Advancing Metropolitan Planning 

for Operations 

An Objectives-Driven,

Performance-Based Approach 

A Guidebook 
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that

promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and

maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to

ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

7. Author(s)

17. Key Words

19. Security Clasif. (of this report)

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

20. Security Clasif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 21. Price

4. Title and Subtitle

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

5. Report Date

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

6. Performing Organization Code

11. Contract or Grant No.

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

18. Distribution Statement

FHWA-HOP-10-026

Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: An Objectives-Driven, 

Performance-Based Approach

A Guidebook

Mr. Richard Backlund, Federal Highway Administration, COTM

This guidebook presents an approach for integrating management and operations (M&O) strategies into the metropolitan 

transportation planning process that is designed to maximize the performance of the existing and planned transportation 

system. This approach is recommended as a means to meet Federal transportation planning requirements for promoting 

effi cient system management and operations and implementing a congestion management process (CMP). The approach 

is driven by operations objectives for the regional transportation system and performance measures for achieving those 

objectives. The MTP resulting from this approach contains specifi c, measurable operations objectives, performance measures, and M&O strategies that directly infl uence the projects selected for the transportation improvement program (TIP). 

This approach not only helps fulfi ll Federal planning requirements, but also results in an MTP that is a better able to meet 

customer needs, creating a more optimal mix of transportation investments 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102

ICF International, Inc.

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Michael Grant (ICF), Jocelyn Bauer (SAIC), Terence Plaskon (ICF), John Mason (SAIC)

Metropolitan transportation planning, MPO, management 

and operations, operations objectives, performancebased planning, operational strategies, performance 

measures, congestion management process

No restrictions.

Unclassifi ed Unclassifi ed 80 N/A

February 2010

DTFH61-06-D-00005

HOP

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

January 2009 - February 2010

In Reply Refer To: 

HOTM-1

Dear Colleague,

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Offi ce of Planning, Environment, and Realty, 

Offi ce of Operations, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Offi ce of Planning and 

Environment, along with professionals in the planning and operations communities nationwide, 

are pleased to present three signifi cant new products that work together to advance an outcomesdriven, performance-based approach in the area of Planning for Operations. These three products, 

“Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based 

Approach – A Guidebook,” “Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: The Building 

Blocks of a Model Transportation Plan Incorporating Operations – A Desk Reference,” and 

“Statewide Opportunities for Integrating Operations, Safety, and Multimodal Planning: A 

Reference Manual” have been developed to act as a companion package of documents and refl ect 

the strong continuing collaboration among FHWA, FTA, and professionals in the planning and 

operations communities nationwide. 

The Advancing Planning for Operations Guidebook provides an approach focused on 

operations outcomes that metropolitan area transportation planners and operators can utilize 

to advance performance-driven regional thinking for metropolitan areas. This Guidebook 

utilizes requirements for the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and Management and 

Operations that are contained in the Federal legislation, “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi cient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU). 

The Model Transportation Plan Desk Reference is intended to be a “toolbox” document that 

provides to planners and operators types of possible operations objectives, with associated 

performance measures, data needs, and strategies, that a metropolitan area can utilize as a 

starting point towards advancing Planning for Operations in their area. In addition to providing 

types of operations objectives to advance, the document includes an illustrative plan to 

visually show “how the pieces fi t together,” incorporating outcomes-driven operations into 

the metropolitan planning process. This document was developed in close collaboration with 

a number of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) from across the country and it is 

intended to be an easily accessible reference document. 

The Statewide Opportunities Reference Manual is designed to assist managers and staff within 

State DOTs to integrate their functions and to partner with other agencies, such as metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs), transit agencies, and local jurisdictions to more effectively 

integrate operations, safety, and planning. Specifi cally, this manual is designed as a “how to” 

reference that provides practical information on implementing these opportunities, and case 
study examples with “toolkits” to help get started. This document also expands the focus of 

integration to include planning, operations, and safety in a multimodal context. This document 

was developed working closely with the support of a number of State DOT organizations, as well 

as AASHTO, to create a product that is intended to be a readily accessible resource document for 

promoting this Statewide collaboration.

Each of these three documents can be viewed electronically by visiting our U.S. DOT website on 

Planning for Operations at “http://www.plan4operations.dot.gov.” On this website one can also 

fi nd additional associated resources for advancing an outcomes-driven, performance-based approach as part of the Planning for Operations program. 

We look forward to receiving your feedback, reactions, and experiences in implementing this 

concept and utilizing these resources. Please direct any comments, questions, and suggestions to 

any of the following members of our staff:

 Richard E. Backlund at richard.backlund@dot.gov, 202-366-8333;

 Egan Smith at egan.smith@dot.gov, 202-366-6072; or

 John Sprowls at john.sprowls@dot.gov, 202-366-5362.

 Sincerely yours,
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Motivation for Advancing Operations in Metropolitan Transportation Planning .........................1-1

1.2 What is Planning for Operations? .................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Federal Requirements ....................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Creating an Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations ........1-5

1.5 Guidebook Organization ...............................................................................................................1-6

2.0 AN OBJECTIVES-DRIVEN, PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR

 OPERATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Rationale for a New Approach ......................................................................................................2-1

2.2 The Approach ................................................................................................................................2-3

2.3 Relationship to the Congestion Management Process ..................................................................2-5

3.0 DEVELOPING OPERATIONS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................3-1

3.1 Develop Operations Goals ............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Develop Operations Objectives .....................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Operations Objectives Are Scalable ..............................................................................................3-4

4.0 DEVELOPING PERFORMANCE MEASURES, ASSESSING NEEDS, AND SELECTING

 STRATEGIES ...........................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Operations Objectives Lead to Performance Measures ................................................................4-1

4.2 Develop Performance Measures....................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Use Performance Measures to Determine Operational Needs ......................................................4-6

4.4 Identify and Evaluate Strategies ....................................................................................................4-8

5.0 RESULTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND PROJECTS ......................................................................5-1

5.1 The Resulting Metropolitan Transportation Plan and TIP ............................................................5-1

5.2 Benefi ts of the Resulting Plan and TIP .........................................................................................5-3

6.0 ONGOING MONITORING AND EVALUATION................................................................................6-1

6.1 The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Approach .............................................................6-1

6.2 Aspects of Monitoring and Evaluation ..........................................................................................6-2

6.3 Collecting Data for Evaluation Studies .........................................................................................6-5

7.0 MOVING FORWARD THROUGH REGIONAL COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION ..7-1

7.1 The Role of Regional Coordination and Collaboration in the Approach ......................................7-1

7.2 Who is Involved? ..........................................................................................................................7-1

7.3 How to Engage Participants ..........................................................................................................7-2

7.4 Tools to Advance the Approach.....................................................................................................7-4

7.5 Engage Elected Offi cials and the Public .......................................................................................7-6 
8.0 GETTING STARTED ..............................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Steps to Getting Started: Planning for Operations Using the Approach .......................................8-1

8.2 Self-Assessment ............................................................................................................................8-2

APPENDIX A. SAFETEA-LU REQUIREMENTS .....................................................................................A-1

1.0 Management & Operations in the Planning Process ....................................................................A-1

2.0 Transportation Systems Management and Operations .................................................................A-2

3.0 Congestion Management Process ................................................................................................A-3

APPENDIX B. COMPONENTS OF THE CMP .......................................................................................... B-1

1.0 Developing a CMP: The “8 Steps” .............................................................................................. B-1

2.0 Beyond the “8 Steps” ................................................................................................................... B-2

3.0 Other Considerations .................................................................................................................... B-3

APPENDIX C. APPLICATIONS OF THE APPROACH ...........................................................................C-1

1.0 Linking Planning and NEPA ........................................................................................................ C-1

2.0 Freight Planning ........................................................................................................................... C-4

3.0 Safety Planning ............................................................................................................................ C-4

4.0 Land Use Integration .................................................................................................................... C-4

APPENDIX D. OPERATIONS OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN PRIVATE AND

PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................................................D-1
Figure 1. An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations ........................viii

Figure 2. Sources of Congestion .....................................................................................................................1-1

Figure 3. M&O and CMP in the Context of Metropolitan Transportation Planning Requirements ...............1-4

Figure 4. An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations ........................2-4

Figure 5. A Metropolitan Transportation Plan Resulting from the Approach Includes Goals,

 Operations Objectives, Performance Measures, and M&O Strategies ............................................5-2

Figure 6. The 8-Step Framework for the CMP .............................................................................................. B-1

FIGURES

Table 1. Guidebook Organization by Section and Description .....................................................................1-6

Table 2. Operations Objectives Motivated by Signifi cant Issues in the Region ...........................................3-4

Table 3. Example of Operations Objectives Applied in the Planning Process ..............................................4-2

Table 4. Data Collection Methods for Evaluating Transportation Strategies ................................................6-5

Table 5. Assessment Tool to Measure Integration of an Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based

 Approach .........................................................................................................................................8-3

TABLES
ACRONYMS

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

CMP Congestion Management Process

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

M&O Management and Operations

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

RCTO Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

SMART Specifi c, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-Bound

TIM Traffi c Incident Management

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TMA Transportation Management Area

TSM&O Transportation Systems Management and Operations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary | ix

The objectives may relate to issues such as recurring 

and non-recurring congestion, access to traveler information, emergency response, incident management, 

and transit operations, among others. A plan developed 

using an objectives-driven, performance-based approach for operations provides a direct connection between operations objectives and project selection. The 

CMP, guided by specifi c objectives and integrated into 

the planning process, is an example of this systematic 

approach. In some regions, the objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach for integrating operations into the plan may be performed within the CMP. 

As illustrated in Figure 1, an objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach to planning for operations within a metropolitan area includes the following 

activities, which are performed collaboratively among 

planners, operators, and other stakeholders:

• Establish one or more goals within the MTP that 

focus on the effi cient management and operation of the transportation system.

• Develop regional operations objectives for the 

MTP – specifi c, measurable statements of performance – that will lead to accomplishing the 

goal or goals.

• Use a systematic process to develop performance measures, analyze transportation performance issues, and recommend M&O strategies.

• Select M&O strategies within fi scal constraints to meet operations objectives for 

inclusion in the metropolitan transportation 

plan (MTP) and transportation improvement 

program (TIP).

• Implement M&O strategies including program 

investments, collaborative activities, and projects.

• Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented strategies and track progress toward 

meeting regional operations objectives.

The pressures of a rapidly changing world require 

that we optimize the use of our existing and planned 

transportation infrastructure. Demand for travel has 

increased dramatically over the past 20 years, resulting 

in congestion that steals approximately 6 billion hours 

of time away from Americans each year.1

 Businesses 

are constantly challenged by the need to move freight 

quickly on congested roads and rails, which results in 

increases in the cost of doing business in the United 

States. Effective transportation solutions are needed 

to remain competitive in a global economy, address 

climate change, and meet transportation system user 

expectations. The public is increasingly calling for 

greater Government transparency, travel options, and 

information to make travel decisions. 

Addressing these needs requires a new way of doing 

business. This guidebook presents an approach for 

integrating management and operations (M&O) strategies into the metropolitan transportation planning 

process that is designed to maximize the performance 

of the existing and planned transportation system. 

M&O strategies include a broad range of activities, 

such as traveler information dissemination, traffi c 

signal coordination, incident management, and transit 

systems management. By planning for and investing in strategies to manage and operate the existing 

infrastructure, regions can use what they have more 

effi ciently and improve mobility for the public during 

both daily operations and emergencies. This approach 

is recommended as a means to meet Federal transportation planning requirements for promoting “effi cient 

system management and operations” and implementing a congestion management process (CMP), which 

is required in Transportation Management Areas 

(TMA).

The approach is driven by specifi c operations objectives for the regional transportation system and performance measures for achieving those objectives. These 

operations objectives and performance measures 

are developed for and contained in the metropolitan 

transportation plan (MTP). Operations objectives 

provide specifi c, measurable, agreed-upon statements 

of system performance that can be tracked on the 

regional level and will inform investment decisions.

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, “Focus on Congestion Relief: Traffi c Congestion Factoids.”

Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/factoids.htm, last accessed July 16, 2009. 
x | Executive Summary

This approach is iterative, with monitoring and evaluation used to refi ne and adjust operations objectives over 

time. Coordination and collaboration between planners 

and operators is a critical component of the approach, 

which supports the development of agreed-upon regional operations objectives, identifi cation of strategies, and 

monitoring and evaluation of system performance. The 

commitment of operators in the region to support the 

achievement of the operations objectives is vital. The 

operations objectives not only reside in the metropolitan 

transportation plan, but also must be incorporated into 

the priorities of the operating agencies in the region. 

Decisionmakers within operating agencies in the region 

must be involved in the development of the operations 

objectives. 

The benefi ts of this objectives-driven, performancebased approach to planning for operations include:

• A metropolitan transportation plan that illustrates the inclusion of specifi c, measurable, and 

agreed-upon operations objectives and shows 

the ties of these objectives to resource allocations in the document. 

• A closer tie between specifi c, desired outcomes 

and resource allocation.

• Increased accountability and communication 

with the public and stakeholders through performance measurement.

• Engagement of the operations community, as 

well as law enforcement, freight, and the private 

sector, in setting objectives and measuring performance.

• A focus on both short-range and long-range 

needs related to the operation of the transportation system in the MTP.

The MTP resulting from this approach contains specifi c, measurable operations objectives, performance 

measures, and M&O strategies that directly infl uence 

the projects selected for the transportation improvement program (TIP). This approach not only helps 

fulfi ll Federal planning requirements, but also results 

in an MTP that is a better able to meet customer needs, 

creating a more optimal mix of transportation investments.

Define performance measures

Determine operations needs

Identify M&O strategies

Evaluate M&O strategies

Select M&O strategies for the plan

Regional goals and motivation

Operations objectives

Monitoring and evaluation

Metropolitan transportation plan

Implementation

M&O strategies CMP uses this

approach with a focus

on congestion

Systematic process to develop and 

select M&O strategies to meet objectives

Transportation improvement program and 

other funding programs

Figure 1. An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Introduction | 1-1

1.1 Motivation for Advancing

Operations in Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning

The pressures of a rapidly changing world require 

that we optimize the use of our existing and planned 

transportation infrastructure. Traffi c congestion continues to challenge urban areas of all sizes across the 

country, taking approximately 6 billion hours of time 

away from Americans each year.2

 Freight is tied up on 

the roads and rails, increasing the cost of doing business in the United States. The call to address climate 

change is becoming more urgent, and effective multimodal solutions are needed to remain competitive 

in a global economy. With increased communications 

technologies, travelers expect to have more choices 

for travel and better information to use to make those 

choices. Additionally, the public is demanding increased Government accountability and transparency. 

The public expects that traffi c signals be coordinated, 

and technology is being used effectively to optimize 

system performance across geographic and 

jurisdictional boundaries. The public also demands 

increased reliability from transit services and accurate 

information to make choices in travel modes, 

routes, and times. With homeland security concerns 

as well as natural disasters, effi cient emergency 

response and evacuations are critical, and rely upon 

effective coordination and communication between 

transportation agencies and law enforcement. It 

is estimated that more than half of congestion 

experienced by travelers is caused by non-recurring 

events, such as weather conditions (e.g., snow, ice, 

rain); work zones; special events; and major incidents 

and emergencies that are not typically taken into 

account in the traditional metropolitan transportation 

planning process (see Figure 2).3

 All of these factors 

are putting more emphasis on operations strategies 

that optimize transportation system performance and 

provide near-term, cost-effective solutions to get the 

most out of our transportation system. 

Traditionally, the metropolitan transportation planning 

process has sought to address the performance of our 

transportation system by primarily identifying longrange project needs rather than addressing the short- to 

medium-range issues associated with transportation system operations. Although management and 

operations (M&O) strategies are increasingly being 

recognized as important by transportation planners 

and operators today, in most regions the metropolitan 

transportation plan (MTP) still tends to be largely 

“project-focused,” and it is often diffi cult to clearly 

identify M&O strategies in the plan. Moreover, while 

the MTP typically includes a range of goals, there is 

limited development of measurable regional operations objectives and tracking of actual system performance against those objectives.

Addressing these needs and others requires a new 

way of doing business – a strategic and informed 

approach to planning for operations.

Special Events / Other

(5%)

Bottlenecks

(40%)

Traffic Incidents

(25%)

Work Zones

(10%)

Bad Weather

(15%)

Poor Signal Timing

(5%)

Figure 2. Sources of Congestion

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, “Focus on Congestion Relief: Traffi c Congestion Factoids.” Available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/factoids.htm, last accessed July 16, 2009.

3 The graph shown in Figure 2 is taken from the recent FHWA publication, “Traffi c Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems,” and provides rough approximations based on many past and ongoing congestion research studies. This graph roughly shows 

the contribution of each factor to congestion.
1-2 | Introduction

This guidebook provides the foundation for integrating operations in the metropolitan transportation planning process using an objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach (also referred to as 

“the approach”). It is designed to assist metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs) in meeting Federal 

requirements under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) calling both for M&O strategies to be incorporated into the MTP and for larger 

MPOs to implement a congestion management 

process (CMP). The guidebook highlights effective 

practices in planning for operations that result in an 

MTP with a more optimal mix of infrastructure and 

operational strategies.

This guidebook is intended for those professionals involved in the metropolitan transportation 

planning process at MPOs, State Departments of 

Transportation (DOT), transit agencies, or other 

operating agencies across the country. The recommended approach applies to all stakeholders; it recognizes their diverse roles and responsibilities, and 

appreciates their commonly held goal: to improve the 

performance of our transportation system.

1.2 What is Planning for

Operations?

“Planning for operations” is a joint effort between 

planners and operators to support improved regional 

transportation system management and operations. 

