboration, and strategy begins with vision. A sharedvision among operators and service providers expresseshow the region’s transportation system needs to operate.Since this vision is the product of a collaborativeprocess, it lays the groundwork for a regional strategythat includes goals and objectives for the region.

The vision is the precursor to other regional prod-ucts, including a regional concept of operations, regionalperformance measures, and a variety of plans and proce-dures that involve regional operating agencies and serv-ice providers. The regional goals and objectives, whichflow from the regional vision, along with the appropriateperformance metrics, articulate the strategy—the whatand the how of achieving the overall objectives of theregional community.

Regional Concept of Operations

A regional concept of operations is a primary prod-uct of regional operations collaboration and coordination.It is a regional strategy for achieving the shared vision ofoperators and service providers. It defines regionalexpectations (what is to be accomplished) over time,processes (how it will be accomplished), and resources(investments in time, money, staff, and equipment) forbetter operations and system performance. It alsoaddresses how agencies and jurisdictions work togetherto achieve better system performance and operations.The regional concept of operations combines the rangeof plans, processes, data, and analyses through whichperformance expectations will be accomplished.


Action Steps for Regional OperationsCollaboration and Coordination—Products

❑ Provide a current conditions baseline tocalibrate long-range planning.

❑ Develop a regional concept of operationsthat sets performance expectations forregional operators (priorities, projects,improvements, processes, performance,resources).

❑ Get buy-in for the regional operationsimplementation agenda from public safetyproviders and agencies that operateelements of the transportation systems.

❑ Make the regional operations implemen-tation agenda a necessary input into thetransportation improvement plan/long-rangeplan (TIP/LRP).

❑ Use market research as the common linkbetween operations (customer feedback)and planning (planning input).


The regional concept of operations contains theoperators’ collective expectations for the following matters:

●● Regional Operations

- How do we want functions of mutual interest tobe managed and operated over the next 5-7 years?

- How will we achieve integration and interoper-ability for optimum performance?

- How will we develop strategic policies, programs,procedures, protocols, standards, and/or projects thathave regional benefit and significance?

- What are our performance expectations?

- How will better regional operations contribute toregionally defined goals and vision?

●● Regional Processes, Relationships, and Standardsof Performance

- How is information obtained, managed, andshared?

- Does a regional intelligent transportations system(ITS) architecture exist? If not, will one be required?When and how?

- Is regional operations collaboration and coordina-tion consistent with the process for developing theregional ITS architecture?

- Are there regional performance standards?

- What policies, projects, architecture, standards,protocols, and measures will achieve performanceexpectations?

- How do agencies and systems work together whennecessary?

●● Investments for Evolution, Adaptability, and Agility

- How do systems evolve over time and whatresources (staffing, equipment, funding) are neededto sustain and meet performance expectations?

- How will we achieve a regional vision for opera-tions in regard to resources, investments, priorities,pathway, etc.?

- How does the system adapt to changes in externalcircumstances that affect system performance or per-formance expectations (security, natural disasters,special events)?

- How does the system respond to unanticipatedconditions or demands?

Performance Benefits of a RegionalConcept of Operations

● It addresses the 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week operating needs of transportationsystems, taking into account welfare-to-work and access to jobs, sporting and otherspecial events, the needs of shippers andgoods movement, periods of maintenanceand reconstruction, periods of adverseweather, natural disasters, public safety,incidents and emergencies, shopping,recreation, and tourism.

● It facilitates the collaboration andinformation sharing required acrossagencies and jurisdictions to addresscrosscutting issues such as incidentmanagement and emergency response,electronic toll and fare collection systems,traveler information systems, commercialvehicle operations, and traffic signalsystems.

● It creates faster, more coordinatedresponses to incidents and emergencies.

● It allows for seamless, integrated transitfare payments throughout a region—e.g., it allows the Metro Transit System runningfrom Virginia to Maryland to operateseamlessly across jurisdictions.

● It facilitates the sharing of data andinformation.

● It allows operating agencies to work towardsystem integration and interoperability.

● It anticipates and manages demand undera variety of conditions and events.

Examples of products that have emerged fromregional collaboration and coordination are:

●● TRANSCOM’s concept of operations is important to governing how the member agencies, as well asother agencies involved, interact with each other andshare information. TRANSCOM maintains planningdocuments such as a multiyear strategic plan, anannual business plan and budget, an information andcommunication systems plan, and a technology pro-grams development plan. (For more, see page 25.)

●● The Southern California ITS Priority Corridor man-agement concept of operations calls for decentral-ized information sharing and an open system archi-tecture that supports technical information sharingand the integration of different systems. This con-cept lies behind the strategy to “develop once,deploy many times,” thus allowing for cost sharingamong the agencies. (For more, see page 26.)

●● Maricopa Association of Governments (Phoenix,AZ) developed a Regional Concept of Transpor-tation Operations to provide the “big picture” of theregion’s desired state of transportation operationsand management and the institutional commitmentto get there.

●● Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) inthe San Francisco Bay Area’s Regional Concept ofOperation focuses on freeway management in thismultijurisdictional region where congestion and longdaily commute trips through multiple jurisdictionsare common and freeway expansion is unlikely.

Range of Products

The range of products that emerges from regionalcollaboration and coordination activities mirrors therange of processes discussed previously. As relationships(structure) and processes become more formalized, theresulting products are more formal in content and struc-ture, have greater standing among the region’s operatorsand service providers, and guide the decisions andactions of regional stakeholders. Note in table 3 that, asthe products move from “less formal” to “more formal,”the less formal products continue to be produced andused by the region’s transportation stakeholders(providers and users).


Process Benefits of a Regional Conceptof Operations

● It develops, achieves consensus on, andputs into practice the use of performancemeasures to support a customer servicemission.

● It looks to the future for resources tosustain and meet those performanceexpectations.

Investment Benefits of a RegionalConcept of Operations

● It helps decision-makers understand whatresources will be needed to sustain andevolve technologies so that operators andplanners can take advantage of their fullrange of capabilities.

● It creates the vision for operating theelements of the transportation system sothey work better and together. The visionand the plan for achieving the vision arecritical to ensuring future funding to sustainand improve the system.


Table 3. Range of services.

Resources: Linking Needs toSources

Regional operations collaboration and coordinationrelies on activities and relationships that can occur onlyif individuals and organizations commit appropriatefunding, staff, and possibly equipment. Implicit in thisstatement is the allocation, and possible sharing, ofresources that enables a region’s operators, serviceproviders, and other stakeholders to improve system per-formance. Operations must be viewed as a resource pri-ority to participating organizations. This element of theframework governs the availability of resources forachieving a regional vision, implementing an agreed-upon strategy, putting into practice a regional concept ofoperations, and implementing operations plans on anongoing basis. Regardless of the organizational modelthat evolves, the key to a sustained commitment ofresources lies in ensuring that all participants see thebenefits of their contributions, both to the system and totheir own agency or interest group (see the Action Stepsbelow).

