**MANAGING THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM**

The Need For A New Operating Paradigm

Prepared by

Anne P. Canby

For

Federal Highway Administration

National Dialogue on Operations

August, 2001

**MANAGING THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM**

The Need For A New Operating Paradigm

America's transportation system is facing a crisis of unmanaged
congestion.

Media reports and studies show that congestion on the nation's
transportation system is a rising concern. Users of the transportation
system raise congestion as an issue affecting their quality of life
consistently in surveys. Research studies increasingly report on the
impacts of congestion to our competitiveness. The recently issued report
from the Texas Transportation Institute estimated congestion in 68
metropolitan areas for 1999 and found:

-   The cost of traffic congestion totaled \$78 billion, representing
    the cost of 4.5 billion hours of extra travel time and 6.8 billion
    gallons of fuel wasted while sitting in traffic.

-   The average delay is 36 hours per person per year.

-   The average rush hour trip takes 32 percent more time than the same
    trip taken during non-rush hour conditions.[^1]

As we try to cram more and more trips through a system that has "maxed"
out, at least at certain times of the day, the result is more and more
congestion.

The crisis of congestion on the surface transportation system is the
result of many factors.

-   **Demand vs. Supply**

Traffic volumes are up, yet road capacity has barely increased. As shown
on Figure 1, between 1990-1999, vehicle miles of travel increased by 22
percent, lane miles increased by only 1 percent.[^2]

**Figure 1**

> **Vehicle Travel Up 22%, Road Miles Up 1%**
>
> ![](media/image1.wmf)

Today, one third of the daily travel on freeways and principal arterials
is under congested conditions in the 68 metropolitan areas studied by
the Texas Transportation Institute.[^3]

Funding does not entirely explain the situation. Between federal FY1997
to 2000, the obligation of federal highway funds increased by \$4
billion. Even with the record level of funding provided in TEA-21,
congestion has continued to get worse. Other needs, primarily the aging
of the highway infrastructure, are causing states and localities to make
significant investment in existing roadways.

Another reason transportation infrastructure has not kept up with demand
is due to citizen opposition to new roadway construction as the only
approach to resolving congestion. Concerns over the impact on the
environment, on the livability of communities, and the weariness of
construction seemingly everywhere have all served to redirect many
citizens' thinking to include a broader, more comprehensive approach
than just building new highway capacity to address congestion.

Clearly supply and demand are moving at drastically different paces,
causing congestion to increase in our urban areas.

-   **Demands of a Changing Economy**

Freight volumes are up due in part to the demands of a changing economy.
Truck miles increased 35 percent between 1992 and 1997[^4] and are
forecast to approximately double over the next twenty to twenty-five
years. This is the result of freight shifting to high volume, smaller
shipments to meet low inventory production and distribution
requirements. In today's economy, the warehouse is often a truck *on*
the highway system rather than a building *along* the highway.

The globalization of trade is expected to lead to a doubling or tripling
of freight volumes through our international ports by 2020.[^5] Because
waterborne freight uses multiple transportation modes to reach its final
destination, significant increases in waterborne freight have a major
impact on the rail and highway segments of the system. Efficient links
between each of these modes becomes ever more critical as ton-miles of
freight increase. With the largest container ports (i.e., LA/Long Beach,
New York, Seattle, Norfolk, Houston) located in major metropolitan
areas, the issue of moving goods efficiently becomes more of a
challenge. The populations of these areas already generate
proportionately more freight per person; congestion is already greater,
system capacity less, system reliability less, and system performance
less.