This term encompasses a variety of activities that 

lead to improved transportation system operations, 

including the consideration of M&O strategies in 

the transportation planning process. Planning for 

operations also includes collaboration among transportation system operators, transit agencies, highway agencies, toll authorities, local governments, 

and others to facilitate improved transportation 

system operations and to ensure that transportation 

services are delivered in as safe, reliable, and secure 

a manner as possible. Oftentimes, this collaboration 

is carried out in the context of a regional planning 

agency and is connected to the planning process. In 

this guidebook, planning for operations will focus 

on those activities performed in the context of the 

metropolitan transportation planning process to 

advance regional operations in the MTP. 

Planning for operations in the metropolitan transportation planning process means developing 

operations objectives to direct the consideration 

of operational performance during the planning 

process and incorporating operations solutions into 

investment decisions that support the operations 

objectives. This approach ensures that operations 

needs are addressed in regional planning and investment decisions. 

Operations managers are engaged in the planning process so that system performance concerns 

or challenges and potential operations strategies 

inform and infl uence the development of the metropolitan transportation plan. Operator involvement further ensures that operations informs and 

infl uences the planning process so that operations 

considerations are refl ected in regional transportation plans. This results in a mix of operations and 

capital projects that optimizes transportation system 

performance. 

While certain activities associated with planning for 

operations are already occurring in many metropolitan areas throughout the country, the challenges 

discussed above are motivating increased attention 

to incorporating M&O strategies more effectively 

into metropolitan transportation plans. 

Management & Operations Strategies

An effective transportation system requires not only 

a highway and transit infrastructure for the traveling 

public and the movement of freight, it also requires 

the effi cient and coordinated operation of the regional transportation network to improve system 

effi ciency, reliability, and safety.

M&O strategies focus on optimizing the performance 

of the multimodal transportation system and include 

a broad range of activities, such as:

• Traffi c incident management.

• Traveler information services.

• Roadway weather information.

• Freeway management. 

• Automatic vehicle location. 

• Traffi c signal coordination. 

• Work zone management. 

• Electronic payment/toll collection. 
Introduction | 1-3

• Transit priority/integration.

• Emergency response and homeland security. 

• Freight management.

• Transportation demand management.

• Transit fl eet management and dispatching. 

M&O strategies are part of an integrated approach to 

optimizing the performance of existing and planned 

infrastructure through the implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and often cross-jurisdictional 

systems, services, and projects (often called regional 

transportation systems management and operations, 

or RTSM&O).4

 In the MTP, M&O strategies lead to 

either operations projects or programs or are combined with other projects such as capacity additions. 

It is important to note that M&O does not encompass 

traditional maintenance activities, such as landscape 

maintenance, pothole repair, or road resurfacing. 

Although M&O strategies may be implemented on 

a regional, area-wide, or project-specifi c basis, those 

included in a transportation plan should typically be 

those that have importance on a regional level.

Congestion Management Process

The congestion management process (CMP)5

 is 

a systematic approach applied in a metropolitan 

region to identify congestion and its causes, propose 

mitigation strategies, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented strategies.6

 The CMP then 

recommends projects and strategies for the plan and 

transportation improvement program (TIP). In many 

metropolitan areas, the CMP is one of the primary 

avenues for planning for operations. In the CMP, 

system performance issues are systematically examined and management and operations strategies are 

often included in the set of solutions recommended 

to address congestion. The CMP, guided by specifi c 

objectives and integrated into the planning process, 

is an example of this systematic approach. In some 

regions, the objectives-driven, performance-based 

approach for integrating operations into the plan may 

be performed within the CMP.

A CMP is required in Transportation Management 

Areas (TMA), defi ned as urban areas with a population over 200,000. The congestion management 

process should not be considered as a stand-alone 

system, but as an integral part of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. At the core, a CMP 

should include a data collection and monitoring 

system, identifi cation of strategies for addressing 

congestion, performance measures or criteria for 

identifying when action is needed, and a system for 

prioritizing which congestion management strategies 

would be most effective. In air quality non-attainment areas, the CMP takes on even greater importance since Federal guidelines prohibit projects that 

increase capacity for single occupant vehicles unless 

the project results from a CMP.7

Although a CMP is only required for TMAs, all 

MPOs can benefi t from using a systematic process to 

address congestion issues. Moreover, while the CMP 

focuses on congestion, the data collected as part 

of the CMP also can be used to help support other 

system management and operations consideration, 

such as safety, accessibility, and connectivity.

1.3 Federal Requirements 

Planning for operations, in addition to having many 

congestion mitigation and system effi ciency benefi ts, 

is required under Federal law.

Integrating Management & Operations 

Strategies

SAFETEA-LU contains the following requirements 

for all MPOs, regardless of size:

• Promote Effi cient System Management and 

Operations: Section 6001(a) of SAFETEA-LU 

amends United States Code Title 23, Section 

134(h) to require consideration of M&O in the 

metropolitan transportation planning process 

– “Promote effi cient system management and 

operation” is specifi cally identifi ed as one of 

eight planning factors.

4 Transportation Research Board, Glossary of Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations Terms, Transportation 

Research Circular, Number E-C133, April 2009. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec133.pdf, last accessed 

December 6, 2009.

5 The CMP evolved from what was formerly called a Congestion Management System (CMS).

6

 For a more detailed discussion of the components of the congestion management process, see Appendix B.

7

 Safety improvements and the elimination of bottlenecks are exceptions to this restriction.
1-4 | Introduction

• Include Management and Operations 

Strategies: Section 6001(a) of SAFETEA-LU 

amends United States Code Title 23, Section 

134(i) to state that the MTP shall include

“operational and management strategies to 

improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion 

and maximize the safety and mobility of people 

and goods.”

For MPOs of areas with populations greater than 

200,000, SAFETEA-LU contains this requirement:

• Congestion Management Process: Section 

6001(a) of SAFETEA-LU includes an amendment to Title 23, Section 134(k), of the United 

States Code that states: 

“Within a metropolitan planning area serving 

a transportation management area, the transportation planning process under this section 

shall address congestion management through 

a process that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively 

developed and implemented metropolitan-wide 

strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under this title and 

chapter 53 of title 49 through the use of travel 

demand reduction and operational management 

strategies.” 

Planning for Operations within the Context of 

Other Metropolitan Planning Requirements

While this guidebook focuses on planning for operations (including requirements to incorporate M&O 

strategies and the CMP in metropolitan transportation 

planning, where applicable), it is important to recognize that MPOs face a wide range of transportation 

planning requirements, which may place competing 

demands on priorities for inclusion in the MTP.

Figure 3 highlights the operations portions of the 

planning process that are the focus of this guidebook 

in the context of the many planning requirements 

that MPOs face in developing the MTP. The fi gure 

illustrates the eight planning factors that must be 

considered in developing the MTP, including the 

M&O planning factor. Surrounding these factors are 

other planning requirements, including the requirement that TMAs develop a CMP. Highlighted within 

the center circle is the requirement that the MTP 

must include M&O strategies.

* Required for TMAs

+ Required for nonattainment and maintenance areas

Metropolitan

Transportation

Plan

Environment,

Energy, and

Quality of Life

System PreservationAccessibility 

& Mobility

Security

Safety

Economic

Vitality

Multimodal

Connectivity

Efficient

System

Management

and Operation

M&O

Air Quality Conformity+

Consistency with ITS Architecture Congestion Management Process (CMP)*

Environmental Justice ADA, Title VI,

State & Tribal Agencies

Consultation with Federal

E

,

lected Officials Coordination with Local

and Local Transportation Agencies

Coordination with State Partic pi ation Plan

Fiscal Constra ni t

Figure 3. M&O and CMP in the Context of Metropolitan Transportation Planning Requirements
Introduction | 1-5

1.4 Creating an Objectives-Driven, 

Performance-Based Approach 

to Planning for Operations 

The guidebook describes an approach that is designed 

to help MPOs and other stakeholders incorporate 

M&O in metropolitan transportation planning through 

use of regional operations objectives. The guidebook 

not only helps fulfi ll SAFETEA-LU requirements, but 

also results in an MTP that is a better able to meet customer needs through an optimal mix of transportation 

investments. The approach is consistent with operational performance management strategies used in the 

private sector as discussed in section 2.1. The CMP 

is one example of applying this approach to manage 

congestion. 

As described here, the approach to planning for operations includes the following elements: 

• Developing one or more goals within the MTP 

that focus on the effi cient management and 

operation of the transportation system.

• Developing regional operations objectives for 

the MTP – specifi c, measurable statements of 

performance that will lead to accomplishing the 

goal or goals. 

• Implementing a systematic approach to 

developing performance measures, analyzing 

transportation performance issues, and 

recommending M&O strategies.

• Selecting M&O strategies (within fi scal constraints and to meet operations objectives) for 

inclusion in the MTP and transportation improvement program (TIP).

• Implementing M&O strategies, which may 

include investments and collaborative activities.

• Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of 

implemented strategies and tracking progress 

toward meeting regional operations objectives. 

The approach is iterative, with monitoring and evaluation used to refi ne and adjust operations objectives over 

time. Regional coordination and collaboration among 

partners and stakeholders is important throughout this 

process. The commitment of operators in the region to 

The M&O planning factor should not be viewed in 

isolation. In fact, improving transportation system 

M&O can support the other planning factors. 

Similarly, while the CMP focuses on congestion, the 

analysis of congestion problems and solutions also 

can help support multiple goals, including economic 

vitality, safety, and connectivity. The CMP can also 

help to identify M&O strategies.

In support of other planning factors, M&O strategies 

can:

• Support economic vitality by improving system 

reliability, which is valued by the freight and 

business communities. 

• Increase safety by focusing attention on operational strategies, such as driver education, 

speed enforcement, and technologies to improve 

pedestrian safety.

• Increase security by improving communication 

and coordination between transportation agencies and law enforcement.

• Increase accessibility and mobility by implementing strategies that reduce recurrent and 

non-recurrent congestion, and improve the effi -

ciency of operations, such as transit bus priority, 

signal timing, and pricing. 

• Enhance the environment, energy conservation, 

quality of life, and consistency with planned 

growth by implementing programs to reduce 

travel demand, providing traveler information 

to help drivers avoid or reduce time stuck in 

traffi c delay, and avoiding the need to develop 

new transportation infrastructure with negative 

impacts to the environment and communities.

• Enhance integration and connectivity by implementing strategies to allow seamless travel 

between transit service providers and modes.

• Emphasize preservation of the existing transportation system by focusing resources toward 

optimizing existing capacity rather than building new capacity. 
1-6 | Introduction

Section 2:

An Objectives-Driven, 

Performance-Based Approach to 

Planning for Operations 

Provides an introduction to the objectives-driven, performance-based approach, including the rationale for its use and its relationship to the CMP.

Description

support the achievement of the operations objectives is 

vital. The operations objectives not only reside in the 

MTP, but also must be incorporated into the priorities of 

the operating agencies in the region. Decisionmakers 

within operating agencies in the region must be involved in the development of the operations objectives. 

1.5 Guidebook Organization

This guidebook describes the major elements of the 

objectives-driven, performance-based approach, 

organized in the sections listed in Table 1.

In addition, this guidebook includes four appendices that provide additional technical information on 

SAFETEA-LU, the CMP, and the objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach:

• Appendix A provides the Federal requirements 

under SAFETEA-LU regarding M&O and the 

CMP.

Section

Section 3:

Developing Operations Goals and 

Objectives 

Section 4:

Developing Performance 

Measures, Assessing Needs, and 

Selecting Strategies 

Section 5:

Resulting Plans, Programs, and 

Projects 

Section 6:

Ongoing Monitoring and 

Evaluation

Section 7:

Moving Forward Through Regional 

Coordination and Collaboration 

Section 8:

Getting Started 

Describes the fi rst steps of developing goals and operations objectives, 

including characteristics and examples of operations objectives. 

• Appendix B provides more detail on the components of the congestion management process, 

including developing a CMP, developing objectives for the CMP, and fi nally, applying the CMP.

• Appendix C describes four related emerging applications of the objectives-driven, performancebased approach that affects MPOs and State 

DOTs – Linking Planning and NEPA (National 

Environmental Policy Act), freight planning, 

safety planning, and land use integration.

• Appendix D describes the details and potential lessons learned from the use of operations 

objectives and performance measures in fi nancially self-sustaining public and private organizations that focus on the delivery of services 

– Operations Objectives and Performance 

Measures in Private and Public Organizations.

Describes a systematic process of developing performance measures, 

assessing needs, and identifying and selecting strategies. Also includes 

examples of M&O and congestion management strategies, including approaches for analyzing their effectiveness.

Discusses outcomes of the approach to planning for operations in metropolitan areas in terms of what the MTP looks like and additional benefi ts 

MPOs might achieve from following this approach.

Addresses the critical but sometimes overlooked aspect of monitoring and 

evaluating implemented strategies and overall progress in meeting transportation system performance objectives.

Provides information on engaging operations stakeholders in transportation 

planning and provides examples of ways to collaborate effectively to implement the objectives-driven, performance-based approach.

Provides steps for getting started with the approach and a self-assessment 

designed to help MPOs assess to what extent they are addressing M&O 

and integrating the CMP in the MTP using the approach.

Table 1: Guidebook Organization by Section and Description
2.0 AN OBJECTIVES-DRIVEN,

PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH

TO PLANNING FOR OPERATIONS 

An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations | 2-1

• A more objective approach to addressing 

operations in the transportation planning 

process. By using the approach in the MTP, 

resource and investment decisions can be made 

with a clearer focus on outcomes of the plan. 

This will allow a better screening of strategies using objective criteria. While political 

considerations, public support, and tradeoffs 

between different goals will continue to play 

an important role in the process, having a clear 

set of agreed-upon objectives in the MTP will 

allow comparisons of alternative strategies and 

scenarios using specifi c metrics.

• Focused transportation investment prioritization. Use of operations objectives and 

performance measures in the MTP will help 

in prioritizing investments on a regional basis. 

With regional operations objectives, there are 

established metrics for determining which investments are most important and cost-effective 

in meeting regional goals. For instance, regional 

operations objectives naturally lead to the 

development of performance measures, which 

can be utilized as part of the CMP to prioritize 

locations with the most signifi cant recurring and 

non-recurring congestion problems.

• Improved resource allocation. Transportation 

investment decisionmaking will become more 

comprehensive, incorporating system operations 

for an optimal mix of operations and capital 

projects and programs. In addition to “stand 

alone” operations projects, M&O strategies can 

be built into transportation system preservation, 

capacity expansion, and safety projects to help 

maintain existing and future planned capacity 

and safety.

2.1 Rationale for a New Approach

Benefi ts of a New Approach

Implementing a planning process with strong M&O 

components can best be accomplished by a new approach to transportation planning for operations, one 

that is objectives-driven rather than project-driven. 

An objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

focuses on both short-term and long-term system 

performance, using established system performance 

measures rather than simply focusing on implementation of projects as a measure of success.

The maxim that “what gets measured gets managed” 

recognizes that performance measurement can focus 

the attention of decisionmakers, practitioners, and 

the public on important characteristics of the transportation system. Similarly, using the approach in the 

MTP will place increased attention on the operational 

performance of the transportation system.

By including operations objectives that address 

system performance issues, such as recurring and 

non-recurring congestion, emergency response times, 

connectivity among modes, and access to traveler 

information, the MTP will yield programs and strategies that more effectively address these concerns. In 

addition to addressing long-range system capacity 

needs, the MTP will encourage operators to play a 

more important role in transportation investment 

planning and address both short-range and longrange needs.

The process of applying regional operations objectives in the MTP will lead to broader outcomes that 

improve transportation planning and strengthen 

the linkages between planning and operations. 

Specifi cally, the benefi ts of this process include:
2-2 | An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations

Support for the Approach in Private and 

Public Organizations

An objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

for improving operations is well-supported in practice in self-sustaining private and public organizations that are responsible for generating suffi cient 

revenue to meet cost and/or produce profi t through 

delivery of services in a competitive or servicedriven context. For example, package delivery 

companies such as FedEx collect data, monitor key 

• Increased accountability and measurement 

of performance. Success in achieving regional 

operations objectives can be tracked over time. 

Tracking performance can help transportation 

agencies demonstrate to the public the benefi ts 

of their programs and investments and can feed 

into future updates to the MTP if it is determined that objectives need to be reassessed.

• Engaging the operations community in a substantive way. Integrating M&O into the MTP 

process has benefi ts for transportation planners 

and operators as well as the traveling public. By 

working toward optimizing the transportation 

system with M&O strategies, planners are better 

able to demonstrate to the public and elected 

offi cials that progress is being made on reducing congestion in the short-term with lower cost 

techniques. Similarly, managers of day-to-day 

system operations are able to make their limited 

staff time and other resources go farther by collaborating with planners and other operators to 

address operations from a regional perspective. 

Transportation operations improvements made 

in one jurisdiction are reinforced by coordinated 

improvements in neighboring areas, enabling 

travelers to move seamlessly across the region 

without encountering inconsistent traveler information, toll collection technologies, or traffi c 

signal timing.

By working together to address transportation issues 

of regional signifi cance with M&O strategies, planners and operators are able to have a greater impact 

on the performance of the transportation system in 

the region than they would by working alone. The 

MTP and TIP will result in a more optimal mix of 

transportation investments among system preservation, M&O, safety projects, and system expansion 

strategies, and will more effectively integrate M&O 

strategies into all types of investments. The ultimate benefi t of the approach is the improvement in 

regional transportation system performance that is realized when jurisdictions and agencies work together 

toward commonly held operations objectives.