Funding Sources

Regional collaboration depends on the availabilityand commitment of resources to fund the concept ofoperations1 and other agreed-upon actions. Most fundingfor operations will come from individual agency budgets.This may involve agreements to share key resources(equipment and personnel) across jurisdictional bound-aries or among operators or service providers; agree-ments on acquisition and procurement that ensure inter-operability and standard protocols for communicationsand data exchange; or potentially, the identification ofcapital investments in operations-related infrastructure(networks, operations centers, sensors) to be deployed on a regional basis or in conjunction with other capitalimprovement projects. Funding for such projects requiresthat operating agencies and service providers have a rolein the region’s capital planning process and that regionalplanners share an operating vision. The allocation of cap-ital resources to operations improvements must comple-ment or augment capital investments in expanded capacity.

Several examples illustrate the range of approachesto funding regional operations collaboration and coordination:

●● AZTech, which began as part of a MetropolitanModel Deployment Initiative, has emerged as afunded entity made up of 40 public and privateorganizations that collaborate to coordinate regionaloperations activities. (For more, see page 33.)


1 See the “Products” section for a more detailed discussion of the regionalconcept of operations.

Action Steps for Regional OperationsCollaboration and Coordination—Resources

❑ Ensure linkages to the overall regionaltransportation planning process for neededinvestment in operations.

❑ Use available funds to support conveningactivity for operators and planners.

❑ Ensure that everyone at the regionalcollaboration and coordination tableperceives a return on investment of timeand other resources.

❑ Make resources sufficiently available andflexible to effectively fund regional planningfor operations activities and initiatives.


●● The Baltimore Regional Operations Coordination(B-ROC) Project was initiated by the MetropolitanBaltimore ITS Partnership to the Baltimore RegionalTransportation Board, the Baltimore region MPO. Aregional operations coordination committee, B-ROCwas formed to enhance mutual support and resourcesharing between operating agencies. (For more, seepage 31.)

●● Agreements between Maryland’s CoordinatedHighways Action Response Team (CHART) agen-cies provide the resources necessary to manage thetransportation system effectively. For instance, theMaryland State Highway Administration (MdSHA)funds items necessary for the Maryland State Police(MSP) in return for full-time MSP staff at theStatewide Operations Center (SOC). CHART alsohas agreements with the media to receive real-timeviews of traffic incidents and delays from traffic hel-icopters owned by local stations in exchange forallowing stations to patch into live closed-circuit television feeds from the SOC. (For more, see page 28.)

Dedicated Staff

Effective collaboration and coordination amongregions depends on the availability of qualified staff andrelated resources to do the work needed to support the

regional collaboration and coordination effort. This willrequire purposeful job descriptions that translate into fulltime equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to collaborative activi-ties. Interagency or interregional positions may be need-ed to facilitate the collaboration among organizations orjurisdictions. It is also necessary that those who work inthese positions perceive a return on investment of theirtime dedicated to coordination and collaboration.

Range of Resource Strategies

How regional collaborative processes are funded andstaffed reflects a region’s commitment to and vision forthe effort. Typically, when a few individuals or organiza-tions see a need to solve a problem or improve perform-ance (incident management or emergency evacuation) orwhen agencies agree to work together on a project ofregional importance (ITS regional architecture or specialevent planning), resources may then be applied in theform of in-kind contributions from participating organi-zations or through program funds administered by a single agency on behalf of all participants. As the collab-orative activities mature, participating entities (includingboth public and private sectors) may choose to poolresources and eventually align with, or form, entities thatassume responsibility on behalf of participating agenciesand jurisdictions. These entities should also establishpositions with authority, accountability, and responsibili-ty for coordinated operations. Table 4 illustrates therange of resource strategies.

Table 4. Range of resource strategies.

Performance Improvement:Monitoring and ImprovingRegional Operations

Performance improvement addresses regional per-formance objectives and how they will be measured,including public safety, mobility, security, economicdevelopment, and environment. There may also be someintermediate performance objectives that address the suc-cess of regional cooperation.

Performance measures are a key to assessing thesuccess of a region’s effort to collaborate and coordinateand to identifying areas where improvement is needed orpossible. The first step related to performance improve-ment is finding a general consensus that performancemeasures are needed if regional transportation systemperformance is to improve. Given this consensus, per-formance measures relevant to system users must bedeveloped and accepted as meaningful methods ofassessing both the short-term and long-term operation ofthe regional transportation system. Because regionaloperations collaboration and coordination is a constantlyevolving process, the performance measures themselvesmay change, resulting from changes in institutional rela-tionships, technology applications, and policy and proce-dures. So that the region’s operators and serviceproviders understand whether regional goals are beingmet, they should regularly report on and discuss whetherperformance measures accurately reflect a successfulregional vision of transportation system operation as partof the process of collaboration and coordination.

Several regional operations entities have establishedperformance standards, and routinely monitor and reporthow well the system is operating. Some examples aregiven below:

●● AZTech established standards for interagency coor-dination, giving the region a sense of expected levelsof performance. Smart Corridor components linkedto the AZTech server allow information sharingamong agencies and jurisdictions. Traffic signal con-trollers, surveillance equipment, and detectiondevices were installed or upgraded to allow for thecollection of information. Information is sharedthrough workstations installed at traffic operationscenters (TOCs) in each jurisdiction. (For more, seepage 33.)

●● Montgomery County, Maryland’s real-time andarchived data are shared, linked, and made accessi-

ble to local agencies and departments, and are deliv-ered to system users through the Advanced TrafficInformation System (ATIS). (For more, see page 32.)

●● To maintain efficient system performance, the SanAntonio Medical Center Corridor Project restrictsthe use of the incident response traffic signal plansand variable message signs to more severe incidents.(For more, see page 35.)


Action Steps for Regional OperationsCollaboration and Coordination—Performance Improvement

❑ Agree on expected levels of performanceand the need for improvement.

❑ Develop and accept relevant regionalperformance measures.

❑ Provide regular status reports on regionaltransportation system operationsperformance.

❑ Share, link, and provide system managersand system users with access to real-timeand archived system performance data.


The measures selected to assess operations perform-ance depend upon the availability of accurate, meaning-ful system data. Performance data can range from highlysubjective user opinion surveys to detailed collection andanalysis of real-time system data. No single type of datais adequate to judge end-to-end system performance.Relying solely on user surveys to assess system perform-ance, for example, yields little insight into specific waysto improve system performance. Conversely, detailedmeasurement of specific attributes of individual systemcomponents (e.g., signal system reliability) may result ina focus on inappropriate responses. Since no single met-ric is likely to be sufficiently robust to convey all meas-ures of interest to the region’s operators, serviceproviders, and system users, multiple approaches to per-formance measurement are typically preferable over asingle metric.

Range of Metrics and Measures of Performance

Performance improvement depends on reliable andmeaningful performance metrics (what parts of perform-ance to track, e.g., delay) and related measures (how tomeasure them, e.g., probing vehicles’ transit time).Performance measurement and improvement are mostreadily accomplished at the component level (e.g., opera-tional availability, failure rates, units deployed, personnelassigned). Component level performance measures maynot, however, be the most adequate indicators of trans-portation system performance. Functional performancemeasures provide a better indication of how well specificservices are provided from the customers’ perspectives(e.g., on-time arrival rates for transit vehicles, averagetravel time between two points in a corridor). At the sys-tem level, performance measures (e.g., total averagedelay/day, customer satisfaction surveys) should relate tothe region’s transportation system overall performance.Table 5 illustrates the range of metrics and measures ofperformance.