-   

-   Development patterns increase transportation demand

Figure 1 above shows the increase in vehicle miles traveled. With eighty
percent of the US population now living in metropolitan areas[^6], the
combination of this concentration and dispersed, segregated development
patterns is adding to congestion. Our metropolitan areas have the most
jurisdictions, the most people, the most trips, and the most freight.
This results in the concentration of more trips on a smaller portion of
the transportation system. Vehicle miles traveled in urban areas on the
major roadways represent 47 percent of total miles traveled on only 6
percent of the lane mileage on the major segments of the road
system.[^7]

The increase in density of use of our highway network causes greater
impact when accidents occur. More people are delayed; the overall impact
becomes greater. With greater congestion, reaching the scene of an
accident takes longer for emergency personnel. For every minute a lane
is closed, we can expect 4-5 minutes of traffic back up. A 15-minute
lane closure can cause a 1-hour back up, depending on traffic volumes.

Even as more and more of our population concentrates in our metropolitan
areas, development continues to spread out over ever more land. The
Philadelphia region is representative of this situation: population
increased 0.6 of one percent between 1990 and 1995, while the amount of
developed land increased over 5 percent.[^8] The separation between
residential, office, retail, and commercial land-uses, often required by
local zoning regulations, forces more miles to be driven, putting more
burden on the highway network. This pattern provides a portion of the
explanation for the growth in trips, in licensed drivers, and in vehicle
miles traveled.

Congestion is not only a problem in large cities. Those who attempted to
avoid urban congestion, by relocating their homes and businesses to
rural areas did not totally escape. Congestion is spreading to rural
areas, increasing 400percent between 1982 and 1997.

-   **Loss of Available Highway Capacity**

On top of these issues, the full capacity of the existing highway system
is not always available to meet the trip demands of the users.
Accidents, construction activity and weather all reduce the available
capacity of the highway network.

Accidents take their toll on traffic flow and human life. Based on the
2001 Urban Mobility Study of 68 metropolitan areas, incidents on the
highways cause 54 percent of peak period congestion, **higher** than for
recurring peak period travel.[^9] Almost a hundred thousand accidents a
year are attributable to red light running, resulting in 950
fatalities.[^10]

Second, the increase in spending has added to the amount of construction
on the existing network. Investment of federal highway funds for
reconstruction, resurfacing and widening of existing roads more than
doubled between 1995 and 1999.[^11] Add to this, construction from
utility work for water, sewer, and communications and the miles of
roadway that are affected grows.

The third major impact on available roadway capacity comes from serious
natural disaster/weather events such as flooding, earthquakes, winter
storms, etc. A new study published in *Science* indicates that the
Atlantic Seaboard faces the likelihood of stronger and more frequent
hurricanes. Capacity of the transportation system can be severely
limited during weather events or natural disasters. During Hurricane
Floyd, 3 million people were evacuated from Florida, Georgia, and North
and South Carolina. Travel times on a section of I-26 in South Carolina
reached 14 to 18 hours. Normal time is roughly 2 hours.

Another aspect of weather disruptions is winter storms. Seventy five
percent of our highway network is within the winter weather zone. The
economic impact of a shutdown due to weather is costly -- Iowa estimates
economic losses of \$32 million per day if the transportation system
shuts down.

Managing the existing capacity of the transportation system to ensure it
is available is a full time business. Coordination of many parties is
critical to minimize delays to people and shippers and improve response
time to accidents, saving lives.. This is not the routine today.

-   **Our Customers Have a Lot to Say About Traffic**

People have spoken out on congestion and they are not happy with the
current state of affairs. Responses to questions about satisfaction with
the nation's transportation system show that customers recognize
improvements in the physical conditions of our roads and bridges, in the
amenities and visual appeal of our highways, and in the safety of our
roadways. The one area where dissatisfaction grew between 1995 and 2000
is in traffic flow. The level of dissatisfaction grew from 23 percent to
43 percent over this period. [^12]

Our customers want transportation professionals to broaden their focus
and attention beyond road expansion. With less of an appetite for new
road construction, users of the transportation system have ideas on the
priorities and preferred approaches to addressing transportation
problems. They want transportation funds spent in areas that will
address traffic flow, safety, and work zone issues. They want road
repairs performed outside peak travel times, traffic signal timings
improved and routinely adjusted to reflect changing conditions,
accidents cleared more quickly, and use of contra flow travel lanes.
Using signage to show roadway delays and options, providing route
information to avoid congestion/delays, and locating tow trucks at key
locations for faster response are high priorities as well. To a lesser
degree, more travel lanes are seen as the solution.[^13] Customers want
more options such as expanded transit service and new bike and
pedestrian facilities. Simply stated, our customers want transportation
managers to operate the full component of transportation facilities and
services as a system to maximize capacity all day, every day. They want
less disruption, faster results, and more trip making choices.