Benefi ts of the Approach to Operators

The use of an objectives-driven, performancebased approach for integrating operations into the 

MTP has multiple benefi ts for operating agencies 

that participate in the approach. The approach is 

intended to be conducted as a collaborative effort 

between planners at the MPO and operators in the 

region. Through the use of the approach, operators 

have an established, formal mechanism for elevating their needs and interests in the development of 

the operations objectives. By working to incorporate operations into the plan, operations needs and 

the benefi ts of M&O strategies receive more attention and perhaps more funding on a regional level. 

This approach also helps to create greater awareness among operating agencies of data or other 

technical resources available from the MPO.

The approach helps to advance and strengthen the 

collaboration among operators, and in turn, the collaboration brings tangible benefi ts to the participating agencies working toward the operations objectives. Collaborating agencies can benefi t through 

acquiring and applying resources more effi ciently: 

sharing critical skills, negotiating favorable terms 

in joint purchasing decisions, sharing facilities, developing standards for materials and supplies that 

allow resource sharing, etc. They can also establish common procedures and practices and share 

information so that they perform key functions more 

effectively and in ways that are seamless from the 

perspective of system users. Through collaboration, agencies can reduce duplication in service or 

combine project needs and submit a joint application for funding.
An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations | 2-3

to manage and improve quality. The fi rst-tier performance measures are reported regularly to the 

community as part of the overall organization’s 

performance measures through the Austin Energy 

website, bulletin boards, and newsletter. The Austin 

Energy Electric Service Delivery business area management meets every 6 months to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality management system. Several 

benefi ts have been realized by the Electric Service 

Delivery area because of its quality improvement 

effort including improvements in: communications 

and collaboration between operational work groups, 

the documentation of issues as they occur, identifi cation of root causes, and action plans developed and 

carried out to address these issues.

Similarly, the Illinois Tollway has worked to measure, monitor, and improve its performance.11 The 

Tollway focuses its efforts on four key operations 

areas: overall traffi c operations, toll collection, 

incident response, and construction work zone 

management. It operates 286 miles of highway and 

serves approximately 1.4 million customers a day. 

Since the early 2000s, the Tollway’s management 

has focused on measuring how the system is operating and performing (e.g., where it is experiencing 

backups, where it typically has slow downs, and 

what the travel times are). Performance measures 

include traffi c volume, speed, travel time, and length 

of backup. Key performance measures for incident 

response include detection, response, and clearance 

times. The Tollway also audits and monitors tow activity to manage the towers’ operations closely. The 

Tollway’s management produces quarterly reports 

for the Governor’s offi ce regarding non-recurrent 

congestion. These reports provide timely, measurable 

results regarding overall improvements based on the 

performance measures in place.

Additional details and potential lessons from the use 

of operations objectives and performance measures 

in fi nancially self-sustaining public and private organizations can be found in Appendix D.

performance measures, and make adjustments on a 

daily basis. This focus on performance targets and 

measures has contributed to increased service quality 

and customer satisfaction.

In an effort to spur progress toward their ultimate 

target of 100 percent customer satisfaction, FedEx 

developed a 12-component index, known as the 

Service Quality Indicator (SQI). Each item in the 

SQI is weighted to refl ect how signifi cantly it affects 

overall customer satisfaction. Management meets 

daily to discuss the previous day’s performance, 

and weekly, monthly, and annual trends are tracked. 

Since being put in place in the late 1980s, the SQI 

enabled FedEx to increase its on-time delivery 

performance from 95 percent to 99.7 percent in 2003 

without signifi cantly increasing costs.8

Austin Energy, a community-owned electric utility 

located in Austin, Texas also makes extensive use 

of objectives and performance measures to monitor 

and improve its power production and delivery to approximately 400,000 customers.9

 Austin Energy has 

adopted three overarching strategies to maintain a 

successful organization: a risk management strategy, 

an excellent customer service strategy, and an energy 

resource strategy. In support of these strategies, 

Austin Energy developed fi ve strategic objectives. 

Each objective is tracked using one of more performance measures and associated performance targets. 

Austin Energy measures system reliability with six 

reliability performance measures that focus on the 

duration and frequency of power outages, transmission faults or sags, and the availability of power.10 

The Electric Service Delivery business area of 

Austin Energy developed a set of key performance 

indicators aligned with the organization-wide objectives. The performance indicators are divided into 

three tiers: strategic, operational, and support. The 

strategic, operational, and support key performance 

indicators are used by executives, managers, and 

supervisors of day-to-day operations respectively 

8

 Morris, D.D. and R.J. Baker, “Measuring what matters: [want to know how successful your fi rm is? Take the customer’s point of view],” 

 August 2003. Available at: http://fi ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICC/is_2_72/ai_107755417, last accessed July 9, 2009.

9

 Telephone Interview with Mercedes Sanchez, Austin Energy. December 3, 2009.

10 Austin Energy, Strategic Plan Update, 2008. Available at:

http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Strategic%20Plan/strategicPlanningUpdate_2008.pdf, last accessed December 31, 2009.

11 Telephone Interview with John L. Benda, General Manager of Maintenance & Traffi c, Illinois Tollway. March 2009. 
2-4 | An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations

multiple modes. They are developed through coordination and collaboration with operating agencies 

and play a central role in the planning process. In the 

congestion management process, objectives specifi c 

to congestion management would be developed. 

The operations objectives lead to a systematic 

process to develop and select M&O strategies to 

meet objectives. In this process, performance measures are defi ned that will be used to assess current 

operational performance needs, progress toward the 

operations objectives, and the effectiveness of M&O 

strategies. 

Identifying the operational performance issues in the 

region that must be addressed to reach the region’s 

objectives is a crucial element in planning for operations improvements. This involves examining current 

system performance and operations practices to 

answer the question of what needs to change to reach 

the objectives. This step typically requires collecting 

data and determining the cause and extent of system 

performance issues. During this process, operations 

objectives and associated performance measures may 

be tailored to regional needs, availability of data, 

opportunities for coordination and collaboration, and 

existing performance measures used by agencies in 

the region. 

2.2 The Approach

Overview of the New Approach 

An objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

to planning for operations involves the development 

of operations objectives for a region, which inform 

the way in which transportation investments are 

determined as part of the MTP, as shown in Figure 4. 

This approach can be used to address a full range of 

operations issues, such as traffi c congestion, transit 

operations, emergency response, and integration 

of transportation services, among others. In areas 

subject to the Federal requirement, the CMP encompasses this approach with a focus on congestion.

The development of a regional vision and goals

arises from a thoughtful and deliberate regional 

process that takes into account the eight planning 

factors. The regional vision and goals are the agreedupon statements of the overall aims of the regional 

transportation plan and defi ne the desired end-state. 

Operations objectives in the MTP fl ow directly 

from the goals. These objectives are measurable 

and defi ne desired outcomes that help to achieve the 

goals. Operations objectives are defi ned for a region 

rather than a single jurisdiction and often include 

Define performance measures

Determine operations needs

Identify M&O strategies

Evaluate M&O strategies

Select M&O strategies for the plan

Regional goals and motivation

Operations objectives

Monitoring and evaluation

Metropolitan transportation plan

Implementation

M&O strategies CMP uses this

approach with a focus

on congestion

Systematic process to develop and 

select M&O strategies to meet objectives

Transportation improvement program and 

other funding programs

Figure 4. An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations
An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations | 2-5

Monitoring and evaluation of the transportation 

system then feeds back into the update of the regional vision, goals, and objectives in the next cycle 

of developing the MTP. The CMP includes

methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of 

the multimodal transportation system and a process 

for periodic assessment of the effectiveness of implemented strategies.

2.3 Relationship to the Congestion 

Management Process

As described in the section above, the CMP is intended to be directly integrated into the metropolitan 

transportation planning process and is an example of 

the objectives-driven, performance-based approach to 

planning for operations with a focus on congestion. 

Although M&O strategies address a wide range of 

issues, many aspects of operations relate directly to 

congestion and are identifi ed as part of the CMP. 

The Final Rule on Statewide and Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning (23 CFR Part 450, Sec 320) 

clearly makes the connection between M&O strategies 

and the CMP, stating (underlining added for

emphasis): 

Next, M&O strategies are identifi ed to meet regional 

operations objectives. This is best accomplished 

through collaboration between planners and operators. Planners may often be able to supply data on 

where current and future mobility issues will arise, 

and operators can give input on the operations strategies that they think would be best to implement. 

M&O strategies involve a variety of activities including expanding current operations services such as 

freeway service patrols, adopting a best practice from 

another region, developing mutual aid agreements, 

or implementing a new system such as a common 

video-sharing system between traffi c management 

centers (TMC).

Once M&O strategies are identifi ed and proposed, 

the next step is typically to evaluate the effectiveness 

of these strategies in addressing the regional need. 

There are several analysis tools available for use in 

evaluating the effectiveness of operational improvements. M&O strategies are then selected within fi scal 

constraints for inclusion in the MTP. 

In the context of the CMP, the systematic process 

described above is focused on objectives for managing congestion rather than a broader set of operations 

objectives. Additionally, the systematic process as 

performed in the CMP leads to the consideration of 

M&O strategies as well as other types of strategies, 

such as growth management or increasing system 

capacity, that address congestion. The CMP includes 

establishment of a coordinated program for data collection and system performance monitoring, identifi cation and evaluation of the expected benefi ts of 

appropriate congestion management strategies, and 

development of an implementation schedule and possible funding sources for each strategy. 

The result of this approach is an MTP with a 20+ 

year outlook that includes operations objectives, 

performance measures, and a mix of M&O strategies 

and capital investments. Additionally, the TIP with 

a near-term focus includes specifi c M&O programs 

and projects arising from the plan. Planned and programmed investments are then implemented.

Key Role of Transit and Other Operating 

Agencies in Advancing the Approach at the 

MPO:

• Contribute to decisions at the MPO and State level 

regarding investment priorities, land use, and economic development.

• Participate in developing regional operations objectives.

• Provide operations data to planning partners.

• Recommend transit-based strategies for improving 

regional transportation system performance.

• Implement performance-based objectives in planning processes.

• Collaborate with other transportation operators in 

regional operations efforts.
2-6 | An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach to Planning for Operations

Although not all MPOs are required to implement a 

CMP, the CMP is associated with each step in the

approach described above. Specifi c CMP requirements 

include:13

• Defi nition of objectives for congestion management.

• Defi nition of appropriate performance measures 

to assess the extent of congestion and support 

the evaluation of the effectiveness of congestion 

reduction and mobility enhancement strategies.

• Methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the multimodal transportation system, 

including a coordinated program for data collection and system performance monitoring to 

defi ne the extent and duration of congestion and 

contribute to identifying the causes of congestion. 

• Identifi cation and evaluation of the anticipated 

performance and expected benefi ts of appropriate 

congestion management strategies that will contribute to the more effective use and improved 

safety of existing and future transportation 

systems based on the established performance 

measures. 

• Identifi cation of an implementation schedule, 

implementation responsibilities, and possible 

funding sources for each strategy (or combination of strategies) proposed for implementation. 

• Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the effectiveness of implemented 

strategies in terms of the area’s established performance measures.

“(a) The transportation planning process in a 

TMA shall address congestion management 

through a process that provides for safe and 

effective integrated management and operation 

of the multimodal transportation system, based 

on a cooperatively developed and implemented 

metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53 through the use of travel demand 

reduction and operational management strategies.”

“(b) The development of a congestion management process should result in multimodal 

system performance measures and strategies 

that can be refl ected in the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP. The level of system 

performance deemed acceptable by State and 

local transportation offi cials may vary by type 

of transportation facility, geographic location 

(metropolitan area or subarea), and/or time 

of day. In addition, consideration should be 

given to strategies that manage demand, reduce 

single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, and 

improve transportation system management 

and operations. Where the addition of general 

purpose lanes is determined to be an appropriate congestion management strategy, explicit 

consideration is to be given to the incorporation of appropriate features into the SOV 

project to facilitate future demand management strategies and operational improvements 

that will maintain the functional integrity and 

safety of those lanes.”

“(c) The congestion management process shall be 

developed, established, and implemented as 

part of the metropolitan transportation planning process that includes coordination with 

transportation system management and operations activities.”12

12 Federal Register: February 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 30), “Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation

 Planning; Final Rule.” Available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-493.htm, last accessed December 6, 2009.

13 Adapted from the “Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule” (23 CFR Part 450, Sec 320). 

See Appendix A for complete language.
3.0 DEVELOPING OPERATIONS

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Developing Operations Goals & Objectives | 3-1

• “Reduce congestion by making the transportation infrastructure more effi cient, instituting 

transportation demand management strategies 

and providing alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle.” – Destination 2030 – The Long 

Range Plan for the Delaware Valley, Delaware 

Valley Regional Planning Commission.

• “Improve the reliability and safety of the transportation system.” – 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future, 

San Diego Association of Governments.

The MTP also may identify a wide range of other 

goals relating to issues such as improving transportation safety, security, and environment. These goals 

also may lead to the development of M&O strategies. 

3.2 Develop Operations Objectives

Operations objectives are critical components of 

creating an objectives-driven, performance-based 

approach to integrating M&O in the MTP. They 

are contained in the MTP and guide the discussion 

about operations in the region. Whereas goals relate 

to the “big picture” or desired end-result, operations objectives are specifi c and measurable. Unlike 

goals, progress toward an operations objective and 

its achievement can be evaluated with performance 

measures.

In the context of the MTP, operations objectives typically come from the goals defi ned during the trans3.1 Develop Operations Goals

An important fi rst step to integrating M&O in the 

MTP is to establish goals that focus on the effi cient 

management and operation of the transportation 

system. A goal is a broad statement that describes a 

desired end state. In the metropolitan transportation 

planning process, goals stem from the values inherent in the region’s vision. 

The MTP may identify an overarching M&O goal. 

For example:

• “Multi-modal transportation infrastructure 

and services are well-managed and optimized 

to improve travel conditions and operations, 

and maximize the multi-modal capacity and 

operating performance of existing and future 

transportation infrastructure and services.” 

— Final Draft, 2035 Regional Transportation 

Plan, Metro Regional Government (Portland, 

Oregon).

Alternatively, the MTP may identify a set of M&O 

goals that are broad, but address different aspects of 

transportation systems management and operations, 

such as transportation system reliability, effi ciency, 

quality of service, and travel options. Examples 

include:

• “The urbanized area transportation system will 

become more time and cost effi cient during 

the 20 year planning horizon.” – Long-Range 

Transportation Plan 2025, Champaign County 

Regional Planning Commission.

• “Effi cient Freight Travel” – Transportation 

2035: Change in Motion, Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay 

Area).

• “Provide options for safe access and expanded 

mobility choices in a cost-effective manner in 

the region.” – Communities in Motion 2030 

Plan, Community Planning Association of 

Southwest Idaho (COMPASS).
3-2 | Developing Operations Goals & Objectives

portation planning process and are regional in nature. 

They describe what needs to occur to accomplish a 

regional goal. The operations objectives state what 

a region plans to achieve concerning the operational 

performance of the transportation system and help to 

determine what strategies and investments to include 

in the MTP. Operations objectives typically place a 

focus on issues of congestion, reliability, safety and 

security, incident management, and work zone management, among other issues. 

While operations objectives typically stem from 

goals in the metropolitan transportation planning 

process, operations objectives also may be formed in 

response to motivations that are identifi ed outside of 

the transportation planning process. For example, a 

natural or man-made disaster, a signifi cant weather 

event, or a major incident may create public attention that causes elected offi cials to focus on incident 

management or emergency response. A major sporting event or a large public works project could focus 

attention on special events and work zone management. These motivations might lead to the development of operations objectives that can be included in 

the MTP.

In areas subject to CMP requirements, the MPO 

should develop operations objectives that address 

congestion.14 Like other operations objectives, congestion mitigation objectives also are incorporated 

into the MTP and serve as the basis for the congestion management process.

SMART Characteristics of Operations 

Objectives 

Operations objectives are specifi c, measurable statements developed in collaboration with a broad range 

of regional partners. They are regional or multi-jurisdictional in nature. Operations objectives generally 

lead directly to a measure of performance that can be 

used to assess whether or not the objective has subsequently been achieved.

An operations objective should have “SMART” characteristics as defi ned here: 

• Specifi c – The objective provides suffi cient 

specifi city to guide formulation of viable approaches to achieving the objective without 

dictating the approach.

• Measurable – The objective facilitates quantitative evaluation, saying how many or how much 

should be accomplished. Tracking progress 

against the objective enables an assessment of 

effectiveness of actions.

• Agreed – Planners, operators, and relevant 

planning participants come to a consensus on a 

common objective. This is most effective when 

the planning process involves a wide range of 

stakeholders to facilitate regional collaboration 

and coordination.

• Realistic – The objective can reasonably be 

accomplished within the limitations of resources 

and other demands. The objective may require 

substantial coordination, collaboration, and 

investment to achieve. Factors such as land use 

may also have an impact on the feasibility of 

the objective and should be taken into account. 

Because how realistic the objective is cannot be 

fully evaluated until after strategies and approaches are defi ned, the objective may need to 

be adjusted to be achievable.

• Time-Bound – The objective identifi es a timeframe within which it will be achieved (e.g., “by 

2012”).

Specifi cally, an operations objective identifi es targets 

regarding a particular aspect of regional transportation system performance, such as traffi c congestion, 

reliability, emergency response time, or incident 

response. By developing SMART operations objectives, system performance can be examined and 

monitored over time.

Is your objective SMART?

 Specifi c – is the desired outcome clearly 

 written?

 Measurable – can it be measured 

 quantitatively and evaluated?

 Agreed – was there consensus among 

 partners?

 Realistic – can it reasonably be 

 accomplished?