Table 5. Range of metrics and measures of performance.

The Relevance of the Regional ITSArchitecture

ntelligent transportation systems (ITS) enable betteroperations and improves system performance. ITS

utilizes information, communication, sensor, and controltechnologies to achieve improved levels of performanceand safety on America’s highways. ITS provides seam-less information services and communications networksfor transportation services and emergency services. ITSmay be electronics, communications, or information pro-cessing systems used individually or in combination toimprove the efficiency or safety of a surface transporta-tion system.

Regional collaboration and coordination requiressustained, long-term commitment to improving regionaltransportation system performance through collaborativeplanning and a regional approach to operations.Institutional mechanisms are needed to develop and thinkthrough how, where, and when the regional ITS architec-ture can be applied. The collaborative process providesinstitutional mechanisms for using and maintaining(Steps 5 and 6 of the ITS regional architecture process)the regional ITS architecture effectively as part of anoverall regional operations strategy. In this sense, region-al collaboration and coordination has the longer-term,broader agenda that leverages the regional ITS architec-ture to improve transportation systems performance inthe region.

Where collaboration among agencies and regions is absent or minimal but an architecture developmentprocess is underway, the ITS architecture process canjump-start regional collaboration by providing the forumand the momentum for bringing together organizationswhose participation in the regional effort is critical. Thisregional teamwork, which an existing ITS architecturewill only start, requires that operators and serviceproviders jointly develop a vision for regional operationsand a strategy for achieving the vision. Based on experi-ence to date, leadership for developing the ITS architec-ture may come from either an operating agency (e.g.,State DOT) or a regional planning body (e.g., the MPO). If, however, regional transportation operators (StateDOTs, public safety agencies, departments of publicworks, transit authorities) want to work together and no

current regional ITS architecture development processexists, the fundamentals and framework presented in thisdocument can serve as the starting point for initiatingregional collaboration. Initially, if collaboration andcoordination is to become the primary mechanism forachieving institutional integration, operating agencieswill: gather and engage stakeholders; identify operationalneeds and strategies; develop a regional concept of oper-ations; and implement the necessary regional model andinteragency agreements.

Regional collaboration may well bring with it theperceived need for an ITS regional architecture, especial-ly when regionwide electronic information sharing isdesired. If so, this collaboration can serve as a platformfor initiating the architecture development process.

Defining the Regional ITSArchitecture

The regional ITS architecture has been defined as “aregional framework for ensuring institutional agreementand technical integration for the implementation of ITSprojects in a particular region.”2 The regional ITS archi-tecture serves to broaden the scope of operations. In thepast, transportation agencies focused on the implementa-tion and operations of single technology components.The ITS architecture moves this focus to the implemen-tation and operations of a complete, regional system.Therefore, the architecture process, which is beingapplied in numerous major metropolitan areas across thecountry, embodies the idea of regional collaboration andcoordination. Not only can it facilitate collaboration andcoordination, but it also offers unique opportunities forsynergy. The Regional ITS Architecture DevelopmentProcess Guidance Document3 outlines a systems engi-neering process for developing a regional ITS architec-ture that incorporate the following steps.


I

2 “Regional ITS Architecture Development Process Workshop,” preparedby National ITS Architecture Team, U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC, January 2002.

3Regional ITS Architecture Guidance: “Developing, Using, andMaintaining an ITS Architecture for your Region,” Publication No. FHWA-OP-02-024, prepared by National ITS Architecture Team, U.S. Departmentof Transportation, Washington, DC, October 12, 2001.

Regional TTransportation OOperations CCollaboration aandCoordination aand tthe RRegional IITS AArchitecture DDevelopmentProcess


Steps in the Development of a Regional ITS Architecture:

Step 1: Getting Started● Identify Need● Define Region● Identify Stakeholders● Identify Champions

Step 2: Gathering Data● Inventory Systems● Determine Needs and Services● Develop Operational Concept● Define Functional Requirements

Step 3: Defining Interfaces● Identify Interconnects● Define Information Flows

Step 4: Implementing the Architecture● Define Project Sequencing● Develop List of Agency Agreements● Identify ITS Standards

Step 5: Using the Architecture

Step 6: Maintaining the Architecture

The regional ITS architecture development processresults in either a specific ITS project or a series of inte-grated, interoperable projects. The architecture, a livingconstruct that will facilitate collaboration, integration,and interoperability, emphasizes systems and how sys-tems are deployed.

Leveraging the Regional ITSArchitecture Process

The regional ITS architecture development processcan serve as a key enabler in identifying constituencies,establishing champions, and initiating the institutionalrelationships that will sustain regional collaboration andcoordination. The process requires actions similar tothose required to develop other agreements and proce-dures to be implemented at the regional level. For exam-ple, the processes used to inventory systems, developoperational concepts, and define functional requirementscan also be applied to traffic incident management, trav-eler information systems, advanced freeway manage-ment, and emergency evacuation.

The regional ITS architecture development processresults in specific standards and protocols for communi-cations and information exchange. These standards andprotocols can serve as the foundation for broader agree-ments among regional partners that involve otherresources and processes. The concept of operationsdeveloped during the architecture development processmay serve as a template for a more comprehensiveregional concept of operations that includes functionalareas and responsibilities well beyond those addressed in the regional ITS architecture.

Although the ITS architecture development processdoes not address resources explicitly, the sequencing ofprojects and activities needed for regional integration andinteroperability imply significant resource commitments.

The regional ITS architecture can help guide theprojects and electronic infrastructure needed to integrateregional operations. Regional collaboration and coordi-nation identifies ongoing staff, equipment, and otherresource needs for regional interoperability and integration.

The regional ITS architecture development processfocuses primarily on performance measures related toimplementing technology-related projects associatedwith the ITS architecture. Fortunately, many of the proj-ects likely to emerge from the regional ITS architecturedevelopment process will provide the infrastructureneeded to measure regional transportation system per-formance in a meaningful way. In fact, the ITS architec-ture development process can serve as the forum foridentifying performance measures that have widespreadsupport among the region’s operators and serviceproviders.

Table 6 illustrates how the process of developing theRegional ITS Architecture can help leverage regionaloperations collaboration and coordination and vice versa.


Table 6. Interactions of the ITS architecture development and regional operations collaboration andcoordination processes.

RegionalCollaborationFrameworkElement

Structure

Process

Products

Resources

Performance

Related Regional ITSArchitecture DevelopmentProcess Steps

Identifying needs, defining the region, identifying stakeholders, identifying champions

Inventorying systems, developing alternative operational concepts, defining functional requirements, identifying interconnects, defining information flows

Project sequencing, ITS standards, interagency agreements, concept of operations, defining information flows

Not addressed

Project implementation (tracking); identifying interconnects and defining information flows

How Regional Operations Collaborationand Coordination Leverages theRegional ITS Architecture

The regional ITS architecture development process initiates relationships and institutional mechanisms that are important to ongoing planning for operations.

The regional ITS architecture process can shape the institutional interactions that lead to regional operating models and interagency agreements in other areas of regional interest.