Even as citizens are voicing concerns over the approach to managing the
transportation system, more and more experts have come to see that new
road expansions offer only a partial relief to the growing congestion
that people are experiencing every day. New roadways can improve travel
conditions for a period of time especially when new capacity is added at
a rate faster than the growth in vehicle miles traveled as long as no
new development is added. Few areas have been successful doing this. The
sixty-eight areas studied in the Texas Transportation Institute\'s 2001
Urban Mobility Study added less than fifty percent of the new road
capacity necessary to stay even with growth in travel. In some
metropolitan areas, there is simply no place to put new road capacity.

If building more roads to solve congestion is not the answer, then where
do we turn to address the problem? Customers have provided their views.
Sufficient technical evidence exists that demonstrates integrated
management of the components of the transportation system can improve
safety, reduce delays and decrease travel times. Congestion wouldn't be
eliminated, but the system would function more reliably than it does
today with full time, integrated management. What is keeping it from
happening?

-   **Culture and Approach to Operations in Surface Transportation
    Agencies**

The federal highway statutes (Title 23) and regulations are written to
support a construction agenda focused on capital projects. Most federal
funding categories are based on physical components of the highway
system -- the Interstate, the national highway system, bridges. Transit
programs emphasize capital construction over investments that support
operations. Federal transit operating assistance has been a contentious
issue for years and was recently eliminated for large transit agencies.

State and local transportation agencies remain oriented and organized
for a capital construction agenda following the emphasis of federal law
and regulation. The focus of planning activities is on capital projects,
responding to models that predict the timeframes for new capacity based
on population and employment projections. Construction plans are often
developed with little thought given to the length of time to complete
work and the resulting delays for customers. The mindset in many state
DOTs is that when construction ends the job is over. The focus of local
officials is often on filling potholes and responding to requests to
address individual issues. The broader needs of the transportation
system have rarely the object of an agency's focus.

As conditions have changed and technology advanced, so has the thinking
about what can be done to manage today's transportation system.
Importantly, the passage of ISTEA in 1991 and TEA --21 in 1998 set in
motion new emphasis on system preservation, on integrating
transportation investments into a community's fabric, and on linking
capital projects with long-range planning goals, including air quality
conformity. New programs have begun to shift the focus to system
performance and outcomes rather than physical construction -- Surface
Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Management/Air Quality,
Transportation Enhancements, Transportation & Community & System
Preservation (TCSP), and Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment
(ITS).

As we enter the 21^st^ century, there are some signs of change as new
technologies are deployed. The upgrading of signal systems, the
formation of incident management teams, the creation of transportation
management centers (TMC), the installation of freeway surveillance
systems, increased training are starting to occur. Automatic vehicle
locator systems are being installed and more traveler information is
available.

While progress is being made and momentum is building in the deployment
of new technologies, the culture of most surface transportation agencies
remains oriented toward capital construction rather than daily
operations. The focus of federal programs and regulations on
construction rather than management of the transportation system serves
to reinforce the culture. The mindset of the professionals is not, for
the most part, attentive to the immediacy of the operating environment
or the need for fast responses to daily operating issues. Nor is the
need for greater interaction with the wide array of customers of the
transportation network or the need for vastly more information for
managers as well as customers widely accepted. The capability for real
time decision-making and for pro-active management of a complex,
interrelated system depend on changing the current mindset.

Many challenges lie ahead if the transformation is to happen. Progress
to date has been uneven and is not moving at a rate that will enable the
transportation system to be managed on a day-to-day basis to maximize
available capacity any time soon.