 Time-Bound – did you set a timeframe to 

 complete performance?

14 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations (23 CFR Part 450.320 c) specify that the “congestion management process shall

include...congestion management objectives and appropriate performance measures.”
Developing Operations Goals & Objectives | 3-3

of travel demand” could lead to one or more operations objectives focused on managing the demand for 

travel, such as:

• Reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita by X 

percent by 2015.

• Increase the percentage of major employers 

actively participating in transportation demand 

management programs by X percent within 5 

years.

• Increase transit mode share by X percent by 

2020.

• Increase the share of roadways with bicycle 

lanes to X by 2015.

In developing operations objectives, it is important to 

recognize – and to communicate to elected offi cials 

and the public – that conditions may be signifi cantly 

worse without the implementation of new strategies 

or programs, particularly in regions where population is growing rapidly. Consequently, it may not be 

realistic to improve some aspects of system performance (e.g., reduce traveler delay) from existing 

levels. Even if a plan results in signifi cant improvements over projected “baseline” conditions, it still 

may not show signifi cant improvement over current 

conditions. In these cases, an objective might be to 

hold average traveler delay to no greater than 2007 

levels by 2020, to improve the availability and accuracy of traveler information to a certain level so that 

travelers can make more informed travel choices, to 

optimize signal timing on major congested corridors, 

or another measure that is achievable and helps to 

achieve overall goals.

Examples of Operations Objectives

Operations objectives are developed in the context of 

recognizing existing conditions and what is realistically possible for the region to achieve; therefore, the 

specifi cs of operations objectives will vary widely 

across MPOs of different sizes and characteristics. 

There is likely to be a wide range of operations 

objectives to address a goal or specifi c operational 

issues. This may be because of the different measures 

of performance available in that operations area. 

There also may be a wide range of objectives for any 

given goal because each region will have its own 

set of performance issues that must be addressed 

to reach its operations goal. In developing operations objectives that bring a region closer to its goal, 

planners and operators must examine what needs 

to be improved. For instance, a goal of “improved 

transportation system reliability” could lead to many 

possible operations objectives depending on what 

will contribute to a reliable system for that region: 

• By 2020, reduce the variability in travel time 

on freeways and major arteries in the region 

such that 95 percent of trips (19 out of 20) have 

travel times no more than 1.5 times the average 

travel time for a specifi c time of day.

• By 2015, reduce the clearance time of traffi c 

incidents on freeways and major arteries in the 

region from a current average of X minutes to 

an average of Y minutes.

• Throughout the timeframe of the plan, maintain an average time of no more than Z hours 

to clear all emergency snow routes and priority 

arterials.

• By 2015, decrease average annual traveler delay 

associated with road closures, major incidents, 

and weather-related conditions on interstate 

highways by 20 percent from 2000 levels.

• By 2015, at least 90 percent of transit buses will 

arrive within no more than 5 minutes of scheduled time.

• By 2015, access to real-time information on bus 

arrival times will be provided for all bus routes 

of all major transit providers within the region.

Alternatively the goal to “improve transportation 

system performance through effective management 

Achieving Multiple Planning Goals:

Just as operations objectives help meet M&O goals, 

a similar approach could be used throughout the 

MTP for other goals, such as community goals, 

environmental goals, or safety goals. In this way, the 

entire plan becomes objectives-driven. For example: 

the goal, “Provide a safe transportation system,” 

could be supported by the following objectives:

• Reduce the number of fatalities on the highway 

system to X per 100,000 vehicle miles by 2025.

• Reduce the number of accidents in the transit system to Y per 1000 riders by 2025.

• Reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities to no 

more than Z per year by 2025.
3-4 | Developing Operations Goals & Objectives

The costs and extent of data collection and analysis 

needed to develop operations objectives will depend 

on many factors, including the size of the metropolitan area, the staffi ng and data available to the MPO, 

the extent of traffi c congestion, and the degree to 

which regional goals focus on improving the operation of the transportation system. In particular, small 

MPOs often are somewhat constrained in their access 

to system performance data and limited staff resources. Large MPOs may have more extensive data 

collection resources, but they often are challenged 

by the wide range of transportation system operators, 

jurisdictions, and stakeholders involved. These challenges can make it diffi cult to develop consensus on 

an appropriate system-level performance objective.

Fortunately, the concept of operations objectives is a 

scalable one. As a region’s use of the approach grows 

over time, specifi c objectives can be added, revisited, 

and refi ned. Initially, planners and operators should 

identify which objectives to include in the plan based 

on regional goals, select those that can be implemented in the near-term, and build on initial efforts 

by refi ning and expanding the range of objectives 

used over time.

Table 2 illustrates the connection between operations 

issues or challenges in a region and the operations 

objectives developed in response to the issues. The 

table also includes performance measures that can be 

used to track progress toward the operations objectives.

3.3 Operations Objectives Are 

Scalable 

While the concept of developing operations objectives is simple, its execution is often hampered 

by limitations in the data needed for performance 

measures and diffi culty in agreeing upon the appropriate target or timeframe for achievement. 

Developing operations objectives requires data on 

baseline conditions and often requires information on 

historical conditions and forecasts of future conditions. Similarly, objectives within the CMP should 

be informed by available information on existing 

congestion levels, an assessment of the causes of 

congestion, and information on forecasted future 

congestion levels.

Heavy reliance on trips made by 

single-occupancy vehicles in the 

region contributing to congestion 

and air quality issues. 

Operations Issue in Region

Increase non SOV mode share 

for all trips by X percent within 

the next Y years. 

Operations Objective Performance Measure

Share of trips by each mode of 

travel. 

Signifi cant levels of delay at 

border crossings negatively 

impacting businesses in the region 

and freight carriers. 

Decrease average crossing times 

at international borders by X 

minutes for each border crossing 

in region over Y years.

Average border crossing time for 

freight at international borders per 

year. 

Snow, ice, and wind storms 

frequently cause severe delays, 

stranded vehicles, and traffi c 

accidents. 

Reduce time to alert travelers of 

weather impacts on travel using 

[variable message signs, 511, 

Road Weather Information Systems, public information broadcasts etc.] by X (time period or 

percent) in Y years.

Time between the beginning of 

weather event and posting of 

traveler information on (select from 

among variable message signs, 

511, Road Weather Information 

Systems, public information 

broadcasts, etc.).

Incidents on the roads and rails 

cause signifi cant travel delays that 

have the potential to be reduced 

through improvements in incident 

management.

Reduce mean incident clearance 

time per incident by X percent in 

Y years. (Defi ned as the time between awareness of an incident 

and the time the last responder 

has left the scene.)

Mean incident clearance time per 

incident. 

Traffi c signal timing in the region is 

performed sporadically and there 

is delay on arterials due to poorly 

timed signals. 

Retime X percent of traffi c signals every Y years. Percent of traffi c signals retimed 

every Y years. 

Table 2: Operations Objectives Motivated by Signifi cant Issues in the Region
Developing Operations Goals & Objectives | 3-5

Use Outcome- and Activity-Based Objectives

Given that the fundamental purpose of M&O 

improvements is to improve transportation system 

performance, operations objectives are preferably 

described in terms of those system performance outcomes as experienced by users. Objectives focused 

on outcomes to the user include travel times, travel 

time reliability, and access to traveler information. 

The public cares about these measures, and in many 

regions, data may be available to develop specifi c 

outcome-based operations objectives.

In cases where developing outcome-based objectives is diffi cult, agencies may develop operations 

objectives that are activity-based and support desired 

system performance outcomes. For example, it may 

not be possible for a region to develop a specifi c 

objective related to incident-based delay experienced 

by travelers if data is unavailable for this type of 

delay. However, the region may be able to develop 

an objective that relates to incident response time, 

which may be more easily established and measured.

Other examples of activity-based objectives include the percentage of traffi c signals re-timed, the 

number of variable message signs deployed, and the 

share of bus stops with real-time transit information. Although these objectives are not as ideal as 

outcome-based objectives for inclusion in the MTP 

since they tend to focus on specifi c strategies or 

approaches, they may serve as interim objectives 

until more outcome-based objectives can be established and measured. Working together to develop 

the objectives themselves may help to elevate M&O 

discussions among planners and operators and lead 

to initiatives to collect additional data.

Start with a Limited Number of Objectives

It is recommended for agencies to start simple when 

developing operations objectives. Agencies should 

build on the existing data they have and the conditions with which they are familiar. Rather than 

developing dozens of operations objectives, a region 

could start with a limited number of objectives and 

performance measures for which data already exists 

and build on the objectives over time as data become 

more available or performance trends become 

clearer.

Add Targets over Time

Even when stakeholders agree on the performance 

measure(s) and have access to data for tracking 

performance, it may be diffi cult for agencies to agree 

on an appropriate target to reach within a specifi c 

timeframe. In these cases, it is recommended to start 

with an operations objective that does not include 

a specifi c time-bound target, and add a target in the 

future after additional performance tracking has occurred.

An initial operations objective might be worded 

simply, showing the direction of effects that are 

desired. For example, simple objectives might be to 

“reduce clearance time for incidents” or “improve 

transit on-time performance.” These objectives lead 

to performance measures that can be tracked over 

time and reported. In the future, after additional 

data are collected, it may be possible to revisit these 

objectives to develop more specifi c, time-bound 

targets. For example, “reduce average incident clearance time to X by 2015,” or “improve transit on-time 

performance to Y by 2020.”
4-1 | Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies

4.1 Operations Objectives Lead 

to Performance Measures

Developing operations objectives is a precursor to the 

systematic process to identify and select strategies to 

include in the MTP and corresponding TIP. Developing 

operations objectives leads to establishing performance 

measures that can be used to assess and track regional 

system performance. By establishing specifi c and 

measurable performance outcomes, operations objectives also can lead to the development of performance 

measures that are used at a lower level, for instance, to 

analyze performance of corridors, road segments, intersections, or transit routes. Collecting and analyzing data 

on performance, and forecasting future conditions, can 

then be used to identify and pinpoint areas of defi ciencies, which in turn can help to determine the most appropriate strategies to achieve the operations objectives. 

An example of how operations objectives are applied 

throughout the planning process is illustrated in Table 3 

on the following page.

For TMAs, the CMP uses this systematic process in 

developing performance measures, collecting data, 

identifying and analyzing congestion problems and defi ciencies, and developing strategies and projects. This 

is followed by monitoring and evaluation that cycles 

back to refi ning and re-examining congestion objectives. Even in metropolitan areas that are not required to 

implement a CMP, this systematic process is valuable as 

operations objectives related to congestion are considered in the decisionmaking process.

4.2 Develop Performance

Measures

Performance measures are indicators of how well 

the transportation system is performing and are 

inextricably tied to operations objectives. A range of 

performance measures may come from developing 

operations objectives. The performance measures 

selected should provide adequate information to 

planners, operators, and decisionmakers on progress toward achieving their operations objectives. 

However, this is an iterative process as operations 

objectives may be refi ned once performance measures are developed and baseline data has been 

collected. 

Performance measures should be developed based on 

the individual needs and resources of each agency. 

For example, transit agencies typically use a number 

of measures that are of interest to their customers, 

such as on-time performance, average passenger 

load, and total ridership. An MPO uses measures of 

mobility such as facility level-of-service, travel time, 

and travel delay. These performance measures help 

planners focus on the day-to-day experience for their 

users. This provides important balance in settings 

where planners have focused exclusively on longterm development of the network. With greater focus 

on the day-to-day characteristics of the system, planners appreciate the issues faced by system operators. 

The result is that mid- and long-term planning now 

refl ect greater consideration of operations and the 

associated investment needs.

Examples of Performance Measures

Performance measures may be used either at a 

system-wide scale or at a corridor or transportation 

facility level in order to determine where defi ciencies 

exist and to prioritize strategies and funding to the 

most critical problems. For instance, by identifying 

locations with the greatest recurrent and non-recurrent traffi c congestion using performance measures 

4.0 DEVELOPING PERFORMANCE MEASURES,

ASSESSING NEEDS, AND

SELECTING STRATEGIES
Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies | 4-2

Table 3: Example of Operations Objectives Applied in the Planning Process

Goal(s):

Broadly describe what 

the region wants to 

accomplish, focused on 

outcomes.

Operations Objectives:

Specifi c, measurable

statements relating to the

attainment of goals.

Performance 

Measures:

Metric used on a 

regional basis to 

track system-wide 

performance (used in

developing a regional

objective), or at a 

corridor, roadway, or 

intersection level to 

identify specifi c

defi ciencies within the 

system to address.

Strategies:

Approaches to achieve 

objectives. Includes 

system preservation, 

safety projects, 

management and 

operations, capacity 

expansion.

Projects/

Implementation:

Initiatives identifi ed to 

carry out strategies.

Improved transportation system reliability and reduced unexpected traveler delay.

Reduce incidentbased delay so 

that by 2015, 

travelers experience no more than 

X hours of delay 

per year.

Person hours of 

delay due to

incidents.

Traffi c cameras 

and detection systems to identify incidents more 

quickly.

Roving incident

response teams.

Install traffi c cameras on Route X 

(2009).

Install variable

message signs on 

Route X (2013).

Implement incident 

clearance teams on 

route X (2012).

Reduce traveler 

delay associated 

with work zones, 

weather conditions, and special 

events so that 

average buffer time 

is reduced by X 

minutes over the 

next Y years.

Total vehicle hours 

of delay associated 

with work zones, 

weather conditions, and special 

events. 

Buffer time

(additional time to 

ensure travelers arrive at destination 

by intended time 

95 percent of the 

time).

Work zone information campaign.

Variable message 

signs (VMS) to alert 

about alternative 

routes.

Implement regional 

electronic notifi cation system (2015).

Install VMS along 

key corridors 

(2013).

Increase awareness of traveler 

information by X 

percent to businesses and the 

public by 2016.

Public awareness of traveler information (through 

surveys). 

Traveler alert

system. 

511 Traveler 

Information System.

Electronic real-time 

“next bus” information at bus stops.

Design and implement regional 511 

system (2015).

Install “next bus”

signage at selected 

bus stops (2011).

Improve transit 

system reliability 

so that by 2020, 

at least X percent 

of buses are on 

schedule. 

Percentage of 

buses more than 5 

minutes off schedule. 

Increased rail

inspections and 

maintenance.

GPS systems to 

track transit buses.

Install GPS locator 

system for bus 

system (2016).

Install “Next Train” 

signage (2011).

Provide integrated 

train departure/ arrival schedule for

connecting buses. 

Planning Process Stage Examples
4-3 | Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies

in the CMP, an MPO can help to target funding 

toward facilities with the greatest congestion problems and the greatest opportunities to reach operations objectives for congestion management.

Examples of M&O performance measures include:15

• Travel Time: Travel time measures focus on the 

time needed to travel along a selected portion 

of the transportation system, and can be applied 

for specifi c roadways, corridors, transit lines, or 

at a regional level. Common travel time metrics 

include:

– Average travel time, which can be measured 

based on travel time surveys.

– Average travel speeds, which can be calculated based on travel time divided by segment length or measured based on real-time 

information collection.

– Travel time index: the ratio of peak to nonpeak travel time, which provides a measure 

of congestion.

• Congestion Extent: Congestion measures can 

address both the spatial and temporal extent 

(duration). Depending on how these measures 

are defi ned and data are collected, these measures may focus on recurring congestion or 

address both recurring and non-recurring congestion. Examples include: 

– Lane miles of congested conditions (defi ned 

based on volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, 

level of service (LOS) measures, or travel 

time index).

– Number of intersections experiencing 

congestion (based on LOS).

– Percent of roadways congested by type or 

roadway (e.g., freeway, arterial, collector).

– Average hours of congestion per day.

– Share of peak period transit services 

experiencing overcrowding.

• Delay: Delay measures take into account the 

amount of time that it takes to travel in excess of 

travel under unconstrained (ideal or free-fl ow) 

operating conditions, and the number of vehicles 

affected. These measures provide an indication 

of how problematic traffi c congestion is, and can 

address both recurring and non-recurring congestion-related delay. Examples of delay measures 

include: 

– Vehicle-hours of recurring delay associated 

with population and employment growth.

– Vehicle-hours of nonrecurring delay associated with incidents, work zones, weather 

conditions, special events, etc.

• Incident Occurrence/Duration: Incident duration is a measure of the time elapsed from the 

notifi cation of an incident until the incident has 

been removed or response vehicles have left 

the incident scene. This measure can be used to 

assess the performance of service patrols and 

incident management systems. Incident occurrence also can be used to assess the performance 

and reliability of transit services. Example 

measures include:

– Median minutes from time of incident until 

incident has been removed from scene.

– Number of transit bus breakdowns.

– Average number of transit rail system delays 

in excess of X minutes.

New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority:

The NJTPA selected a reliability index that 

compares non-recurring delay to total delay. NJTPA 

uses a special post-processing module to its travel 

demand model to help produce this measurement.

See:

http://www.njtpa.org/.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority:

The MBTA measures peak-period passenger 

crowding and on-time performance by transit line. 

Using data collected on the regional transit system, 

the Boston MPO reports number of passengers per 

seat on transit lines in the peak period as well as 

the percentage of trips operating within 5 minutes 

of scheduled times. 

See: 

http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/index.html.

15 National Transportation Operations Coalition, Performance Measurement Initiative – Final Report, July 2005. Available at:

http:// www.ntoctalks.com/ntoc/ntoc_fi nal_report.pdf, last accessed December 6, 2009. 
Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies | 4-4

• Travel Time Reliability:16 Travel time reliability measures take into account the variation in 

travel times that occur on roadways and across 

the system. Examples of measures include:

– Buffer time, which describes the additional 

time that must be added to a trip to ensure that 

travelers will arrive at their destination at, or 

before, the intended time 95 percent of the 

time.