The regional ITS architecture may provide guidance documents to support a regional concept of operations and the development of regional policies, programs, protocols, procedures, plans, and projects.

The regional ITS architecture can help guide the projects and electronic infrastructure needed to integrate regional operations.

The regional ITS architecture helps set the target by providing the infrastructure needed to acquire performance data and improve systems performance.


his document describes a strategic way of thinkingbuilt around the sharing of precepts and action

steps by public partners responsible for day-to-day oper-ations. By following these precepts and action steps, aregion can blend motivation, commitment, and strategyto reach a vision shared by operators and serviceproviders of how the region’s transportation systemshould perform under a variety of conditions. Regionalcollaboration and coordination is not about determiningthe best projects to solve a problem. It is about combin-ing the knowledge, expertise, and information of manyagencies across jurisdictions to produce and operate anefficient regional transportation system.

Table 7 includes questions for each of the five areasof the framework for collaboration and coordination.Together, they outline action steps that will enable plan-ners, operators, and service providers to assess progressin planning for operations and charting a course to bettertransportation system performance regionwide. Noregion is likely to answer every question affirmatively—and perhaps some regions do not need to do so. What isimportant is that the guidance suggested in these fiveareas will prove useful to planners, operators, and serviceproviders in assessing where they are and determiningwhat they need to do next.

T

A SSelf-AAssessment—Where AAre YYou iin RRegional CCollaborationand CCoordination?

Tabl

e 7.

Act

ion

step

s fo

r reg

iona

l ope

ratio

ns c

olla

bora

tion

and

coor

dina

tion—

Self-

Ass

essm

ent.

Proc

ess

❑Ar

e in

vest

men

t dec

isio

ns

mad

e ba

sed

on th

e be

st

com

bina

tions

of c

apita

l in

vest

men

ts a

nd

oper

atio

ns s

trate

gies

(p

erfo

rman

ce-b

ased

pl

anni

ng)?

❑D

o th

e so

lutio

ns (p

roje

ct)

sele

ctio

n pr

oces

s an

d cr

iteria

yie

ld a

leve

l pl

ayin

g fie

ld fo

r op

erat

iona

l im

prov

emen

ts a

nd

inve

stm

ents

, and

are

to

ols

avai

labl

e to

sho

w

bene

fits

of o

pera

tiona

l im

prov

emen

ts?

❑D

oes

the

regi

on d

o co

rrido

r pla

nnin

g (m

ultim

odal

), in

clud

ing

oper

atio

nal e

lem

ents

(e

.g.,

inci

dent

m

anag

emen

t)?

❑Ar

e op

erat

ions

pe

rform

ance

aud

its (e

.g.,

corri

dor)

used

as

a to

ol

for g

uidi

ng in

vest

men

t ch

oice

s?

❑D

oes

the

regi

on le

vera

ge

oper

atio

ns to

ach

ieve

re

gion

al g

oals

(or m

eet

othe

r com

mon

ly s

ough

t ou

tcom

es)?

Prod

uct

❑D

oes

oper

atio

ns p

rovi

de

a cu

rrent

con

ditio

ns

base

line

to c

alib

rate

lo

ng-ra

nge

plan

ning

?

❑D

oes

a re

gion

al c

once

pt

of o

pera

tions

set

pe

rform

ance

exp

ecta

tions

fo

r reg

iona

l ope

rato

rs?

❑D

o pu

blic

saf

ety

prov

ider

s an

d ag

enci

es th

at o

pera

te

the

elem

ents

of t

he

trans

porta

tion

syst

ems

ackn

owle

dge

the

regi

onal

ope

ratio

ns

impl

emen

tatio

ns a

gend

a?

❑H

as a

regi

onal

ope

ratio

ns

actio

n ag

enda

bee

n ac

know

ledg

ed a

s a

nece

ssar

y in

put i

nto

TIP/

LRP?

❑D

oes

the

regi

on u

se

mar

ket r

esea

rch

as th

e co

mm

on li

nk b

etw

een

oper

atio

ns (c

usto

mer

fe

edba

ck) a

nd p

lann

ing

(pla

nnin

g in

put)?

Stru

ctur

e

❑Ar

e th

ere

linka

ges

to k

ey

cons

titue

ncie

s (e

.g.,

empl

oyer

s, s

hipp

ers,

de

velo

pers

, com

mun

ities

) to

bui

ld s

uppo

rt fo

r be

tter s

yste

m

perfo

rman

ce?

❑Ar

e th

ere

cham

pion

s/le

ader

s in

the

regi

on

who

are

com

mitt

ed to

w

orki

ng to

geth

er (a

nden

cour

agin

g ot

hers

tow

ork

with

them

) to

gain

su

ppor

t for

bet

ter

syst

em p

erfo

rman

ce?

❑Is

ther

e a

visi

on s

hare

dam

ong

oper

ator

s, s

ervi

ce

prov

ider

s an

d pl

anne

rs?

❑Is

ope

ratio

ns a

regu

lar

item

on

the

regi

onal

pl

anni

ng a

gend

a?

Res

ourc

e

❑Ar

e th

ere

linka

ges

to

the

over

all r

egio

nal

trans

porta

tion

plan

ning

pr

oces

s fo

r nee

ded

inve

stm

ent i

n op

erat

ions

?

❑D

oes

the

regi

on u

se

plan

ning

fund

s to

sup

port

conv

enin

g ac

tiviti

es fo

r op

erat

ors

and

plan

ners

?

❑Ar

e re

sour

ces

suffi

cien

tlyav

aila

ble

and

flexi

ble

topr

ovid

e ef

fect

ive

acce

ss to

fund

ing

for o

pera

tions

?

❑D

oes

ever

yone

at t

he

tabl

e se

e a

retu

rn o

n in

vest

men

t of t

ime

and

othe

r res

ourc

es?

Perf

orm

ance

❑Is

ther

e a

cons

ensu

s on

the

need

for p

erfo

rman

ce

impr

ovem

ent?

❑H

ave

perfo

rman

ce

mea

sure

s be

en

deve

lope

d?

❑Is

ther

e an

ope

ratio

ns

perfo

rman

ce-b

ased

st

atus

repo

rt?

❑Ar

e re

al-ti

me

and

arch

ived

dat

a sh

ared

, lin

ked,

and

mad

e ac

cess

ible

to s

yste

m

man

ager

s an

d de

liver

edto

sys

tem

use

rs?


everal regions around the country are already prac-ticing elements of framework for collaboration and

coordination described in this document. These regionscontinue to realize improvements in various aspects oftheir transportation system due to the long-term strategicand collaborative efforts made by various agencies in theregion. The following case studies demonstrate howthese regions have applied the framework. Many of thecase studies detail Metropolitan Model DeploymentInitiatives related to ITS. These initiatives were the firststeps toward planning for operations, and as regions haverecognized the benefits from doing so, they have contin-ued to expand their collaborative interagency, interjuris-dictional efforts.

Each case study includes a summary of the applica-tion and a breakdown of how the effort follows some orall of the action steps in the framework discussed in theprimer. While several of the studies do not follow eachelement of the framework directly, they still serve to givea concrete picture of what it means to plan regionally foroperations.