-   **Slow Deployment**

Surveillance cameras on urban freeways and arterials are a fundamental
element of the necessary hardware for improving traffic flow. However,
only thirteen percent of urban freeway miles and one percent of urban
arterials have surveillance cameras installed. 

Speedy detection of incidents can save lives and reduce delays. Yet only
nine percent of urban freeway miles have been instrumented for incident
detection.[^14] At today's rate of progress, it will take between 25 and
40 years before the instrumentation of urban freeway miles is complete.
This is far too slow a rate to satisfy the customers of the system.

Automatic vehicle locator technology (AVL) can improve vehicle
deployment, provide schedule information to customers, and traffic flow
information to traffic managers, yet less than half of the 75 largest
metropolitan areas utilize AVL on fixed route bus vehicles.[^15] Even
when installed, only two percent of transit agencies share data from
probes with freeway and arterial management agencies.

While traffic signal systems are being upgraded, signals are retimed
more often on a demand basis rather than as part of a regular program to
maintain system performance.

Public safety agencies are a critical partner of transportation agencies
in managing the transportation system, however, less than five percent
of emergency vehicles have on-vehicle route guidance equipment
installed.

Deployment is occurring, but at a slow pace. Deployment is the easy part
of the task at hand. Simply installing the hardware and software won't
achieve the full benefits of the investment without new thinking and
training on what it means to manage the transportation system rather
than just build it. Shaping new partnerships to integrate
systems/service management and distributing the travel information
becoming available to the users of the system represent a significant
change in the business model for transportation agencies.

-   **Dispersed Responsibility**

A major hurdle to be overcome is the fragmented responsibility for
transportation operations throughout numerous state and local agencies.
The result is that no one agency "owns" the responsibility for operating
the full transportation system. State transportation agencies,
independent toll authorities, transit authorities, county and city
public works departments, state and local public safety agencies all
have responsibility for elements of the transportation system and its
operation. Lead responsibility for traffic incidents is most often a
public safety, not a transportation responsibility. Responsibility for
the freeway system is not likely to be with the same agency that is
responsible for the arterial system. To the customer, it is one network.
Today's organizational framework is ill suited to meet the needs of
today's customers.

While some progress has been made to improve the management of the
transportation network by individual agencies, few states or
metropolitan areas have standardized procedures and established
practices to aggressively clear incidents, share information, manage
weather/natural disaster related situations, work zone areas, or
expedite transit service and public safety response. Fully integrated
operations are limited primarily to major events in most areas. Once the
event is over, everyone returns to their regular routine.

Under the current dispersed management structure, it may not be possible
to create a seamless management process for the transportation system.
There are multiple agencies involved in managing some aspect of the
transportation system. This requires that numerous interrelationships
must exist if information is to be used effectively in managing the
transportation system.

Systematic approaches to the idea of multi-jurisdiction management of a
multimodal transportation system have yet to take hold. Empowering
workers to develop strong information sharing protocols and operating
procedures has not yet become the norm. Overcoming the separate "silo"
mentality requires leadership and commitment from transportation
agencies.

-   **Lack of Operations Focus**

The federal emphasis on capital investment has helped to form the
culture within transportation agencies that emphasizes construction over
management. The pressure to utilize federal funds and obligation
authority often creates situations where there are no resources to
improve the day-to-day operating programs. A good example is the
retiming of traffic signals. The majority of agencies responsible for
signal systems either do not have a regular program to maintain signal
timings or do it so infrequently that the benefit is lost. A regular
retiming program costs money and/or requires staff. Adding positions for
operations is usually difficult in the political environments of state
and local governments even if federal funds are utilized.

The general focus on construction has tended to minimize the attention
given to traffic management in work zones. The lack of focus on the
customer minimizes attention given to construction schedules. The
increase in construction activity on existing highways has put a premium
on improving the planning for traffic mitigation during construction and
on paying greater attention to reducing construction schedules.