– Buffer time index, which represents the percent 

of time that should be budgeted on top of average travel time to arrive on time 95 percent 

of the time (e.g., a buffer index of 40 percent 

means that for a trip that usually takes 20 minutes, a traveler should budget an additional 8 

minutes to ensure on-time arrival most of the 

time).

– Percentage of travel when travel time is X 

percent (e.g., 20 percent) greater than average 

travel time.

– Planning time index, defi ned as the 95th percentile travel time index.

– 90th or 95th percentile travel times for specifi c 

travel routes or trips, which indicates how bad 

delay will be on the heaviest travel days.

– Percentage of weekdays each month that average travel speed of designated facilities fall 

more than X MPH below posted speed limit 

during peak periods.

• Travel Demand Management (TDM):17

Travel demand management measures examine 

demand on the system as well as the impact of 

strategies to manage that demand. Measures of 

travel demand and the impact of TDM programs 

include:

– Awareness – Portion of potential program 

participants aware of a TDM program.

– Utilization – Number or percentage of 

individuals using a TDM service or alternate 

mode.

– Mode split – Proportion of total person trips 

that uses each mode of transportation.

– Vehicle Trips or Peak Period Vehicle Trips – 

The total number of private vehicles arriving 

at a destination.

• Person Throughput: Examines the number of 

people that are moved on a roadway or transit 

system. Efforts to improve this measure can are 

refl ected in efforts to improve the fl ow of traffi c, 

increase high occupancy vehicle movement, 

or increase transit seat occupancy on transit. 

Example measures include:

– Peak hour persons moved per lane.

– Peak hour persons moved on transit services.

• Customer Satisfaction: Examines public perceptions about the quality of the travel experience, including the effi ciency of system M&O. 

Customer satisfaction is typically measured 

through surveys and may include measures such 

as:

– Percent of the population reporting being 

satisfi ed or highly satisfi ed with travel 

conditions.

– Percent of the population reporting being 

satisfi ed or highly satisfi ed with access to 

traveler information.

– Percent of the population reporting being 

satisfi ed or highly satisfi ed with the reliability of transit services.

• Availability of or Awareness of Information: 

These measures focus on public knowledge of 

travel alternatives or traveler information.

16 Federal Highway Administration, Offi ce of Operations, “Travel Time Reliability Measures – Operations Performance Measurement.” 

Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/reliability_measures/index.htm, last accessed December 6, 2009.

17 Victoria Transport Policy Institute, TDM Encyclopedia, Performance Evaluation Practical Indicators For Evaluating Progress Toward 

Planning Objectives at http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm131.htm and Eric Schreffl er (2000), “State of the Practice: Mobility Management 

Monitoring and Evaluation in the United States, MOST: Mobility Management Strategies for the Next Decades”; Work Package 3, D3

Report, Appendix C.
4-5 | Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies

Defi ning and Measuring Congestion in the 

CMP

In areas that implement a CMP, the CMP must defi ne 

the appropriate performance measures for congestion. How congestion is defi ned may differ across 

regions and may relate back to regional visions and 

goals articulated in the MTP, based on public input.

Many CMPs have relied on volume-to-capacity 

(V/C) ratios as the measure of congestion. This 

simple measure is relatively easy to defi ne and to 

collect data and model future performance. However, 

some transportation agencies are beginning to use 

more customer-oriented measures, such as travel 

time measures, which are easier to understand and 

communicate to the public. Based on congestion 

problems in a region, a wide range of measures of 

congestion may be used, addressing:

• Scope (total delay time experienced by travelers).

• Extent (amount of lane miles experience congestion).

• Duration (hours of congestion per day).

• Intensity (level of service) of congestion.

• Sources of congestion (recurring and non-recurring) and other considerations.

Moreover, if a region’s goals and objectives look to 

improve accessibility and personal mobility, then 

measuring congestion based solely on vehicle counts 

may not be the most effective choice for that region. 

Instead, a region may wish to include other

measures that relate to alternatives to driving alone 

and transportation options in their CMP. These 

alternatives may include such elements as average 

vehicle occupancies, person-throughput, or transit 

mode share. Some regions measure travel conditions 

for transit, biking, and walking, including whether 

those modes are available, how much the modes 

are used, and how the modes perform regarding the 

traveler experience within their CMP. 

Recognizing that the public often fi nds unexpected 

delay most aggravating, some MPOs are incorporating performance measures relating to system 

Maricopa Performance Measure Framework and 

CMP Update:

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 

recently launched a study to develop a performance measurement framework and a congestion 

management process update for evaluating future 

planning and programming activities. 

The three-phase study is being conducted in 

conjunction with a technical advisory group formed 

from MAG’s member agencies, Arizona DOT, and 

local FHWA representatives. The idea for developing a common process to assess and evaluate 

projects was based on integrating the regional 

transportation plan and congestion management 

goals and objectives. 

Following the development of the performance 

measurement framework and monitoring program, 

the study will move into its third phase of determining how CMP strategies should be developed 

based on congestion mitigation outcome measures 

and effective congestion management techniques.

See:

http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/division.

cms?item=64.

reliability, incidents, and non-recurrent delay into 

their CMPs. In selecting congestion performance 

measures and other operations-related performance 

measures, agencies should consider the following:

• Ability of the set of measures to track performance for the region overall, the corridors, and 

for individual transportation facilities.

• Ability of the agency to collect data to track the 

measure.

• Ability of the measure to relate the data to traveler perceptions in an easily understood way.

• Incorporation of safety-related measures given 

the role of traffi c incidents in non-recurring 

congestion.

• Opportunities for addressing different aspects 

of congestion that are important to users of the 

transportation system, such as non-recurring 

traffi c congestion, impacts of congestion on 

freight movement, and the availability of alternatives to avoid traffi c congestion (e.g., transit, 

bicycle, and pedestrian options).
Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies | 4-6

4.3 Use Performance Measures 

to Determine Operational 

Needs

Identifying Specifi c Defi ciencies and Needs

Operations objectives may lead to the development of 

not only regional performance measures, but also local 

performance measures, which may be used for specifi c 

local geographic areas or facilities to assess system 

performance. For instance, in the CMP, a region must 

defi ne what it means to have unacceptable congestion. 

Different thresholds can be used to defi ne unacceptable 

congestion based on location, facility type, and time 

period, recognizing that the public may fi nd different 

levels of congestion acceptable for different circumstances. 

For example, slower speeds are often expected in a 

central business district than in a more suburban or rural 

area. Differentiating between location types recognizes 

that eradicating congestion may not be the sole community goal in all areas. Higher levels of traffi c congestion 

may be acceptable in downtown areas where there is 

available transit service and quality pedestrian environments. Operations objectives targeting this congestion 

would, therefore, be different from objectives addressing congestion in the suburban and rural areas. Once 

performance measures are established for different 

types of roadways, these measures can be used at a 

local scale to identify the areas with the greatest congestion problems and target strategies and investments for 

these areas to maximize the investment’s value.

For instance, as part of its CMP, the Capital Area 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) in 

Austin, Texas, utilizes travel-speed-related measures to 

identify congested locations. For roadway segments, 

CAMPO has defi ned minimum threshold acceptable 

speeds, based on the type of road and the type of area 

through which that road travels, with lower speeds 

more acceptable in a central business district location 

than in a rural area.

The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council 

(EWGC) in St. Louis, Missouri, used aerial photography with multiple photographs taken during 3-hour 

a.m. and p.m. peak periods, producing traffi c volume 

and density numbers for several time points at the 

same location. This information allowed EWGC to 

track the duration of congestion along congested links, 

distinguishing links with prolonged congestion from 

those that are congested over short portions of the peak 

periods.18

A number of regions have developed systems to 

provide the public with real-time information on the 

condition of the transportation system (e.g., location 

and severity of delays, location and status of accidents, 

status of the transit network, weather-related traffi c problems, and disruptions from special events). 

Much of this information can be evaluated to identify 

trends and current variation in system performance 

and to assess performance on specifi c sub-elements 

of the system. Agencies can examine ongoing system 

monitoring efforts as a starting place for a performance 

measurement program.

Determine Data Needs

Data is a prerequisite for the use of performance 

measures. MPOs often struggle between the desire to 

measure regional performance, data limitations, and 

cost considerations that place constraints on the extent 

to which performance measures can be used.

Using Data to Prioritize Congestion Relief:

The Capital District Transportation Commission 

(CDTC) uses operations performance data collected 

by New York State DOT (NYSDOT) to feed its congestion management process. Analyzing NYSDOT’s 

operations performance data led CDTC to prioritize 

certain corridors for incident-related delay in its 

CMP. CDTC analyzed data for two major corridors 

in the region, Interstates 87 and 90. The agency 

found that recurring delay was not as severe as its 

regional demand model suggested, but incident-related delay was worse. Since previous public input 

suggested that travelers have less tolerance for 

incident-related delay compared to recurring delay, 

CDTC used the operations data it received from the 

State to prioritize managing incident-related delay 

in its CMP. CDTC also incorporated a measure of 

reliability into its CMP called the “Planning Time 

Index.”

See:

http://www.cdtcmpo.org/.

18 For more information, see East-West Gateway Council of Governments, “Transportation.” Available at:

http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/transportation.htm, last accessed December 6, 2009.
4-7 | Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies

At the same time, a wealth of data is currently being 

collected in most regions by transportation system 

operators who run systems that keep track of real-time 

travel information. Intelligent Transportation Systems 

(ITS) components, in particular, such as toll tag readers 

and transponders, video detector systems, and traffi c 

management systems used to provide travelers with 

real-time travel information, can be used to measure 

performance of the transportation system on an ongoing 

basis. 

Examples of potential sources of data include:

• ITS Data on Speeds/Reliability: Operators of 

ITS equipment and traffi c management centers 

(TMCs) rely on continuous collection of vehicle 

speed and volume data to make their systems 

work. These large and continuous data sets can 

provide a much more detailed picture of travel 

conditions than sampling procedures such as 

annual counts, if the time and effort are taken to 

archive them for congestion planning purposes.

• Transit Operations Data: Transit agencies may 

collect data on bus travel times, speeds, ridership, 

passenger loadings, and other factors.

• GPS Technologies: Data on travel times are 

collected in the fi eld using global positioning system technology. Field surveyors drive 

“probe” vehicles to match traffi c fl ow, recording 

digitally the time required for each segment of 

their travel time runs. 

• Other Electronic Data: Examples include 

E-ZPass, Smart Cards, and other automated toll 

or transit fare collection services. In addition, 

cell phone location technologies are available. 

These technologies use cell phone data collected 

by phone companies along highway corridors to 

calculate travel speeds. 

Central New Jersey Route 1 BRT:

With traffi c volumes in the New Jersey corridor 

estimated to increase by 55 percent by 2020 and 

the lack of transit service availability, several 2006 

BRT studies conducted by the New Jersey Transit 

Corporation (NJ TRANSIT), the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, North Jersey 

Transportation Planning Authority, and the New 

Jersey DOT, estimated that a bus rapid transit (BRT) 

system in the corridor could reduce weekday auto 

person trips by 11,000 to 12,000. The BRT system 

would transport 31,200 person trips per weekday, 

and include several park and rides. The transit 

share of work trips would more than double present 

transit use, from 2 - 4 percent to 5 - 9 percent in the 

core study area. Potential BRT routes would be designed on an exclusive guideway, where possible, 

to create fast, direct travel from station to station, 

unhampered by traffi c conditions on local roads. To 

establish this quick and reliable service, an alignment was created to directly connect to major 

activity centers and only allow access to BRT and 

supporting feeder route buses at transfer points. 

This would also separate the buses from auto congestion on U.S. Route 1. The BRT will be a shared 

right-of-way that numerous different bus routes will 

use coming from various feeder locations. Instead 

of one line going from one point to the next, which 

requires people to walk and use park & ride systems, the BRT will have more fl exibility over the long 

term: different bus routes will provide service for 

various counties along U.S. Route 1 and travel to 

many key job center destinations without the need 

for riders to change buses.

See:

http://www.dvrpc.org/LongRangePlan/Central

JerseyForum/brt.htm.
Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies | 4-8

Example of an M&O Strategy - Boston Silver Line 

BRT:

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

(MBTA) designed the 7-mile Silver Line as a Bus 

Rapid Transit (BRT) service to provide high frequency and high quality service from Dudley Square and 

lower Roxbury through the South End, Chinatown, 

downtown, and on to the South Boston Waterfront and continuing service to Logan International 

Airport. 

The Silver Line is intended to increase mobility 

and support economic development in Boston’s 

neighborhoods. This new line will greatly improve 

the existing transportation network in the downtown 

core by providing mobility improvements throughout the system through improving connections to 

the Red, Orange, and Green subway lines, and 

providing improved access to the commuter rail 

system, as well as the intercity Amtrak and intercity 

bus terminals. The Silver Line also will address existing congestion on both the transit system as well 

as the roadway network. Several attributes and ITS 

applications utilized by the Silver Line are fundamental to producing many BRT benefi ts, signifi cantly improving the system. Silver Line’s traffi c signal 

priority technologies improve schedule adherence, 

reliability, and speed to extend or advance green 

light times or allow left turn swaps to allow buses 

that are behind schedule to get back on schedule. 

Designated (reserved) arterial lanes reduce travel 

time and improve reliability since a traffi c lane within 

an arterial roadway is set aside for the operation of 

BRT vehicles. The automated scheduling dispatch 

system utilizes real-time vehicle data to manage all 

BRT vehicles in the system and ensure a high level 

of service for passengers.

See:

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/.

4.4 Identify and Evaluate

Strategies

Identifying Strategies

Identifying strategies to achieve operations objectives is best accomplished when transportation planners and system operators collaborate. Planners have 

access to data on current and future mobility concerns. Operators know best practices to implement 

based on their experience. When these two groups 

collaborate and share information, agencies are able 

to identify the most promising strategies to improve 

regional system performance. 

M&O strategies may be implemented as individual 

programs or projects, such as a regional incident 

management system, traveler information system, or 

transit smart card system. These strategies also can 

be implemented as part of transportation preservation 

projects, safety projects, or capacity improvements. 

For instance, as part of any new highway expansion, 

it may be useful to consider the role of transportation pricing, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, 

fl exible design to accommodate concurrent fl ows of 

traffi c, or demand management programs during the 

construction period.

Bringing operations stakeholders to the table with a 

focus on M&O in the planning process can help to 

identify strategies that are already being implemented or considered by operating agencies but which 

may have never before appeared in the MTP.

Congestion management strategies include many 

M&O strategies, and also may include land use strategies or infrastructure development, where needed. 

Examples of congestion management strategies that 

might be included in a CMP are identifi ed here:

• Operating Existing Capacity More

Effi ciently: Getting more out of what we have 

through improvements to system operations:

– Metering traffi c onto freeways.

– Optimizing the timing of traffi c signals.

– Improving incident response.

– Realigning transit service schedules.

– Improving management of work zones.

– Identifying weather and road surface problems and rapidly targeting responses.

– Installing a transit signal priority system.

– Implementing access management.

• Demand Management: Encouraging changes 

in travel mode, time, location, or route:

– Programs that encourage transit use, ridesharing, bicycling, and walking.

– Parking management.

– Employer-based programs.
4-9 | Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies

the planning process focuses on performance rather 

than looking narrowly at categories of projects, such as 

highways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Data on system performance can highlight the value of 

investments in programs that minimize incident-related 

delays, provide information on real-time travel conditions, and improve emergency response times by showing how such investments can improve transportation 

system reliability and reduce travel times for customers. 

Analyzing Strategies for Prioritization

After a region has identifi ed potential M&O strategies for achieving its operations objectives, the region 

moves forward with the task of evaluating and prioritizing the strategies that will be selected for funding and 

implementation. In the objectives-driven, performancebased approach for planning for operations, the prioritization of M&O strategies is founded on the predicted 

ability to help the region achieve its operations objectives. While this element of the approach is challenging 

for many regions, it is important for making informed 

decisions on applying resources to achieve operations 

objectives. 

– Telecommuting programs.

– Congestion pricing.

– Providing real-time information on transit 

schedules and arrivals.

• Land Use Strategies: Strategies designed to 

alter development patterns and design:

– Transit-oriented development.

– Clustering development.

– Urban design.

• Infrastructure Development: New highway, 

transit, or bicycle/pedestrian capacity:

– Adding capacity to the transit system (buses, 

urban rail, or commuter rail).

– Adding travel lanes on major freeways and 

streets.

– Removing bottlenecks.

– Installing overpasses or underpasses at

congested locations.

A Toolbox of Solutions

Some regions have developed a “toolbox” of congestion management strategies as part of their CMPs to 

provide guidance for agencies that are essential partners 

to MPOs in managing congestion. A toolbox offers 

MPOs an opportunity to communicate a framework for 

responding to congestion. For instance, MPOs can suggest that roadway capacity projects be considered only 

after other strategies, such as demand management or 

operations, have been exhausted. A toolbox also serves 

as a guide to inform implementing agencies about 

issues that may arise in implementing the strategies, 

such as when strategies require supporting efforts, such 

as local land use planning, to work most effectively.

Performance measures can be used to help identify, develop, and assess strategies that are best geared toward 

achieving results. Utilizing operations objectives and 

related performance measures focused on issues such 

as reliability, travel delay, and other operating issues 

often leads to the development of M&O strategies. Use 

of measurable objectives for a wide range of goals, 

addressing safety, security, the environment, etc., also 

can lead to greater attention to M&O strategies since 

Congestion Management Toolbox: Helping Evaluate Strategies:

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission 

(SPC) uses a congestion management toolbox 

that includes 25 different strategies for addressing congestion, all organized around the four major 

categories of demand management, modal option, 

operational improvements, and capacity. Each of 

the 25 strategies is evaluated for suitability and 

potential benefi t with each of the region’s CMP 

corridors. 