The following case studies are presented:

●● TRANSCOM’s Regional Approach to Operations●● Southern California ITS Priority Corridor●● Maryland CHART●● Capital Wireless Integrated Network (CapWIN)●● Baltimore Regional Operations Coordination

(B-ROC) Project●● Montgomery County ATIS●● Cross-Jurisdictional Signal Coordination in Phoenix●● San Antonio’s Advanced Warning to Avoid Railroad

Delays (AWARD) Project●● San Antonio Medical Center Corridor Project●● Phoenix’s Roadway Closure and Restriction System

(RCRS)●● Ventura County Fare Integration

S

Applications oof RRegional OOperations CCollaboration aandCoordination PPlanning ffor TTransportation OOperations

TRANSCOM’s Regional Approachto Operationsi

TRANSCOM was created in 1986 to facilitateregion-wide coordination of construction projects in NewYork, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Since then, its rolehas expanded to include the distribution of traffic andincident information and the management of regionalITS programs. The intent of TRANSCOM is to enablethe collaboration of multiple planning and operatingagencies to improve transportation throughout the three-state region. These agencies share traffic, incident man-agement, and construction information through the use ofsophisticated software. The communication among theagencies helped facilitate the management of the trans-portation system on September 11, 2001. TRANSCOMhas adhered to the principles of regional operations col-laboration and coordination since it began, and continuesto evolve to improve one of the most complicated trans-portation systems in the Nation.


i “Organizing for Regional Transportation Operations: New York/NewJersey/Connecticut TRANSCOM,” prepared for U.S. Department ofTransportation by Valerie Briggs and Keith Jasper, August 2001.

Structure● TRANSCOM has linkages with 16 member

agencies, including major State and cityDOTs, toll authorities, transit authorities, andState police, as well as more than 100 otherentities, including local governments, police,fire, emergency services, and planningorganizations. All entities work together tobuild support for better system performance.

● TRANSCOM was formed by the region’stransportation leaders; its 16 memberagencies act as champions committed tocooperation and support for better systemperformance.

● Both planners and operators participate inTRANSCOM’s activities, thereby creating ashared vision for the region’s transportationsystem.

● Operations is a regular item on theTRANSCOM planning agenda for one of themost complex and congested urbantransportation environments in the Nation.

Processes● TRANSCOM was formed to provide a forum

to collectively address traffic, incidentmanagement, and construction issues, and todetermine collaborative, multimodalapproaches to solving the region’stransportation problems.

Products● TRANSCOM’s concept of operations is

important to governing how member andother involved agencies interact and shareinformation. All agencies involvedacknowledge the concept of operations and understand that the legitimacy ofTRANSCOM depends on their accept-ance of TRANSCOM standards.

● TRANSCOM maintains planning documentssuch as a multiyear strategic plan, an annualbusiness plan and budget, an informationand communication systems plan, and atechnology programs development plan.

Resources● TRANSCOM leverages the resources of

multiple agencies to collect and disseminateincident and event information.

● TRANSCOM’s agencies collaborate to bringtransportation funding into the region.

● Agencies would not be willing to participate inTRANSCOM if they did not see a return on investment of their time and resources.

Performance● TRANSCOM acknowledges the need for

performance measures and expects todevelop them in the future.

● TRANSCOM’s operations depend on real-time and archived data shared among theinvolved agencies. The OperationsInformation Center collects and disseminatesreal-time incident and constructioninformation to members and affiliatedagencies 24 hours a day, and maintains a database of construction projects.


Southern California ITS PriorityCorridorii

Severe congestion and extreme air pollution haveplagued the Southern California region for many years.No major additions are planned for the freeway network,and no increases are expected in transit utilization, solocal transportation managers have been forced to turn totechnical- and operations-based solutions to the region’stransportation problems. As one of the Nation’s four des-ignated ITS Priority Corridors, the Southern Californiaregion receives Federal funds for ITS strategic planningand deployment. The ITS Priority Corridor SteeringCommittee, a partnership of 16 public entities, wasformed to oversee the program, which allows:

● Multijurisdictional collaboration of multiple MPOsand state and local transportation agencies;

● Stakeholder participation;● Movement from a major planning to an operations

initiative;● Integration of extensive ITS infrastructure, enabling

the sharing of data and control among traffic man-agement centers; and

● Generation of value-added regional traveler information.

As a result of corridor-wide ITS strategic planningand design carried out by the Priority Corridor SteeringCommittee, an intermodal transportation managementand information system will be implemented that allowsfor the integration of legacy and future transportationmanagement systems. This system will continuouslyevolve to fit with future transportation management initiatives.

ii “Organizing for Regional Transportation Operations: Southern CaliforniaITS Priority Corridor,” prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation byValerie Briggs and Keith Jasper, August 2001.

Structure● Members of the Priority Corridor Steering

Committee include Caltrans, the CaliforniaHighway Patrol, six county transportationauthorities/commissions, two MPOs, one airquality management district, and threeregional ITS strategic planningsubcommittees. Other participants includeFHWA, the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), and local transportation agencies.

● Because the Priority Corridor decision-making process was conducted outside thebounds of traditional transportation fundingprocesses, the participants have had to workhard to sustain political buy-in and acquirechampions for their programs.

● Because the operators and planners involvedwith the Steering Committee share acommon vision for the improvement ofSouthern California’s transportation systemthrough integrated ITS systems, they haveagreed to expand the scope of the programto include all modes and all roads from LosAngeles to the Mexican border.

● The Priority Corridor has fostered newrelationships among planners and operators,and promotes a common understanding ofeach other’s missions that has resulted in themovement of the regional initiative from majorplanning to operations.

Processes● Because it enables the integration of traveler

information from several sources, the PriorityCorridor network provides a resource fortraveler information. The network also linksthe four Caltrans TMCs, thereby enablingcontingency control during emergencies sothat one TMC can take control for another ifneeded.

● The Priority Corridor Committee assesses thevalue of ITS projects on a regional orcorridor-wide basis.

Southern California (continued)


Products● The corridor management concept of

operations calls for decentralized informationsharing and an open system architecture thatsupports technical information sharing andthe integration of different systems.

● The agencies that operate the transportationsystems in Southern California acknowledgethe concept of operations. The concept ofoperations creates the strategy to “developonce, deploy many times,” thereby allowingfor cost sharing among the agencies.

Resources● All groups involved in the Priority Corridor

see a return on investment of their time andresources because they are now able toaccess each other’s data, share the costs ofsystem upgrades and new technologyapplications, and communicate better amongplanners and operators.

● Funding has been made possible throughFederal grants, to continue through 2002.

Performance● The integration of the various agencies’ ITS

infrastructures in the Priority Corridor enablesdata to be shared, linked, and madeaccessible to operators and plannersthroughout the region.