While the use of the transportation system is not restricted to a 9 to 5
schedule -- most roadway agencies continue to work regular daytime
hours. Transit agencies recognize the need to operate around the clock
to deliver their services. This mindset has yet to take hold in agencies
charged with roadway responsibilities. The customer expects the road to
be available for the morning peak period. Being able to clear an
incident before the morning peak period often requires rapid response
during off hours. Thinking in terms of a 24/7 operation is not standard
operating practice in most state and local roadway agencies.

Finally, in the development of a capital program, transportation
agencies and many of their stakeholders are often pre-occupied with
roadway capacity projects which tends to lower the priority given to
investments which improve the operation of a facility or service such as
ramp metering, reversible lanes and temporary use of shoulders, new fare
collection systems. Techniques such these can improve system performance
during peak periods and surges in demand, but they are not widely used.
Ramp meters are utilized in only 20 of the 75 largest metropolitan
areas, and only 11 of those have centralized control capability. Very
few metropolitan areas provide transit or emergency vehicle priority at
ramp meters. All of these actions can have positive results on improving
the flow of traffic and in moving more people.

Raising the priority for managing the transportation system requires new
thinking on the deployment of resources, both fiscal and personnel, and
on ensuring the capacity is available to meet the demand all day, every
day.

-   **Inadequate Information**

Information is a mission critical element in managing a multi-agency,
multimodal transportation system. Few agencies have adequate real-time
information to monitor system operations (i.e., knowledge of where an
accident is or where transit vehicles are in the system), or to analyze
and track the performance of the system.

There remain large gaps in the percent of the system covered and in the
density and reliability of the data. Without data density or assurance
of the accuracy and timeliness of data, neither transportation managers
nor system users can maximize the use of the system. These gaps affect
the ability to capture reliable travel speed and time, transit schedule
adherence, vehicle classification, occupancy, and location data, and
weather conditions. Absent the full array of data, it is impossible to
maximize the capacity of the existing infrastructure.

Information is a critical link between the numerous, separate agencies
involved in managing parts of the system. Even when the information is
available, it is not regularly or routinely distributed to those with
responsibilities affecting the capacity of the road network or to the
users of the system. Just thirty percent of freeway management agencies
share with agencies managing the arterial systems. Agencies responsible
for arterial management have a very low rate of sharing information with
others, possibly because they do not have it to share. Incident
management centers do not receive incident information reliably or
routinely from entities on site at incidents. Sharing of information
between transit agencies and other transportation agencies is very weak.

While the availability of information for system users has increased
over the past few years, the opportunities in the area of traveler
information technology have yet to be fully realized. Less than one
quarter of the 75 largest metropolitan areas convey freeway conditions
to the public. Customers have made their desire for current real-time
information well known. Visits to traffic cameras on web sites have
grown tremendously where it is available. With reliable information on
congestion, customers are in a position to decide how to avoid it.
Putting decision-making ability in the hands of the customer is a
critical aspect of the culture change that needs to take place. The
customer often knows better how to avoid congestion than the technician
in a transportation management center.

A system is only as good as its weakest link. Individual operating
agencies cannot maximize the performance of the overall system absent
the necessary data, full sharing of the data, and integrated management.

-   **Transforming Transportation**

Customers of the transportation system are growing frustrated and want
improvements. In survey after survey, customers have made the case for a
new approach.

Bottom line -- if transportation agencies are going to satisfy the
customers of the transportation system, transportation managers have to
move from today's project-based institutional and programmatic focus to
a new model that puts a premium on using technology to manage the
operation of the transportation system, just as private businesses have
transformed their operations to produce greater efficiency and respond
to customers' needs.

Much needs to change. The culture developed over time in our
transportation agencies has built the best transportation system in the
world; the realities of today's world -- congestion predicted to grow to
crisis proportions, significant customer dissatisfaction, funding
shortfalls, environmental limitations - require a cultural shift to take
on a new challenge -- managing the operation of today's system to
maximize overall efficiency and meet customer expectations. Changes in
federal law to establish the priority of managing the system as well as
building it will be necessary. Changes in transportation programs,
organizations, processes need to be made if congestion is to be managed
effectively.