To provide input on strategy evaluations, SPC 

developed an Internet-based tool. The tool is linked 

to a database that compiles the input and allows 

SPC to create a series of matrices for each corridor. 

These matrices help to identify where the consensus lies on various strategies in that corridor and 

can help prioritize strategies for each corridor. The 

prioritization of congestion management strategies 

can then be used to inform decisionmaking for the 

long-range plan and the TIP programming process.

See:

http://www.spcregion.org/trans_cong.shtml.
Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies | 4-10

The ability of MPOs to quantify the performance 

benefi ts of M&O strategies is limited by access to 

quality data and the effort required to use analysis tools 

appropriate for this task. Analysis tools that can be 

effectively used for planning for operations is a current 

area of research and development. However, there are 

a number of existing tools and methods available to 

predict the effects of operational strategies on system 

performance. Partnering with other agencies in the use 

of analysis tools for evaluating the impacts of M&O 

strategies can be critical for success and should be considered as a way to overcome the challenges associated 

with analysis.

The prioritization of M&O strategies for funding and 

implementation will typically not occur in isolation, 

but instead within the context of goals and objectives 

outside of operations. Goals and objectives for safety, 

environment, system preservation, livability, and others 

are likely to be included in an MTP. M&O strategies 

may be evaluated and prioritized for their impact on 

these other areas as well as their contribution to operations objectives. In some regions, M&O strategies or 

projects may compete directly with other projects for 

funding whereas in other regions there is a dedicated 

pool of funding for operations projects so that operations projects may compete with each other but not with 

other types of projects such as capacity or preservation 

improvements.

The following is a brief description of analysis tools 

that can be used for predicting the impacts of M&O 

strategies:19

• Sketch planning tools, such as the ITS 

Deployment Analysis System (IDAS), 

Screening for ITS (SCRITS), and Surface 

Transportation Effi ciency Analysis Model 

(STEAM). These tools generally provide 

order-of-magnitude estimates of travel demand 

and traffi c operations in response to transportation improvements. They can be low cost and 

require less data than other tools, but are limited 

in scope and presentation. The IDAS software 

works with the output of traditional transportation planning models and enables planners to 

evaluate both the relative costs and benefi ts of 

ITS investments.20 SCRITS is similar in that 

it is intended to allow practitioners to obtain 

an initial indication of the possible benefi ts of 

various ITS applications. It involves a more 

simplifi ed spreadsheet analysis to expedite a 

benefi t-cost analysis.21 STEAM enables users 

to assess the net safety and mobility benefi ts 

of transportation investments as well as policy 

alternatives in multimodal urban regions and 

corridors.

• Simulation tools, which include microscopic, 

mesoscopic, and macroscopic applications. 

Simulation tools are used by agencies to analyze 

the impact of operations strategies as well as to 

conduct environmental impact studies, needs 

assessments, and alternatives analysis. Tools 

within this group can provide detailed results, 

an analysis of incidents and real-time diversion 

patterns, and useful visualizations of impacts 

for presentations. While the tools have several 

advantages, they can be costly to use because 

of data requirements and necessary computing 

capability.22

– Macroscopic simulation models are based 

on the deterministic relationships of the fl ow, 

speed, and density of the traffi c stream. The 

simulation in a macroscopic model takes 

place on a section-by-section basis rather 

than by tracking individual vehicles. They 

are limited because of the lack of detail they 

can provide and they do not account for trip 

generation, trip distribution, or mode choice 

in their simulations.

– Mesoscopic simulation models provide 

a combination of macroscopic and microscopic simulation model attributes. They 

use individual vehicles as the traffi c fl ow 

units but predict travel on an aggregate 

level and do not factor in the dynamic 

relationships of speed and volume. They 

can be used for short-range operations 

19 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, “Applying Analysis Tools in Planning for Operations,” FHWA-HOP-10-001 (Washington, 

DC: 2009). Available at: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10001/index.htm, last accessed February 4, 2010. 

20 For more information, see the IDAS information page at: http://idas.camsys.com/.

21 For more information, see the Federal Highway Administration’s “STEAM: Screening for ITS” page at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/scrits.htm.

22 Federal Highway Administration, Offi ce of Operations, “Traffi c Analysis Tools, Types of Traffi c Analysis Tools.”

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/traffi canalysistools/type_tools.htm, last accessed February 9, 2010.
4-11 | Developing Performance Measures, Assessing Needs, and Selecting Strategies

planning including traveler information 

strategies. DYNASMART-P, DynaMIT-P, 

TransModeler, and TRANSIMS are examples of mesoscopic simulation models.

– Microscopic simulation models include 

CORSIM/TSIS, Paramics, AIMSUN, and 

VISSIM. They model traffi c fl ow at the level 

of individual vehicles based on car-following 

and lane-changing theories. These models 

can produce results beyond other types of 

tools but require signifi cant computing time 

and storage, and may be diffi cult to calibrate. 

They can be effective, though, in evaluating 

areas of signifi cant congestion and impacts of 

proposed transportation improvements at the 

system level. 

Microscopic models, like CORSIM, have been 

used for operations planning by Wisconsin DOT, 

Indiana DOT (INDOT), New York State DOT 

Region 11, New Jersey DOT, Miami-Dade County, 

Florida DOT, and California DOT (Caltrans). 

CORSIM, a comprehensive microscopic traffi c 

simulation tool, is applicable to surface streets, 

freeways, and integrated networks with a complete 

selection of control devices (i.e., stop/yield sign, 

traffi c signals, and ramp metering). CORSIM 

simulates traffi c and traffi c control systems using 

commonly accepted vehicle and driver behavior 

models. INDOT uses PARAMICS to evaluate and 

address future operational needs, which is being 

applied to determine future growth and design 

needs for I-465, I-70, and I-69 within Marion 

County. The City of El Paso and the University of 

Texas-El Paso have combined DYNASMART-P 

and CORSIM to evaluate downtown traffi c and the 

environmental impacts of one-way and two-way 

traffi c fl ow reconfi gurations.

• Use of archived data, which allows performance measurement before and after implementation of operations-oriented projects. This data 

can be also used to calibrate and supply inputs 

to models. Archived data is often collected by 

State and local DOTs through roadway detections devices and transit agencies via on-board 

systems.
Resulting Plans, Programs, and Projects | 5-1

• Private Traffi c Reporting Company: A 

Tucson, Arizona traffi c control center receives 

personnel services and advertising time in exchange for traffi c information.

• Turnpike Tolls: A New Jersey Turnpike 

Authority’s Traffi c Operations Center is funded 

through tolls.23 

The MTP is a product of coordination among local 

jurisdictions, stakeholder agencies, and the public. 

The resulting plan can take on one of many different formats and organizations while still adhering to 

Federal requirements, but correspondingly, applying 

an objectives-driven, performance-based approach to 

integrate operations in the MTP can result in an MTP 

being structured in a variety of ways. A couple of 

alternatives to consider include the following: 

• A section focused specifi cally on M&O. This 

section of the plan would identify M&O goals, 

include specifi c, measurable, regional operations objectives, and describe how M&O 

strategies achieve stated objectives. This section 

might describe existing system performance, 

project system performance in absence of the 

plan, and expected performance with the inclusion of all planned M&O projects and strategies.

5.1 The Resulting Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan and TIP

A plan resulting from the objectives-driven, performance-based approach for operations should include 

the following (See Figure 5): 

• Goals and measurable objectives that advance 

operational performance outcomes of the regional transportation system. 

• Performance measures that allow the region to 

track progress toward achieving its objectives.

• Clearly defi ned M&O strategies backed by 

specifi c performance measures that allow for 

evaluation. 

MTPs should discuss M&O strategies that are funded 

by State, regional, and local transportation agencies, 

even without Federal funding involved. Since many 

M&O strategies (e.g., incident clearance, emergency 

response) are planned and executed by these types 

of agencies, this discussion would provide a more 

holistic picture of the M&O strategies being employed within a region, which will provide a clearer 

picture of the entire transportation system and its 

performance.

These strategies should then move forward to programming and implementation in collaboration with 

operating agencies. Many of the M&O strategies will 

fl ow from the MTP to be programmed in the TIP. 

M&O projects may be eligible for several funding 

sources: State funds, local funds, STP, Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and others. 

Examples of more innovative funding sources for 

M&O strategies across the U.S. include:

• Development Fees: New developments pay 

pro rata share of the costs of transportation 

improvements necessitated by the impact of the 

development in Montgomery County, Maryland.

23 Information on funding for operations can be found in Show Me the Money: A Decision-Maker’s Funding Compendium for Transportation Systems Management and Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Operations Coalition, 

FHWA-HOP-06-003, December 2005. Available at:

http://www.narc.org/uploads/File/Transportation/Library/Trans_Funding_PTI_FHWA_2006.pdf, last accessed December 6, 2009.

5.0 RESULTING PLANS,

PROGRAMS, AND PROJECTS
5-2 | Resulting Plans, Programs, and Projects

• Alternately, a resulting MTP could include 

discussion of M&O strategies within the context 

of different goals and strategies identifi ed within 

the MTP. For example, a goal aimed at improving highway safety might utilize a regional 

operations objective related to reducing the 

number of fatalities on the highway system, 

and include M&O strategies such as emergency 

response teams, enhanced signalization, etc. A 

goal aimed at improving mobility and access 

across the region might include a regional operations objective related to reducing the level of 

traveler delay, and include M&O strategies such 

as peak-period use of shoulder lanes, congestion 

pricing, and variable message signs. Monitoring and evaluation

Implementation

Transportation improvement program and 

other funding programs

Systematic process to develop and 

select M&O strategies to meet objectives

Operations objectives

Operational goals and motivation

Includes:

• Regional goals

• Operations objectives

• Performance measures

• M&O strategies

Metropolitan transportation plan

Figure 5: A Metropolitan Transportation Plan Resulting from the Approach Includes Goals, Operations Objectives, Performance Measures, and M&O 

Strategies

Homeland Security Funding Supports M&O in 

Baltimore Region:

Transportation management and operations is an 

integral part of many regional goal areas such as 

homeland security, environment, safety, and livability. In the Baltimore, Maryland region, the MPO – the 

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) 

– has worked to advance emergency preparedness 

and related transportation operations activities. 

Since September 11, 2001, the BRTB’s committees 

have expanded their collaboration with emergency 

responders to all hazards including acts of terrorism. One of the BRTB’s committees, the Transportation & Public Works (T&PW) Subcommittee, also 

reports to the Urban Area Homeland Security Work 

Group (UAWG). The UAWG, which is a stand-alone 

regional committee, allocates the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security’s Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funds to the region.

The T&PW Subcommittee requested and received 

UASI funds from the UAWG for several projects 

that support planning for transportation management and operations during emergencies. One 

project involves the development of an evacuation 

model that will provide emergency responders with 

recommended evacuation zones and routes given 

the location of the incident, recommended signal 

timing and turning movement restrictions, and estimated evacuation clearance times. While designed 

for emergencies, this model can also be used to 

support transportation management during other 

types of events. UASI funds have also been used 

to develop a decision-support tool for identifying 

routes that would be most appropriate for contrafl ow operations and would warrant further study 

and analysis. Also, the T&PW Subcommittee used 

UASI funds as well as transportation funds to conduct a transportation-focused evacuation tabletop 

exercise in the spring of 2010.

See:

http://www.baltometro.org/.

Pima Association of Governments’ Use of Operations Objectives Led to M&O Projects in the TIP:

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) led 

a group of operations participants in identifying 

specifi c objectives and performance measures for 

arterial management, traveler information, and work 

zone management to develop a regional concept 

for transportation operations. These objectives 

guided Tucson’s selection of management and 

operations strategies and the approaches for implementation. The regional concept for transportation 

operations (RCTO) group identifi ed specifi c operations projects and programs such as a regional 

traffi c signal program to be included in the PAG TIP 

and funded through a half-cent transportation sales 

tax, which passed in 2006.

See:

http://www.pagnet.org/Programs/Transportation

Planning/PlansandPrograms/RegionalSafetyand

Operations/tabid/170/Default.aspx.
Resulting Plans, Programs, and Projects | 5-3

Examples of Plans Incorporating Elements 

of the Approach

The Regional Transportation Plan (the Plan) 

developed by the Regional Transportation 

Commission of Washoe County is organized by 

mode of travel and contains goals, measurable 

objectives, performance measures, and transportation improvement strategies across several plan 

areas including congestion, condition, safety, and air 

quality.24 There are six overall goals that guide the 

Plan’s implementation. The goal with the strongest 

element of operations is “Manage the transportation system to provide an optimum level of mobility 

for the greatest number of persons while insuring 

mobility for the transportation disadvantaged.” The 

goals, objectives, policies and performance measures 

also are discussed with each mode, while M&O 

strategies are discussed primarily in the chapter 

titled “Transportation Management/Intelligent 

Transportation Systems Element.”

Examples of operations objectives included in the 

Plan are: 

• Average per capita daily travel time will not increase above 2000 levels more than 20 percent 

by 2008; 30 percent by 2018; and 40 percent by 

2030 and beyond. 

• Within Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors, the 

BRT mode share will be 20 percent by 2020 and 

30 percent by 2040 and beyond.

• All signalized intersection will be within policy 

level of service by the year 2012 and maintained 

at that policy level of service thereafter.

M&O strategies highlighted in the plan include a 

collaborative transportation management center, 

ramp metering, traffi c signal coordination, and 

real-time bus information. The FY 2009-2013 

Regional Transportation Improvement Program for 

the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe 

County contains approximately $35.7 million for 

transportation systems management and transportation demand management projects including a 

freeway service patrol, a traffi c management center, a 

trip reduction program, ongoing signal coordination 

improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements.25

The Plan notes that during the RTP update process, 

the progress toward the objectives will be reviewed 

and objectives and activities will be updated as 

necessary. 

The Denver Regional Council of Governments’

2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan 

has several focus areas, such as freight, security, and 

safety, including one that is dedicated to system management and operational improvements.26 The overall objective of this focal area is “to provide more 

reliable travel times and reduce the amount of delay 

faced by drivers, passengers, and trucks on the roadway and transit system.” Strategies identifi ed in the 

plan include providing queue jump lanes for transit, 

disseminating real-time information to travelers on 

travel time/speeds on VMS and websites, and coordinating traffi c signal timing plans across jurisdictions. 

More importantly, “management, operational, and air 

quality improvements” is a major system category 

with designated funds in DRCOG’s plan. 

5.2 Benefi ts of the Resulting Plan 

and TIP 

The regional transportation system may not only 

see direct benefi ts through improved system performance, but broader benefi ts may be realized through 

a transportation planning process that is objectivesdriven and performance-based. Specifi cally, MPOs 

and operating agencies may expect benefi ts such as: 

• Clearer links between the MTP and the TIP, 

which often includes short-term projects 

focused on operations. An MTP may identify 

funding sources that can be set aside for projects 

that will be selected in more short-range planning analyses to address congestion and reliability issues. 

24 Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Available at:

http://www.rtcwashoe.com/planning-7, last accessed March 1, 2010.

25 Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, FY 2009-2013 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, Available at: 

http://www.rtcwashoe.com/planning-34, last accessed March 1, 2010

26 Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Available at:

http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=regionaltransportationplan(rtp), last accessed December 6, 2009.
5-4 | Resulting Plans, Programs, and Projects

• Stronger links between transportation planning 

and the NEPA process. An objectives-driven, 

performance-based planning process offers 

potential to strengthen the process of developing and reviewing transportation projects. 

Specifi cally:

– By clearly articulating regional goals and 

objectives, this can help to ensure that infrastructure projects in the MTP have a clearly 

identifi ed purpose and need.

– Since the approach places increased attention 

on M&O strategies, it will inherently involve 

stronger consideration of transportation 

system management alternatives to projects.

– By considering M&O strategies in connection with infrastructure projects, this may 

help to shape project decisions as the

project moves from planning through project 

development and design. For instance, as 

part of any new highway expansion, M&O 

strategies such as the deployment of enabling 

technologies (i.e., ITS), transportation pricing, development of high-occupancy vehicle 

lanes, or fl exible design to accommodate 

concurrent fl ows of traffi c can be put forward 

and incorporated into the proposed project 

alternatives.

• Improved ability to meet customer needs in the 

short-run and long-run, rather than just focusing 

on long-term needs. 

• Improved ability to meet a range of regional 

goals, as M&O strategies help to address safety, 

security, mobility, recurring and non-recurring 

congestion, and other issues.
Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation | 6-1

6.1 The Role of Monitoring and 

Evaluation in the Approach

Monitoring and evaluating performance is an important step, but it is sometimes overlooked in the 

objectives-driven, performance-based approach to 

planning for operations. The value of developing operations objectives and performance measures would 

not be fully realized without an assessment of progress in meeting the objectives. The CMP requires a 

coordinated program for data collection and system 

performance monitoring to defi ne the extent and 

duration of congestion; to help determine the causes 

of congestion; and to evaluate the effectiveness of 

implemented actions.

Monitoring and evaluation helps to inform better decisionmaking by transportation planners and operators. These efforts help transportation professionals: 

• Better understand the effectiveness of transportation strategies and investments so transportation planners and operators can work together 

to devise more effective investment strategies to 

meet regional objectives. 

• Fine-tune the operation of projects already 

implemented and the implementation of ongoing operations programs.

• Provide assistance in calibrating and refi ning 

planning tools and models, such as regional 

travel demand models, so that relationships and 

traveler responses are properly refl ected. 