Maryland CHARTiii

Formed to manage increasing traffic to and from the Maryland shore, the Coordinated Highways ActionResponse Team (CHART) built on its initial success andis now a multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary pro-gram. The mission of CHART is to “improve real-timeoperations of Maryland’s highway system through team-work and technology.” CHART relies on a communica-tions infrastructure, a closed-circuit television system fortraffic monitoring, and complex interfaces to existingand new detection systems to support the 24/7 monitor-ing and control activities of its Statewide OperationsCenter (SOC) and Traffic Operations Centers (TOCs).CHART uses the information collected in these centersto provide motorists with information through variablemessage signs, traveler advisory radio transmitters, andthe highway advisory telephone system. CHART planseventually to add a media interface to the SOC to allowthe media access to high-quality, real-time traffic video.CHART also takes part in the I-95 Corridor Coalition tocoordinate with other relevant agencies in case of region-al incidents along the I-95 corridor.

iii CHART on the Web, www.chart.state.md.us

Structure● Agencies such as the Maryland State

Highway Agency (MdSHA), Maryland StatePolice (MSP), and the MarylandTransportation Authority, along with otherFederal, State, and local agencies cooperateto improve real-time operations of Maryland’shighway system.

● The members of CHART are committed toworking together, as indicated by theirmission statement.

Processes● The CHART program includes activities such

as traveler information, incident management,traffic monitoring, and traffic management.MdSHA cooperatively funds joint needs.

Products● A concept of operations shapes interagency

cooperation in information sharing andmanagement of the Maryland highwaysystem.

Resources● Agreements between the CHART agencies

provide the resources necessary toeffectively manage the transportation system.For example, MdSHA funds necessary itemsfor MSP in return for full-time MSP staff atSOC. Through agreements with the media,CHART receives real-time views of trafficincidents and delays from traffic helicoptersowned by local stations in exchange forallowing the stations to patch into live closed-circuit television feeds from SOC.

● Agencies see a return on investment of theirtime and resources.

Performance● The CHART system hub is SOC, supported

by existing satellite TOCs, which provideStatewide coverage allowing informationdistribution based on geographical needs andoperations management from severaldifferent locations.

● CHART plans to integrate all radiocommunications, local governmentcommunications, and traffic signal systemsactivities to improve their incidentmanagement capabilities.

Capital Wireless IntegratedNetwork (CapWIN)iv

CapWIN, an integrated transportation and criminaljustice information wireless network, is a concept that isbeing developed as a result of the need for improvedcoordination and information sharing among public safe-ty and transportation agencies and organizations inMaryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC. Currently,agencies in the DC region do not have the means to com-municate directly with each other in a mobile environ-ment. Whenever incidents occurred, responders rely ontheir own communication centers as intermediaries inpassing messages to other responders. With CapWIN,agencies will be able to communicate directly with eachother and can access information for use in planning andimplementing traffic control during major incidents. Lawenforcement and emergency medical services will alsouse CapWIN to share critical information across countiesand regions and improve response to emergencies.

The transportation-related benefits of CapWINinclude:

● Reduced traffic delays;● Increased customer satisfaction;● Shared historical information among agencies;● Improved resource allocation through real-time

information;● Increased worker safety in construction zones;● Improved response to natural and man-made

disasters; ● Increased transportation and public safety assistance

through increased information; and ● Reduced duplication of expenditures on technology.


iv CapWIN, www.capwinproject.com

Structure● Incident management responders in the

Washington, D.C., region, such as lawenforcement, fire and rescue, EMS,transportation agencies, motorist assistanceservices, information service providers, andthe media are committed to working togetherto improve communication amongthemselves to improve coordinated responseto emergencies.

● User groups play an active role in developingthe strategic plan and all other aspects of theproject.

Processes● As a result of CapWIN, improved voice and

data communications help in achieving theregional goal of improving transportation andlaw enforcement agencies’ traffic incidentresponse capabilities.

● The Coordination Working Group provides aforum for all interested parties to coordinatetheir respective activities to minimize overlapof initiatives and to pool resources.

Products● With input from all agencies involved, a

strategic plan has been developed outliningfunction needs, system requirements,security requirements, information priorities,implementation strategy, and a long-termbusiness plan that addresses ongoingoperations and maintenance.

● Memorandums of understanding have beendeveloped with each participating agency forthe maintenance and long-term requirementsof the network.


Resources● Involved public safety and transportation

agencies are interested in developingpartnerships that will allow them to sharelimited resources in working toward thecommon goal of improving safety for theircustomers.

● CapWIN creates guidelines and standards in public safety and transportationcommunication systems in order to protectagencies from investing in costlytechnologies that are actually uselessbecause they are incompatible with otheragencies’ systems.

● These improved systems are seen as areturn on investment of time and resources.

Performance● The integrated wireless network allows

transportation agencies to communicatedirectly with each other and thereby sharereal-time and historical information in a wayuseful to improving system performance.

● Data collected will be put in a meaningful,relevant, and understandable form readilyaccessible for use, regardless of location in national, State, or local databases.

CAPWIN (continued)

Baltimore Regional OperationsCoordination (B-ROC) Projectv

The initiation of the B-ROC Project resulted from a recommendation by the Metropolitan Baltimore ITSPartnership to the Baltimore Regional TransportationBoard (BRTB), the MPO for the Baltimore region.Formed as a regional operations coordination committee,B-ROC first met in September 2000 to focus on enhanc-ing traffic management operations through coordinationamong jurisdictions, agencies, modes, and facility types.The overall project has been divided into two phases.The first phase involves developing a framework for theenhanced coordination of regional transportation-relatedoperations. The second phase involves the implementa-tion of projects.

B-ROC addresses coordination issues such as:

● Incidents and congestion without boundaries;● The need to resolve conflicting goals and missions

among operating agencies;● The need to enhance mutual support and resource

sharing among agencies; and● The need to decide lines of authority.


Structure● More than 20 jurisdictions and agencies

participate in B-ROC, with the goals ofenhancing operational coordination for trafficincident management among jurisdictions,agencies, modes, and facilities, and todevelop a regional framework for operations.These agencies include police, fire, andpublic works from several Maryland cities andcounties, as well as various Marylandtransportation agencies and other Federal,State, and local organizations.

Processes● B-ROC strives to promote interagency

coordination across modes and jurisdictionsto facilitate better intermodal planning andincident response.

Products● The first phase of B-ROC comprised the

development of a framework for enhancedcoordination of regional transportation-relatedoperations.

● The project will define operations goals,objectives and needs, functionalrequirements for operations, an operationsframework, and an implementation plan thatincludes a prioritized list of projects.

Resources● B-ROC was formed to enhance mutual

support and resource sharing amongoperating agencies.

v Presentation made to Linking Planning and Operations Working Group,December 2001.


Montgomery County ATISvi

Montgomery County created its Advanced TrafficInformation System (ATIS) program to manage its trans-portation system using advanced integrated technologiesfor traffic surveillance, signal control, incident detection,transit fleet management, and traveler information. As abyproduct of this program, the traveler information sys-tem was implemented, targeted to the needs of countyresidents and travelers. Information from the system isdisseminated by cable television, radio, variable messagesigns, telephone, and the Internet.

Montgomery County has practiced integrated trafficand transit operations since 1996. Through an openarchitecture design, local transportation agencies sharedata, which is used for ATIS. The intermodal county datacollection system provides information on transit sched-ules, fares, and routes, in addition to traffic information.The county is currently installing a fiber optics networkto integrate all public communications requirements, thusproviding cost-effective countywide connectivity andintegrating the many different systems of county agen-cies and departments.

vi “Traveler Information Systems, A Primer,” prepared by Federal HighwayAdministration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, January 2000.