The challenge for the public sector managers of the nation's
transportation system is significant - to alter their thinking about how
to manage the travel needs of America and to include the customer as the
focal point of operating a complex, integrated system made up of many
modes.

Without fundamental changes in the approach to addressing congestion,
the crisis will grow to more gridlock, more lost time, more wasted fuel,
more angry customers.

-   **Implementing Changes to Improve Performance**

Today's conditions call for more than incremental shifts. As noted in
*New Paradigms for Local Public Transportation Organizations,*
"Incrementalism is innovation's worst enemy."[^16] Piecemeal actions
minimize payback on new technology investments. Linking technology
deployment to new approaches in managing the operation of multiple
systems/services, and making use of the data generated by technology all
fit together as a package of strategies and actions. They are
interdependent upon one another. Taken together they can produce the
kind of results customers want. The opportunity to manage the use of the
transportation network in new ways has never been better, or the need
greater. Are public sector transportation managers prepared to move from
today's status to a new model?

As times change, so must the underlying drivers of the policies and
programs that have been put in place at the federal, state, and local
levels of government. Much remains to be done.

-   Deploy Technology

Technology investments are tools to reshape the approach to managing the
operation of the multi-jurisdiction, multimodal transportation system.
Without the hardware and software, it is not possible to gather the data
for use in real-time operations management.

Through aggressive, focused investment in core hardware and software to
gather data, and by establishing communications protocols between
multiple players and customers, the foundation can be put in place to
manage the transportation system real-time every

day, all day to maximize existing capacity. Examples of what it will
take are laid out below.

-   Collect comprehensive, real-time, and accurate data

Deploy a network of detectors and surveillance equipment with capability
to monitor roadway and transit system operating status and measure
actual performance through the capture of travel time, speed, delay,
volume and classification data, vehicle occupancy, passenger counts,
boardings and disembarkments;

-   Provide real-time traffic adaptive capability

Upgrade traffic signal systems to allow immediate response to traffic
flow conditions and improvement in overall traffic flow;

-   Enable data sharing among system managers and users

Install communications capacity linking all system managers; provide
multiple outlets to distribute information to customers;

-   Speed up accident response and improve fleet utilization

Use of automatic vehicle location technology in public and private
vehicles;

-   Provide current and predicted weather conditions

Implement weather monitoring technology to improve system operation and
deployment of personnel and equipment;

-   Maximize vehicle productivity for public safety, transit, public
    works agencies

Implement computer aided dispatch and route guidance capability;

-   Ease customer transactions

Install interoperable electronic fare media and toll capability.

Technology is the tool that has enabled the transformation of
businesses, gaining efficiencies through cutting costs, focusing on
customer satisfaction, and monitoring and tracking performance. Simply
investing in technology, however, won't improve the operation of the
transportation system; creating new institutional relationships;
defining shared management responsibility for traffic operations;
redesigning processes, procedures and programs are all critical if the
technology investment is to fulfill its potential.

-   Managing System Operations

Elevating the priority of managing an integrated transportation system
by public safety and transportation personnel can improve system
performance. Few metropolitan areas have achieved fully integrated
operations. What institutional and program/process changes are needed to
make it happen?

-   Make operations a core business priority with high visibility and
    integration

Through strong leadership establish the vision of operations and broaden
the focus from capital construction to encompass management of the
transportation network;

-   Develop a regional vision of operations

Reach agreement across agency lines on a common agenda, including
understanding of agencies' missions and cultures;

-   Integrate management of all elements of regional transportation
    system

Through regional transportation management partnerships empower all
agencies with clear authority and accountability to operate the
transportation system; include state transportation, local highway,
transit, information technology, and public safety personnel; share
resources and information among agencies; and pool funding across
agencies to achieve broader goals;

-   Speed the clearance of incidents, reduce delays and build customer
    satisfaction

Institute ongoing program to routinely retime traffic signals; operate
service patrols to aid motorists during critical travel periods; reduce
construction timelines through improved project scheduling; implement
programs to improve traffic flow in work zones.