• Spur greater collaboration between planners and 

operations managers in collecting and monitoring data, which can yield benefi ts in terms of 

both developing and refi ning operations objectives and performance measures as well as in 

identifying successful strategies. 

Tracking Progress – Regional Indicators:

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

(DVRPC) uses a systematic framework to monitor 

the Philadelphia metropolitan area’s progress in 

meeting its MTP goals. 

Tracking Progress is an ongoing, outcome-based 

effort to align planning and implementation activities and is intended to guide the region’s investment 

strategy. The effort collects and compiles meaningful time series data that helps regional decisionmaking. 

The resulting products feed back into future longrange plan updates and subsequent performance 

measures to provide a valuable interface between 

the region’s investment pattern and evaluative 

process.

See:

http://www.dvrpc.org/LongRangePlan/

RegionalIndicators/.

6.0 ONGOING MONITORING

AND EVALUATION
6-2 | Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluating information also improves the effectiveness of communications with decisionmakers, stakeholders, and the public, enabling 

them to: 

• Understand the current status of transportation 

system performance more clearly, not just based 

on anecdotal information but based on valid 

data. 

• More accurately assess what progress has been 

made in meeting operations objectives in order 

to see where performance has been improved 

and where progress still needs to be made.

• Understand the connections between transportation investments and policies and regional 

transportation system performance, including 

greater appreciation for the benefi ts of operational strategies.

6.2 Aspects of Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluating involves three related 

elements:

1. Evaluating the effectiveness of implemented 

strategies.

2. Tracking regional system performance.

3. Assessing and refi ning operations objectives.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Implemented Strategies

Measuring the performance of implemented strategies: 

1. Provides documentation of effectiveness, so that 

transportation agencies can communicate to the 

public and decisionmakers about the benefi ts 

of their investments. This documentation is 

particularly important for operations strategies, 

since the strategies themselves (e.g., traffi c 

signal retiming, transit signal priority, etc.) are 

often less tangible than infrastructure solutions, 

such as new roads and transit lines.

Lincoln, Nebraska Signal Timing:

The City of Lincoln, Nebraska, provides staff support to the Lincoln MPO. As part of its congestion 

management efforts, the city conducted travel time 

runs through designated corridors before and after 

a set of signal timing modifi cations were implemented as a congestion strategy. Studies were conducted on 8 corridors and at 46 signalized intersections.

See:

http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/pworks/engine/traffi c/

signal/index.htm.

Denver Region’s Transit Signal Improvement 

Program:

The Denver Regional Council of Governments 

works with over 30 local jurisdictions on the Traffi c 

Signal System Improvement Program (TSSIP), a 

combination of M&O strategies designed to time 

and coordinate traffi c signals in the Denver region. 

The program is updated regularly through a collaborative planning process involving representatives from the region’s operating agencies. Each 

agency identifi es critical needs yet understands that 

the focus of the program is improving signals at 

regionally signifi cant arterials. The TSSIP serves as 

a key component of the MPO’s congestion mitigation program. Funding is programmed for TSSIP 

through the TIP. The program has already improved 

operations at more than 1,000 traffi c signals in the 

region – reducing travel times, fuel consumption, 

and vehicle emissions.

See:

http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=

Traffi cSignalProgram.

NCTCOG Thoroughfare Assessment Program:

The Thoroughfare Assessment Program (TAP) is a 

multi-phased program being implemented by the 

North Central Texas Council of Governments. The 

purpose is to maximize the capacity of the existing 

system and improve air quality through advancing 

traffi c operations via signal retiming and implementation of low-cost operational improvements along 

selected corridors. An extensive data collection and 

system analysis process occurs for selected thoroughfares by means of assessing operational characteristics; estimating air quality benefi ts; and using 

performance measures such as travel time, delay, 

speed, and number of stops in order to develop and 

implement improvements.

See:

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/tsm/index.asp.
Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation | 6-3

27 See the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations, 23 CFR 450.320(c).

2. Supports more effective decisionmaking by 

helping transportation agencies to determine 

which strategies and investments are most effective in helping to attain operations objectives.

3. Demonstrates whether operational or policy 

adjustments are needed to make the current 

strategies work better, and provides information 

about how various strategies work to inform 

future approaches within the region.

Monitoring strategy effectiveness is one of the 

required elements of the CMP. Federal regulation 

indicates that the CMP should include “a process for 

periodic assessment of the effi ciency and effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area’s 

established performance measures.”27 This type of 

evaluation should be conducted for other types of operational improvements outside of the CMP as well. 

Measuring results typically requires a plan to collect 

pre-implementation and post-implementation data. 

Given the incremental changes in travel associated 

with many operational strategies, it will be important 

to select appropriate data, timeframes, and collection procedures to help isolate the changes in system 

performance that are associated with the strategy 

implementation.

Monitoring strategy effectiveness can be the most 

challenging part of the approach. For instance, traffi c 

congestion is the result of multiple factors, including 

available transportation capacity and the demand for 

travel, which interplay in complex ways. It can be 

diffi cult to identify the effects of a particular strategy from other factors that might infl uence congestion. As a result, there possibly is less accumulated 

experience with monitoring strategy effectiveness 

than other CMP elements. Although many regions 

now systematically report on congested conditions 

and performance, fewer focus monitoring efforts on 

specifi c CMP strategies to determine whether they 

have had the predicted or desired effect.

Monitoring approaches can include the following:

• Conduct program evaluation studies. For instance, fund a study to evaluate theeffectiveness 

of a regional transportation demand management program. 

• Build data collection into the implementation of specifi c projects. For instance, conduct 

a study of a sample of intersections prior to and 

after implementing traffi c signal improvements, 

or utilize transit ridership data collected through 

fare collection to determine the implications of 

adjusting bus schedules and providing real-time 

transit information signs along specifi c routes.

• Develop guidelines or incentives for local 

governments that receive funding to conduct 

evaluation studies. Although an MPO may not 

be able to fund studies of individual projects, it 

can provide guidelines or incentives for cities, 

counties, and other entities that receive funding 

to build evaluation into their program efforts. 

For instance, priority can be given to funding 

projects that have a data collection element.

Although collecting data to assess individual projects 

and programs may seem like a daunting challenge, 

particularly given small project budgets, the costs of 

data collection do not need to be high.

Wilmington Area Planning Council:

WILMAPCO, the metropolitan planning organization 

for New Castle County, Delaware and Cecil Council, 

Maryland, recently incorporated crash statistics 

(e.g., rates, frequency) into its identifi cation of 

congested corridors. Recognizing that traffi c congestion poses a continuing problem for the region, 

WILMAPCO has developed a regional approach 

to review the location of areas with highest crash 

frequencies. As crash data has become more reliable over the years, the agency expects to include 

it in its next summary publication of its congestion 

management process. In addition, with reliable 

historical crash data now available, WILMAPCO has 

the ability to begin tracking the crash trends in the 

region.

See: http://www.wilmapco.org.
6-4 | Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Tracking Regional System Performance

Collecting data on actual transportation system performance helps to demonstrate the region’s status and can 

show trends identifying whether indicators are moving 

in the right direction. Performance measures in the 

MTP can be used by the MPO to report regularly on the 

performance of the metropolitan transportation system, 

for instance, as part of a periodic (e.g., monthly, quarterly, biannual) performance report. Periodic performance reports provide an excellent mechanism to make 

M&O more relevant to the everyday experiences of the 

public. A number of MPOs, transit operators, and State 

DOTs use performance reports to open up dialogue with 

decisionmakers and keep them informed about trends in 

system performance.

Such reports inform transportation planning in a 

number of ways to:

• Provide a realistic view of system performance 

improvements achievable through management 

and operations investments. 

• Provide operations managers with guideposts 

and goals that provide some measure of how 

operations programs are contributing to the 

long-term goals of the system.

• Support policy that is realistic about system 

constraints and that supports the role of management and operations in maintaining acceptable transportation performance.

Agencies that report performance measures in a 

periodic performance report encourage a sustained 

communications link between planning and operations 

staffs. There are many cases where a particular activity 

or project requires temporary coordination or exchange 

between planners and operators, but sustaining such 

communication is critical for changing the everyday 

perspective of these departments to routinely consider 

operations tools within the planning process. Routine, 

sustained performance reporting is, therefore, particularly valuable. 

Assessing and Refi ning Operations 

Objectives

A feedback segment is part of the cycle of developing operations objectives, implementing strategies, 

GPS Technologies to Assess Reliability:

The Capital Region Council of Governments 

(CRCOG) of the Hartford, Connecticut, metro area 

used a $12,000 Technology and Innovation Funding 

grant from FHWA to purchase GPS equipment to 

monitor travel times and speeds during peak hours 

on arterial roads. CRCOG utilized its own staff 

to collect data with the GPS units as part of their 

normal commute routines along several key arterial 

corridors. Some staff deviated from their normal 

routes in order to conduct the travel time study.

See:

http://www.crcog.org/.

Aerial Photos:

Every 3 years, the Dallas-Forth Worth, Texas MPO 

conducts a series of aerial photo surveys to assess 

both system-wide and site-specifi c freeway system 

performance. This information helps identify potential locations for freeway bottleneck improvements 

as well as major corridor needs. The resulting data 

also enables decisionmakers to compare long-term 

congestion trends and to evaluate the benefi ts of 

the transportation improvement strategies being 

implemented over the coming years.

Data is obtained once an hour for 4 days during 

peak morning and evening periods of commuter 

travel. The aerial surveys show heavy truck traffi c 

corridors and locations of peak period traffi c bottlenecks. Vehicle type breakdown, vehicle counts, and 

the corresponding level of service (LOS) estimates 

are then derived from the data. The LOS ratings are 

presented in graphical format by highway segment, 

direction, and time slice.

See:

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/cmp/aerial/index.asp.

and evaluating results. Collecting data on system 

performance can be used to compare the status against 

specifi c targets that have been identifi ed in operations 

objectives. This information in turn can be used to help 

assess the feasibility of meeting objectives within the 

stated timeframe and may be used to refi ne or develop 

new operations objectives over time. For instance, if 

trends show diffi culty in meeting an objective, it may 

be necessary to refi ne the objective or consider alternative strategies to meet the objective. 
Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation | 6-5

6.3 Collecting Data for Evaluation 

Studies 

Data is a necessary component of monitoring and 

evaluation. The costs and time associated with collecting data are often considered challenges, given 

limited budgets for implementation, let alone postevaluation studies. However, there is a wide range 

of ways to collect data, which vary substantially in 

terms of resource requirements. In many instances, 

operations data may be available for use in this 

process. Table 4 provides some examples of data 

collection methods for evaluating various types of 

transportation strategies.

At a regional level, transportation system performance data can be collected from a range of different methods, several of which were noted earlier in 

section 4.3.

Incident Management 

Strategies Being Evaluated

• Average incident duration

• Occurrence of secondary

accidents

• Incidence response time

Performance Measures Data Collection Methods

• Log of incident duration (from 

dispatcher records)

• Measurement of speeds from 

surveillance system 

Traffi c Management • Average speeds

• Intersection delay

• Traffi c volume counts

• Moving car runs

• Measurement of speeds from 

surveillance system 

Traveler Information • Door-to-door trip time

• Transit ridership

• Mode share

• On-time arrivals

• Trip logs (by regular commuters), 

for roads and/or transit

• Traffi c counts

• Transit ridership counts

• Mode shift survey

Transit Operations • Transit travel times

• Transit ridership

• Peak load factor

• Schedule reliability

• Transfer time/station delay or 

waiting time

• Transit travel time

• Roadway impacts (e.g., vehicle 

delay, speeds)

• Mode share

• Mean incident clearance time per 

incident 

Travel Demand 

Management

• Mode share

• VMT reduced

• Mode share survey

• Traffi c counts

Table 4: Data Collection Methods for Evaluating Transportation Strategies

Source: Table adapted from East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis Region CMS Congestion Mitigation 

Handbook, available at: http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffi les/library/trans/cmshandbook.pdf.
7-1 | Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration 

7.0 MOVING FORWARD THROUGH

REGIONAL COORDINATION

AND COLLABORATION 

7.1 The Role of Regional 

Coordination and Collaboration 

in the Approach 

Implementing an objectives-driven, performancebased approach to planning for operations in the 

MTP requires regional collaboration among transportation planners and operators as well as non-transportation entities (e.g., public safety offi cials, major 

employers, chambers of commerce, convention and 

visitors’ bureaus, and special interest groups) that 

routinely affect or depend upon transportation. The 

inclusion of such a diverse set of participants ensures 

that a regional perspective on transportation system 

performance informs the planning process.28 

Coordination and collaboration among planners 

and operators is necessary across all steps in the 

approach, and is particularly important in defi ning regional operations objectives. Inclusion of both operators and planners in the MTP development process is 

vital to ensure that the objectives set forth in the plan 

are realistic and achievable. Coordination also will 

be important for identifying operations strategies, 

monitoring system performance, and evaluating the 

effectiveness of implemented strategies. 

The MPO can play a crucial role in bringing stakeholders together in a regional forum where all 

agencies benefi t by working together. For example, 

the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in conjunction with the Washington State Department of 

Transportation recently formed an Interagency Data 

Group among PSRC member agencies to broaden the 

region’s ability to research and collect multimodal 

data on the transportation system. According to 

a PSRC program director, there is an understanding among the members that they can benefi t from 

knowing what data others are collecting and comparing research needs and planned research across the 

agencies.

7.2 Who is Involved? 

A fi rst step in the process of integrating M&O in the 

MTP is to involve key regional transportation system 

operators in the metropolitan transportation planning process. This is often quite challenging, since it 

requires operators and planners to make a fundamental cultural shift to integrate the near-term considerations that are the focus of transportation system 

operators with the long-range considerations that are 

the focus of transportation planners. In most regions, 

operation of the transportation system is the responsibility of individual operating agencies (e.g., local 

departments of public works, transit agencies, and 

State departments of transportation), exacerbating 

the challenge of viewing the transportation system 

from a regional perspective. An objectives-driven, 

performance-based planning process will result in 

operators broadening their traditional perspective to 

one in which individual facilities are viewed as interconnected pieces of a regional system. Neighboring 

jurisdictions and agencies will work together as 

partners in providing transportation services to customers.

While the MPO serves a coordinating function in developing the MTP, the process of developing operations objectives requires involvement of a full range 

of agencies engaged in the operation of the transportation system. This includes:

• State DOTs.

• Local jurisdictions.

• Transit agencies.

• Bridge and toll facilities. 

• Port authorities.

28 For a more detailed discussion of collaboration and coordination, see Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination – A Primer for Working Together to Improve Transportation Safety, Reliability, and Security, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, Publication Number FHWA-OP-03-008. Available at:

http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13686.html, last accessed December 6, 2009.
Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration | 7-2

Moreover, there is a need to reach out to broader 

customer stakeholders, including the freight and 

business communities and agencies responsible for 

emergency management, such as: 

• Police and fi re offi cials.

• Emergency medical service (EMS) offi cials.

• Emergency managers.

• Public works offi cials.

• The tourism industry.

• Elected leaders.

• Freight shippers.

• Business organizations, such as chambers of 

commerce.

7.3 How to Engage Participants 

Engaging stakeholders to think about M&O is a critical factor in developing regional operations objectives, and in the ultimate success of incorporating 

M&O strategies in the MTP. This requires piquing 

the interest of operations agencies currently involved 

in the MTP process, and engaging new stakeholders 

in a new manner – one that addresses M&O as well 

as capital projects.

Engage Existing Operations Agencies in 

Thinking about M&O

Operating agencies are typically already at the MPO 

table and involved in the transportation planning 

process. However, it is important to engage day to day 

operating agency managers from a systems operations 

perspective and not simply as advocates for capital 

projects. As they participate, operators should identify 

existing operational programs and strategies that they 

are using and others that should be considered across 

agency lines and jurisdictional boundaries. Currently, 

many operating agencies are implementing M&O strategies; the MTP should identify regionally signifi cant 

activities, which may already be occurring, as well as 

help to identify additional areas for coordination across 

jurisdictions and agencies.

Engage New Stakeholders in the Planning 

Process

New stakeholders also need to be engaged in the MTP 

process. One way to achieve greater stakeholder parSpokane Regional Transportation Council Model 

Users Group:

The Spokane Regional Transportation Council 

(SRTC) is working to improve its collaboration with 

western Washington local jurisdictions and Washington State DOT. As a means to bolster collaboration, SRTC created the Transportation Model Users 

Group, which helps make future transportation 

decisions and investments.

The users group has championed various projects, 

including the SRTC Transportation Management 

Center, an interactive website that provides realtime updates on traffi c conditions in the area and 

live camera photos of heavily traveled routes and 

intersections.

See:

http://www.srtc.org/.

Puget Sound Freight Roundtable:

In 1993 the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), 

the MPO for the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, 

with the assistance of the Economic Development 

Council, gathered public and private freight sector 

representatives to form the Puget Sound Freight 

Roundtable. The Roundtable was created in an effort to better involve the freight industry in the planning process. The fi rst task of the Roundtable was 

to provide input on freight issues to the update of 

the metropolitan transportation plan. Since then, the 

Roundtable has infl uenced the transportation planning process by advising PSRC on freight needs 

and the potential impact of proposed projects on 

freight mobility. It educates policy-makers and the 

public on freight issues, and it helps to develop 

performance measures, data collection systems, 

and analysis techniques necessary to study freight 

movement.