Structure● Montgomery County ATIS was implemented

by the county government to managegrowing congestion.

● Local transportation agencies anddepartments share information through an open architecture system.

Processes● Montgomery County leverages operations to

achieve congestion reduction in the region.

Resources● Participants see a satisfactory return on

investment because data coordination andintegration allow agencies to provide betterinformation to system users.

● Resources are sufficiently available and arebeing used to improve the system throughthe installation of a fiber optic network.

Performance● Real-time and archived data are shared,

linked, and made accessible to localagencies and departments, and delivered to system users through ATIS.

Cross-Jurisdictional SignalCoordination in Phoenixvii

Part of the AZTech Metropolitan Model DeploymentInitiative (MMDI) effort was to coordinate traffic signalsacross jurisdictions in the East Valley of Phoenix. Thatsignal integration helped form Smart Corridors that allowsmooth progressions across jurisdictions.

In order to accomplish integration across jurisdic-tions, the East Valley Task Force (composed of trans-portation specialists from the five jurisdictions inPhoenix) established standards for coordination and com-munication among agencies and jurisdictions. A commu-nications infrastructure was implemented to allow infor-mation flow between jurisdictions, and a regional trafficcontrol and management plan was developed to aid integration.

The project was considered a success due to themany operational benefits achieved. These benefitsinclude increases in average travel speeds during peakperiods, decreases in number of stops, decreases in crashrisks, and reductions in fuel consumption. Furthermore,interagency communication was substantially increased,allowing for a multijurisdictional system with regionalgoals. This coordination and cooperation is expected tohave a long-range positive impact on traffic operations in the East Valley.


vii “Cross-Jurisdictional Signal Coordination in Phoenix and Seattle,”Lessons Learned from the Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative—Removing Barriers to Seamless Travel on Arterial Streets, FHWA-OP-01-035, U.S. Department of Transportation, March 2001.

Structure● The East Valley Task Force was formed by

transportation specialists from the fivejurisdictions in Phoenix to identify areas forimprovement and establish standards forinteragency and interjurisdictionalcoordination.

● Regional traffic signal coordination wasachieved through careful planning andincreased coordination efforts.

Processes● The Smart Corridor project, designed to improve

efficiency in the Phoenix region’s transportationsystem and make commuting acrossjurisdictions easier for travelers, is used asleverage to achieve interagency communicationand coordination.

● Data collection, involving traffic counts,turning-movement data, and globalpositioning system satellite receivers, wasdone before and after signal timing changesto calculate travel time, delays, and vehicleaccelerations. The data showed that theproject had several operational benefits,including increased travel speed anddecreased delays.

Products● Before starting the project, the East Valley

Task Force established standards forinteragency coordination and developed aregional traffic control and management planto aid in technical integration amongagencies. The plan included traffic signaltiming plans for the Smart Corridors andcoordination procedures for trafficmanagement between jurisdictions.

Resources● Each of eight regions involved in the project

share the development and operating costs. ● Each region benefits from maximized

efficiency for travelers and increasedcommunication among agencies. Thecommunications infrastructure developed forthe project allows sharing of real-time trafficoperations information that is instrumental tothe initiation and achievement of regionalgoals.

Performance● Establishing standards for interagency

coordination provided expected levels ofregionwide performance.

● Smart Corridor components linked to theAZTech server allow information sharingamong agencies and jurisdictions. Trafficsignal controllers, surveillance equipment,and detection devices were installed orupgraded to allow for the collection ofinformation, which can be shared throughworkstations installed at TOCs in eachjurisdiction.


San Antonio’s Advanced Warningto Avoid Railroad Delays (AWARD)Projectviii

The AWARD project was developed as part of SanAntonio’s MMDI to handle intermodal traffic problemsby providing advance information on train crossings tooperators at the Texas DOT TransGuide Control Center,emergency service providers, and travelers. The system’spurpose was to eliminate traffic backup on freewayramps and interruptions of freeway operations by passingtrains at at-grade highway-rail intersections.

AWARD places acoustic and Doppler radar sensorson poles in city or State rights-of-way along a railroadtrack to detect the presence, speed, and length of trainsprior to their arrival at grade crossings close to freewayexits. The sensors send data to the TransGuide ControlCenter, where computers calculate train passing time andduration. Using variable message signs, traveler informa-tion kiosks, web sites, and in-vehicle navigational units,TransGuide operators alert motorists to potential delaysand alternative routes.

The system was considered a successful proof-of-concept. In this case, however, train delays were foundinsufficient to warrant system implementation. As trafficincreases in the San Antonio area, the system may oneday be needed, and the components will already be inplace.

viii “Advanced Warning for Railroad Delays in San Antonio,” LessonsLearned from the Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative—ProvidingEnhanced Information to the Public, FHWA-OP-01-038, U.S. Departmentof Transportation, March 2001.

Structure● San Antonio expected the AWARD project

to improve freeway system efficiency byeliminating delays caused by at-gradehighway/rail intersections.

● Because railroads hesitated to participate inthe project, San Antonio modified it to focuson traveler information and placed detectorson city or State rights-of-way.

Processes● Field interviews were used to determine the

effects of traveler information provided byAWARD on traffic patterns at an AWARDdeployment location.

● The Queens University Synthetic Origin andDestination Generator and INTEGRATIONmodeling programs were also used todetermine AWARD’s impact.

Resources● Resources were pooled with other MMDI

projects, thereby reducing some AWARDfixed costs.

● Using MMDI program funds, Texas DOTfunded the operation and maintenance ofAWARD.

San Antonio Medical CenterCorridor Projectix

As another part of the MMDI, the San AntonioMedical Center Corridor Project was designed to link theregion’s freeway and incident management system with anewly developed and deployed arterial management sys-tem to reduce delays, improve safety, and enhance cus-tomer satisfaction. Through the use of freeway-basedvideo and loop detector stations, incidents are detected or confirmed. Real-time information is sent to theTransGuide Freeway Operations Center, where incidentmanagement plans are created, and the appropriateactions taken. Incident information is also transmitted totravelers through lane control signs and variable messagesigns detailing incident type, expected delay, and alterna-tive routes. In addition, the incident information is sharedwith the City of San Antonio’s TMC, which can imple-ment one of several predetermined incident-response sig-nal plans to divert travelers from the impacted freeway to appropriate arterial roads.

While the system reduced incident-related delay, italso presented significant institutional and operationalchallenges. Those challenges, which concerned the inte-gration of transportation agencies having diverse operat-ing philosophies, budgets, priorities, and constituents,were addressed as follows:

● Local agencies were challenged to think regionallyand recognize travelers’ concerns for quick, safe,and efficient movement through the entire trans-portation network.

● A peer-to-peer, permissive operating philosophy wasadopted, in which management decisions are gener-ated regionally but instituted locally.

● The project offered unique incentives such as allow-ing the City of San Antonio to co-locate theirMedical Center Corridor arterial management centerwithin the Texas DOT TransGuide Center.