Through a series of management and procedural changes, the focus within
transportation agencies can shift to encompass operations as a core
aspect of an agency's mission. Accomplishing this shift will require
upgrades in skills, shifting existing or allocating new funds to support
added operational responsibilities, flexibility in work hours, and
revisions to manuals/policies. Strong agency leadership will be
necessary to accomplish this change in mindset and culture.

-   **Utilize Travel Information**

The availability of real-time information is an important component in
making the transportation system work better for everyone. Information
allows transportation managers to provide accurate congestion reports
and transit schedule adherence information to customers, and to
determine the location of accidents and chart alternate routes for users
of the system. With reliable information, travelers, shippers, and
carriers can eliminate uncertainty, make trip decisions to avoid
congestion rather than make it worse, and gain some control over their
time. Information is at the heart of the ability to manage a
transportation system.

-   Allow managers to operate the system dynamically

Collect and share current status on traffic flow, transit schedules,
incidents, and weather conditions, through video, surveillance and
detector equipment installed on major routes and alternates;

-   Speed up response to public safety situations, improve
    decision-making, resource deployment, and overall network
    performance

Routinely share information among agencies;

-   Inform system users of current conditions/options

Provide frequent updates on current status of incidents, transit
schedule adherence, point-to-point travel times and speeds, dynamic
route guidance, weather conditions affecting travel; utilize multiple
outlets to make information available - e-mail, Internet, TV, radio,
cable TV, transit stops/stations, work sites, ports, regional 511
traveler information, pagers, cell phones, PDAs, kiosks at major venues
(shopping malls, stadia, entertainment, service plazas);

-   Operate separate elements as a seamless system

Expand information links to include port and airport facilities, parking
facilities, intercity train and bus services to include all parts of
trip chain;

-   Focus on the customer

Provide mechanisms for customers to communicate feedback

on traffic/transit issues such as signals, bottlenecks, signage,
schedules;

measure customer satisfaction through regular surveys on the operation
of the all components of the transportation system - roads, transit,
bike, pedestrian, freight movement.

-   **Producing Results**

> The potential payoff from the systemic changes in managing the
> transportation system is significant. Evidence indicates that improved
> travel times, reduced delays, fewer incidents, faster emergency
> response, and more travel choices, are some of the results of
> effective operation of the transportation system. Customers are
> looking for these results.
>
> A few representative examples provide the evidence that a focused
> approach to operations produces real, measurable results.

-   Faster travel times; reduced travel delays

\- Results reported from the Los Angeles advanced traffic control
systems include an 18 percent reduction in travel time and a 44 percent
decrease in delay;

\- Simulations of integrated freeway and arterial management in Fargo,
North Dakota showed an 18 percent reduction in travel time and 21
percent increase in travel speed during incidents;[^17]

\- Portland, Oregon reduced bus travel times between 5 percent and 8
percent by integrating a bus priority system with the traffic signal
system;

\- Georgia's "Navigator" system reduced incident duration by
twenty-three minutes resulting in shorter delay times;

-   Greater safety and security

\- Fairfax City, VA reports a 35 percent reduction in accidents from a
red light enforcement program;

\- With the help of a computer-aided dispatch system, Albuquerque, NM
ambulance services increased their operating efficiency by 10 percent to
15 percent;

\- National surveys measuring the impact of ramp metering show a
reduction in crashes between 15-50 percent;

\- Data from automated pedestrian detection at intersections in Los
Angeles, Rochester, and Phoenix indicate major reductions in conflicts
during crossing of 81 percent for the first half of the crossing, 42
percent for the second half, and 40 percent for right turn conflicts
mostly by extending the crossing for pedestrians;

-   Improved operating efficiency

\- New York MTA expects to save \$70 million per year from fare evasion
and add \$49 million in revenue from new riders;

\- Ventura County, CA realized almost \$10 million in annual cost
savings from an advanced fare collection system;

-   Greater customer satisfaction

\- The Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information
System (ARTIMIS) in northern Kentucky and the Cincinnati metropolitan
area allows customers to avoid traffic problems, choose another route,
reduce stress and frustration;

\- Red light enforcement programs receive widespread customer support in
surveys;

-   Denver RTD's AVL system helped improve schedule adherence and
    resulted in reduced customer complaints.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Transforming to Improve System Performance and Customer Satisfaction

The areas that have implemented aspects of an operations program to
manage the transportation network have seen the positive results.
Producing results will enhance customer satisfaction and improve the
operation of the nation's transportation systems/services.

Building on successful operations, accelerating the pace of change and
committing to a broader mandate that includes
managing/operating/integrating as well as construction of the
transportation system will provide positive results for both the users
and the managers of the roads, transit systems, rail networks, and
ports. Public safety response will improve; accidents will decline.
Optimizing existing systems/services will provide more capacity; traffic
will flow more reliably; better management of project schedules will
shorten project timelines and reduce disruptions; better information in
work zones will improve safety; travel condition and schedule
information will give customers more trip choice; road rage will
diminish. Overall delays will be down and satisfaction will be up. The
economy will be more competitive. Air quality will improve. Our
communities will benefit.

Traffic congestion is a rising concern

Congestion is an issue that cannot be ignored. Adjusting the core
business model of surface transportation agencies to include fully
integrating the management of the transportation network represents a
change in mindset for many transportation managers. Satisfying the many
customers who use and depend on the transportation system requires this
kind of paradigm shift.

**Source Documents**

1.  *Tracking the Deployment of the Integrated Metropolitan Intelligent
    Transportation Systems Infrastructure in the USA: FY 2000 Results*,
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Science Applications International
    Corporation, July 2001

2.  *Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits: 1999 and 2001
    Updates*, Mitretek Systems, Inc.

3.  *2001 Urban Mobility Study*, Texas Transportation Institute, May,
    2001

4.  *Moving Ahead, The American Public Speaks on Roadways and
    Transportation in Communities*, Federal Highway Administration,
    February, 2001

5.  *New Paradigms for Local Public Transportation Organizations, TCRP*
    *Report 58, Task 5 Report,* Transportation Research Board, National
    Research Council

[^1]: *2001 Urban Mobility Study*, Press Release, Texas Transportation
    Institute, May 7, 2001

[^2]: *Moving Ahead*, Federal Highway Administration, p. 8

[^3]: *2001 Urban Mobility Study,* Texas Transportation Institute, p 11

[^4]: US Census, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey, EC97TV-US

[^5]: *An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report
    to Congress,* U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime
    Administration. 1999, Washington, D.C.

[^6]: *Statistical Abstract: 2000,* US Census, p. 31

[^7]: 1999 Highway Statistics, Tables HM-60 and VM-2

[^8]: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Council, Regional Indicators,
    October, 2000

[^9]: *2001 Urban Mobility Study*, Texas Transportation Institute, Table
    A-6, Annual Hours of Delay, 1999

[^10]: FHWA website, Red Light Running Facts and Data

[^11]: 1999 Highway Statistics, Page IV-41

[^12]: *Moving Ahead,* Federal Highway Administration, p. 7

[^13]: *Moving Ahead*, Federal Highway Administration*,* p. 20

[^14]: Based on 75 largest metropolitan areas.

[^15]: *Tracking the Deployment of the Integrated Metropolitan
    Intelligent Systems Infrastructure in the USA: FY 2000 Results*, p.
    26

[^16]: TCRP 58, Task 5 Report, p. A-2, Nicholas Negroponte/MIT Media
    Lab, cited in Peters, p. 26)

[^17]: Brist, Shawn and Ayman Smadi, "An Evaluation of ITS for Incident
    Management in Second Tier Cities: A Fargo, ND Case Study , ITE 2000
    Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, August, 2000 (Mitretek 2001 Report)