In addition, the operation of the system’s incidentresponse signal timings and the appropriate use of thesystem’s variable message signs posed potentially thornyproblems. The signal timing plans were designed torespond to severe delays on the freeway that caused highdiversion to the arterial roads. Use of the plans duringtimes of low diversion could actually increase delay.Similarly, variable message signs could cause increased

delay if used during minor incidents that generated rela-tively little delay. The following steps were taken toavoid trouble:

● Use of signal plans and variable message signs wasrestricted to severe incidents.

● Use of video surveillance was restricted to arterialoperations personnel, who could monitor impacts ofsignal timing changes in real time and turn plans onand off as appropriate.

● San Antonio made a commitment to continuallyupdate and broaden the breadth of the incident sig-nal plans.

It is clear that, when solutions to institutional andoperational challenges are carefully planned and man-aged, significant benefits can be realized.


ix “San Antonio’s Medical Center Corridor,” Lessons Learned from theMetropolitan Model Deployment Initiative—Reducing Delay throughIntegrated Freeway and Arterial Management, FHWA-OP-01-034, U.S.Department of Transportation, March 2001.

Structure● The Medical Center Corridor was developed

and is operated by Texas DOT, the City ofSan Antonio, and the region’s EMS providers.

● The corridor was designed so that incidentscould be identified, responded to, andmanaged in a coordinated, seamless fashion.It is envisioned that the corridor will providefaster, safer, and more fuel-efficient travel.

Processes● System integration was planned to improve

the regional transportation system fortravelers by reducing delay, crash risk, andfuel consumption.

● Using the INTEGRATION microsimulationmodel, it was found that, when optimaldeployment is achieved, benefits could besignificant. Reductions were found in delay,crash risk, and fuel consumption.Furthermore, it was found that delay is moresubstantially reduced through an integratedsystem than through various componentsacting in isolation.


Products● Incident response plans are formulated from

information received at the TransGuideFreeway Operations Center. These plans areused to dispatch appropriate responders.

● Predetermined signal response plans can beimplemented as needed. San Antonio hasmade a commitment to continuously updateand expand the plans’ scope to maintainmaximum efficiency on arterial roads.

Resources● Costs were shared among agencies involved

in the Medical Center Corridor Project.Freeway component installation costs werekept low by conducting much of thedeployment during major highwayreconstruction. Arterial operations andmaintenance costs are kept low as well bylocating the operations center within theexisting TransGuide Operations Center, thustaking advantage of centralized staffing andmaintenance plans.

Performance● To maintain efficient system performance,

use of incident response signal plans andvariable message signs was restricted tomore severe incidents.

● Management decisions are created regionallybut implemented locally.

San Antonio (continued)

Phoenix’s Roadway Closure andRestriction System (RCRS)x

RCRS was developed to provide integrated informa-tion about the status of maintenance activities, road con-struction, special events, traffic speeds, and incidents onmajor highways and local roads in Phoenix. Initiatedunder the Phoenix MMDI, the project’s goal was to pro-vide information to allow travelers to plan more efficienttravel. The system is an expansion of the HighwayClosure and Restriction System (HCRS).

RCRS required integration of local and regional sys-tems. To achieve this integration, participating agencieswere provided with AZTech computer workstations withwhich they can manually enter information about travelconditions within their boundaries. The information isprovided to travelers through the AZTech TrailmasterWeb site, kiosks, and a toll-free phone number.

The outcome of RCRS has been a more regionalapproach to the reporting of traveler information.Institutional barriers have been disbanded and interjuris-dictional communication increased among Arizona DOTdistricts and their local partners due to the high level ofcommunication required for system integration. As aresult of the careful planning and coordination amongjurisdictions, the system has been highly successful.


Structure● By reaching out to AZTech municipal

partners, Arizona DOT championed theinclusion of local traffic system information.

● The success of the system depended oncareful planning and coordination among the Phoenix jurisdictions.

Processes● Focus groups were formed to analyze the

positive and negative aspects of RCRS.● Web-site usage statistics were studied to

determine the success of the system.

Products● At no charge, Arizona has offered to license

to any other State transportation agency thesystem software it used to fuse old HCRSdata with new RCRS data.

Resources● Because RCRS was an upgrade of an

existing system, resource requirements weresignificantly lower than those required for anew system.

● Local municipalities in the Phoenix regioncan now share infrastructure, leading toequipment cost-sharing.

● Costs are shared among an additional 15AZTech MMDI projects, 8 planned additionaltraffic operations centers, and 2 fire dispatchcenters.

Performance● System performance data can easily be

obtained by studying the Web site and phonesystem usage statistics.

x “Phoenix’s Roadway Closure and Restriction System,” Lessons Learnedfrom the Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative—Providing EnhancedInformation to the Public, FHWA-OP-01-36, U.S. Department ofTransportation, March 2001.

Ventura County Fare Integrationxi

Between January 1996 and October 1999, an auto-mated, integrated transit-fare collection system was fieldtested in Ventura County, California. The purpose of thesystem was to create a seamless fare payment systemacross transit agencies in the region. It was hoped thatthe system would encourage, accommodate, manage, andassess travel patterns of passengers among transit sys-tems. In addition, the transit agencies involved hoped toimprove data collection and reporting processes.

The payment card system was devised based onsmart card technologies and called the Smart Passport.The Ventura County Transportation Commission(VCTC) coordinated the project. The benefits that VCTChoped to achieve were:

● Regional payment system coordination;● Seamless regional travel;● The concept of “one account” or one payment

device for regional transportation; and● Cost sharing among partners.

Due to problems with the system, the project did notrealize the expected benefits, but instead resulted in a listof lessons learned to be applied to any future implemen-tations of the system. The field test was considered to bea positive step toward regional, multiagency coordination.


xi “Ventura County Fare Integration—A Case Study,” September 2001.Prepared by Federal Highway Administration and Federal TransitAdministration, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2001.

Structure● Initial support came from eight transit

operators interested in an integrated faresystem, a seamless transit system, andimproved data collection and reportingprocesses. These operators were alreadycooperating to devise an integrated transitsystem before the Smart Passport project.

● In coordinating the project, VCTC gained thesupport of participating agencies andoperators by discussing the potential benefitsof the system.

Processes● The project was closely monitored to

determine its benefits and needs forimprovement. Although the benefits could notbe quantified, lessons learned were compiledfor use in future integrated fare card systems.The lessons learned will allow decision-makers to better understand critical issuesand potential benefits before investing.

Products● VCTC and the participating agencies signed

memorandums of understanding stating thatVCTC would act as lead agency and wouldbe solely responsible for contractual andfinancial issues.

● Surveys were conducted to determine users’opinions of the Smart Passport.

● As a result of the project, a set of issues wasidentified that transportation planners andservice providers need to examine beforeplanning or implementing a multiagency farecollection system.

Resources● The project was funded by Caltrans and

USDOT.● As a result of the project, VCTC recognized

that staff resources must be commensuratewith the project’s scope. This means thatmore managerial, technical, andadministrative staff would be needed for anyfuture implementation of the system.

Performance● All agencies involved agreed that system

performance measurements should havebeen established during the planning phaseof the project, and these measurements mustbe applied regularly throughout the project tomonitor performance.

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

EDL Document No.: 13686Publication No.: FHWA-OP-03-008

Date post:	22-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and ... · present this primer on Regional...

Documents