See:

http://www.psrc.org/transportation/freight.

ticipation is to focus discussions on specifi c operations 

concerns, which makes it clear to operations practitioners and policy makers when the forum is within their 

area of expertise. For example, someone who manages 

fi rst responders is more likely to attend a committee 

meeting on regional incident management than a meeting dealing with the broad topic of regional M&O coordination. A focused forum also will likely benefi t from 

participants who have a grasp of both the technical and 

the institutional challenges associated with regional 

coordination for that specifi c topic.
7-3 | Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration 

Freight transportation planning is an area where focused 

forums have been successful. Engaging shippers, 

freight carriers, and freight terminal operators in the regional planning discussion has been challenging, in part 

because the long timeframe for planning is foreign to 

most private sector entities. Freight companies also may 

be mistrustful of Government planners and concerned 

about divulging proprietary business information. Some 

regions have successfully developed forums or task 

forces specifi cally to address regional freight operations 

planning. Such committees have succeeded at bringing 

freight needs and perspectives to the planning process, 

helping to promote a regional perspective on operations 

challenges.

Develop MPO Committees Focused On

Operations Issues

An increasing number of MPOs support interagency 

committees that deal directly and regularly with regional systems management and operations. In hosting such 

committees, the MPO facilitates a vital forum where 

inter-jurisdictional coordination, funding strategies, and 

data sharing can be addressed. In addition, the MPO 

can use the committee’s diverse operations expertise to 

inform M&O issues in the regional planning process, 

to identify ITS systems and data needed to support 

operations, and to infl uence the MPO’s annual work 

program. The forum will allow operations managers 

to increase their awareness of broader regional trends, 

needs, and strategies, and can be a key mechanism for 

developing regional operations objectives for inclusion 

in the MTP.

The Genesee Transportation Council in Rochester, 

New York currently convenes a regional transportation management committee that includes departments 

of transportation, the transit authority, law enforcement agencies, and local elected offi cials. The group 

meets every two months. According to the Genesee 

Transportation Council Executive Director, the committee is “invaluable in continuing the dialogue on M&O 

and constantly informing the metropolitan planning 

process.”

Developing an effective structure for these MPO committees can be challenging. One reason is that regional 

management and operations planning must often deal 

with narrow technical issues. For example, one committee might address topics such as how to provide 

back-up power at signals, use of various signalization 

software programs, and measures of effectiveness 

for signals. These types of regional forums may be 

invaluable as an information exchange for operations 

practitioners, but less useful as a forum for addressing 

broader coordination issues. 

As a result, some MPOs have created separate subcommittees for technical and policy issues. A technical 

subcommittee may focus on the details of equipment 

coordination, while the policy committee may address 

regional funding strategies and prioritization of regional 

operations initiatives. Periodic meetings of the full committee allow exchange between technical and policy 

staff. MPOs should take advantage of the existing ITS 

architecture committees that are experienced in bringing diverse stakeholders to the planning process.

As noted above, it also may be benefi cial to develop 

specifi c forums around aspects of operations, such as 

freight management, emergency management, and 

incident management.

National Capital Region’s Management,

Operations, and ITS Task Forces:

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) initiated the Washington Region 

ITS Task Force in 1997. After the region received 

Federal earmark funding for ITS, the task force attracted interest from a number of agencies in the region. These agencies collaborated to develop CapWIN, a wireless integrated mobile communications 

network that supports coordination between public 

safety and transportation agencies. Later that year, 

the TBP divided the Task Force into a technical 

task force and a policy task force. This facilitated 

the direct involvement of policy-level offi cials in ITS 

activities while maintaining the capacity to address 

technical details associated with ITS integration 

and coordination. In 2001, the TBP changed the 

name of the two task forces to the Management, 

Operations and Intelligent Transportation Systems 

(MOITS) Policy Task Force and the MOITS Technical 

Task Forces to refl ect a broader focus on management and operations from a regional perspective. 

See:

http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/committee.
Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration | 7-4

7.4 Tools to Advance the Approach

To sustain the successful integration of objectivesdriven, performance-based M&O in the planning 

process, MPOs need to institutionalize the process 

of engaging operating agencies and stakeholders in 

developing operations objectives.

Planners and operators interested in adopting this 

approach to planning for operations can leverage an 

organizational framework for regional transportation 

operations collaboration and coordination.29 This 

framework identifi es fi ve elements of collaboration 

that participants can focus on improving as they 

move forward in making planning for operations a 

sustained and productive endeavor. By advancing 

each element, planners and operators can help institutionalize the concept of “working together” among 

transportation agencies, public safety offi cials, and 

other public and private sector interests within a 

metropolitan region to guide the objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach within the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. The fi ve elements of 

collaboration include:

• Structure: The structure consists of the relationships and the setting that enable regional 

collaboration and coordination. It functions as 

the “table” where planners and operators meet 

to develop operations objectives and identify 

data sources and M&O strategies for inclusion 

in the MTP. 

• Processes: Processes are the formal and informal activities carried out to accomplish planning for operations. This includes how ideas are 

generated, decisions are made, and programs 

and projects are implemented.

• Products: The products of collaboration and 

coordination are the results of processes. In the 

context of the objectives-driven, performancebased approach, the products include the 

objectives, performance measures, and M&O 

strategies incorporated into the MTP. Additional 

products may be a regional concept for transportation operations, a regional ITS architecture, operations data, and operating plans and 

procedures.

• Resources: Resources govern what is available 

within the region for sustaining and implementing regional operations on an ongoing basis, 

not just for the completion of specifi c projects. 

Resources include funding for M&O strategies 

as well as the staff, data, and technology necessary for tracking operations performance toward 

objectives.

• Performance: The performance element 

comprises how performance will be measured, 

and individual and collective responsibilities for 

monitoring and improving regional transportation system performance.

Build on the Regional ITS Architecture

Regional ITS architectures and associated ITS committees can be signifi cant resources for advancing 

the incorporation of operations into the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. A regional ITS architecture creates a picture of ITS deployment and use in 

29 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination: A Primer for Working 

Together to Improve Transportation Safety, Reliability, and Security, FHWA-OP-03-008 (Washington, DC, 2003). Available at:

http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13686.html, last accessed December 6, 2009.

Hampton Roads ITS Architecture Leads to Inclusion of ITS and M&O in Regional Long-Range Plan:

One of the lasting benefi ts to developing a regional 

ITS architecture in 1995 for the Hampton Roads, 

Virginia region was the formation of an ITS committee hosted by the MPO. The collaboration started 

off with a simple meeting where several area traffi c 

engineers got together and exchanged contact 

information so that they could communicate in the 

event of an accident or special event. This led to 

regular meetings where operators and planning 

staff got together to discuss technical and institutional issues, their individual needs, and how to 

work together better. They envisioned compatible 

technologies throughout the region that would allow 

for inter-jurisdictional cooperation.

During the 2003 update of the ITS plan and 

architecture, the Hampton Roads ITS champions 

saw the opportunity to include ITS projects in 

the long-range plan, which was in the process of 

being updated. ITS and management and operations strategies and projects were presented to 

the MPO’s technical committee and approved for 

inclusion with funding in the Hampton Roads 2026 

Regional Long-Range Plan.

See:

http://www.hrtpo.org/.
7-5 | Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration 

a region as envisioned by a broad base of stakeholders. SAFETEA-LU requires that ITS projects funded 

through the Federal Highway Trust Fund conform to 

the National ITS Architecture and applicable standards. 

An ITS architecture defi nes existing or desired sensor, 

computer, electronics, and communications technologies, the interconnections and information exchanges 

between these systems, stakeholder agreements, and 

standards. In addition, the architecture describes the 

regional needs, ITS services that can address these 

needs, and the envisioned operational roles of agencies 

responsible for these systems.

A large number of regions in the United States already 

have developed architectures and established collaborative relationships between operating agencies and 

MPOs based on ITS deployment. These relationships 

can serve as the foundation for operator involvement 

in the transportation planning process. A region’s ITS 

architecture may advance the integration of operations 

into the MTP through information on data sources, 

operations objectives, operational needs and system 

defi ciencies, and M&O strategies.

The objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

for incorporating operations into the MTP requires 

data on the operational performance of the transportation system. The architecture may be a rich source of 

information on what operations data may already be 

collected, what data collection is being planned for the 

near future, and which agencies have access to the data. 

As planners and operators work together to defi ne 

operations objectives and M&O strategies to meet 

those objectives, they should consult their regional ITS 

architecture’s list of needs and services. In the development of the architecture, the stakeholders must identify 

the problems with the regional transportation system 

and the associated needs of the operators and transportation users. This may include operational problems that 

need to be addressed, such as “improve management of 

road closures,” “alleviate congestion in central business district,” or “improve electronic fare coordination 

between agencies.” The needs and services included in 

the ITS architecture can give regions a valuable jumpstart in developing operations objectives and identifying 

M&O strategies.30

Regional Concept for Transportation 

Operations

A regional concept for transportation operations 

(RCTO) is a management tool to assist in planning and 

implementing management and operations strategies 

in a collaborative and sustained manner.31 Through the 

development of the RCTO, transportation operators, 

planners, public safety agencies, and other stakeholders 

use an objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

to plan for regional transportation operations. An RCTO 

is a tool of particular signifi cance for integrating operations into the metropolitan planning process. 

An RCTO is developed and implemented by a group 

of transportation operators, planners, public safety 

agencies, or other stakeholders who want to improve 

regional transportation system performance by working 

together. The group often works within the context of 

an MPO working group or subcommittee. 

One of the fi rst steps in developing an RCTO is identifying one or more operations objectives of regional 

scope. The objectives may focus on a single operations 

area such as traveler information or traffi c incident 

management, or they may cover multiple operations 

areas or performance outcomes. Operations objectives in an RCTO are similar in form and content to 

the regional operations objectives in the MTP. The 

operations objectives in an RCTO may help to further 

refi ne the operations objectives already in the MTP, or 

the RCTO’s operations objectives may be incorporated into the MTP and used to incorporate operations 

into the overall metropolitan transportation planning 

process. 

Planners and operators working to incorporate operations into the metropolitan transportation planning 

process may use the RCTO as a tool to translate that 

regional operations objective into a specifi c and actionable strategy for achieving the objective. The RCTO 

can help planners and operators develop management 

and operations strategies that can be included in the 

MTP. 

Through developing an RCTO, the collaborative 

group of planners and operators establish roles, 

30 For more information see: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Regional ITS Architecture Guidance Developing, Using, and 

Maintaining an ITS Architecture for your Region, FHWA-HOP-06-112 (Washington, DC, 2006). Available at:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/regitsarchguide/index.htm, last accessed December 6, 2009.

31 For more information see: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations: The Blueprint 

for Action - A Primer, FHWA-HOP-07-122 (Washington, DC, 2007). Available at:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/rctoprimer/index.htm, last accessed December 6, 2009.
Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration | 7-6

responsibilities, and resources needed to achieve the 

operations objectives. In this way, the RCTO can serve 

as an important tool for implementing M&O strategies 

at a regional level. 

7.5 Engage Elected Offi cials and 

the Public

Elected offi cials and the general public play a key 

role in the approach to planning for operations. 

The process of integrating M&O strategies into the 

metropolitan transportation planning process often 

calls for strong regional leadership. Often this comes 

from MPO leadership that recognizes the practicality 

of solutions in the near-term that may be achieved 

with operational solutions. This may be as simple as 

the mayor of the central city responding to his constituents’ demands for greater travel time reliability 

along major routes. Leadership may come from the 

manager of the regional transit system recognizing 

the utility of a “smart card” that may be used for all 

transit systems in the region, or it may arise from the 

State DOT’s need for improving the management of 

work zones. These concepts may arise in the context 

of the MPO planning process or they may surface in 

the arena of transportation operating agency coordination. 

No matter how an issue arises, in most cases it takes 

a “champion” to push it and support it through the 

planning process (both internally to an operating 

agency and in the regional transportation planning 

process). It usually helps if the concept is pursued 

both at the technical level and the policy level. This 

can be facilitated by an MPO having a policy committee that champions operational strategies and 

a technical committee that develops the “nuts and 

bolts” of a concept. Elected offi cials also can play a 

key role in placing an emphasis in the MTP on the 

operational performance of the transportation system.

There are more than 100,000 State and local elected 

offi cials in the United States, ranging from governors 

to village selectmen. Beyond this number, there are 

tens of thousands of other individuals working in 

concert with elected offi cials at the following various 

levels

• State Level: Elected offi cials include governors and State legislators. Appointed offi cials 

typically include secretaries of transportation, 

commissioners, and often some form of State 

transportation board.

• Local Level: City councils and mayors (or 

whatever the chief local elected offi cial may 

be called), who range from “strong” mayors in 

major cities where these elected individuals are 

the chief executive offi cers to “weak” mayors 

in smaller cities and towns that operate on a 

“council-manager” form of governance. In these 

cases, the city or town manager is usually the 

CEO. Additionally, there will be a council of 

some sort. Appointed offi cials typically include 

a director of transportation or public works.

Communicating the benefi ts of M&O strategies to 

elected offi cials is important since these strategies 

are often less tangible than infrastructure projects. 

Factors to consider when reaching out to elected/appointed offi cials include:32

• Merits/content of a recommendation. Is it 

germane and relevant to the interests of the offi cial?

• Framing of the issue. Is it framed in a manner 

that is relevant to elected offi cial and his/her 

role?

• Timing of proposal. Do you allow enough time 

for refl ection and consultation with others?

• Form of message. Is the form concise and 

easily absorbed?

• Deliverer of the message. Is the message presented by peers or others in whom the elected/

appointed offi cial has confi dence?

Engaging the public in planning for operations and 

garnering public support for operations are important 

components of advancing regional operations and 

achieving operations objectives. Ultimately, M&O 

strategies are implemented to provide value to the 

public. Public support for operations objectives 

should be thoroughly considered when selecting 

32 Federal Highway Administration, Offi ce of Planning, Environment and Realty and the Offi ce of Operations, “Understanding the Communications and Information Needs of Elected Offi cials for Transportation Planning and Operations,” January 5, 2005. Prepared by 

John Mason. Available at: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/PublicInvolvement/understandComm.htm,

last accessed December 6, 2009. 
7-7 | Moving Forward Through Regional Coordination and Collaboration 

objectives. The public can determine funding for operations by voting on local tax laws and infl uencing 

the selection and decisions of elected offi cials. To 

garner the public’s support for operations, planners 

and operators need to help them understand the value 

of M&O strategies and the benefi ts they receive for 

their tax dollars. 

Unlike road construction projects, operations projects 

and programs can be diffi cult for the public to see. 

Planners and operators have to rely on other ways 

to get the public’s attention. Tracking and reporting on operations-related performance measures is 

one of the most common ways to gain public interest in transportation system performance. It can 

33 Washington State Department of Transportation, “WSDOT Accountability and Performance Information,” 2009. Available at:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability, last accessed December 6, 2009.

34 See “Metropolitan Mobility the Smart Way” from Metro in Portland, Oregon for an example. Available at:

http://library.oregonmetro.gov/fi les/metromobilityreport.pdf, last accessed December 6, 2009.

also be used, as in the case of the Washington State 

Department of Transportation,33 to create transparency and gain public trust. Advertising the success of 

M&O strategies and their measurable benefi ts to the 

public is another effective strategy in gaining public 

support.34 Additionally, operators and planners can 

use branding techniques for M&O programs such as 

traveler information or freeway/arterial service patrols so that the public can easily recognize operation 

efforts. Finally, planners and operators can gather 

support for operations by relating operations to the 

things that the public cares about, such as spending 

more time with family in their communications with 

the public.
Getting Started | 8-1

8.0 GETTING STARTED 

4. Developing operations goals and operations 

objectives for the MTP: 

a. Engage key operations participants in the 

region in developing the regional operations 

goals and operations objectives during the 

MTP update process, including State DOT, 

local DOT, transit, public safety, etc.

b. Develop one or more goals that focus on 

the desired operational performance of the 

transportation system.

c. Based on operations goals, begin to develop 

operations objectives that accurately refl ect 

what the region would like to achieve and 

believes can be achieved within a certain 

timeframe. These operations objectives may 

start out as vague and then get “SMART” 

as part of an iterative process to defi ne the 

operations objectives more specifi cally. 

Throughout this process, it is vital that 

the agencies necessary for achieving the 

objectives be committed to the resulting 

objectives.

a. Initially focus on what to improve, such as 

delay, clearance time, etc. 

b. Select the area and time of focus, such 

as regionally signifi cant arterials during 

peak hours.

c. Identify what data is currently being 

collected in the region and may be 

available for tracking the objectives. 

Based on this information, make the 

operations objectives more specifi c and 

link them to performance measures.

d. As fi scal constraints are applied during 

the development of the MTP, revisit the 

operations objectives to ensure feasibility. 

e. Collect baseline data for performance 

measures. Performance targets can be 

introduced into the operations objectives 

or adjusted with an understanding of 

baseline performance.

8.1 Steps to Getting Started: 

Planning for Operations Using 

the Approach 

1. Making the case to MPO decisionmakers:

a. Identify the key regional challenges 

(e.g., congestion).

b. Identify the constraints (e.g., funding, 

environmental) on traditional capital 

investment.

c. Gain policy agreement on pursuing 

M&O options for MTP and TIP.

2. Developing internal MPO leadership and 

advocacy for M&O:

a. Design a structure appropriate to your 

MPO that establishes advocacy within the 

decisionmaking process (e.g., an M&O 

policy committee and/or an M&O technical 

committee).

b. Ensure the full range of necessary 

stakeholders are at the table and invested in 

the effort.

c. Develop a mechanism to allow for continual 

participation in the iterative process, which 

can help institutionalize the consideration 

of M&O. 

3. Gaining regional participation in integrating 

M&O into planning:

a. Coordinate with transportation operators 

in the region to develop an M&O 

subcommittee or group that will build 

consensus on the direction for operations in 

the region.

b. Identify what data is currently being collected 

in the region. Utilize participating agencies to 

obtain operations data to support development 

of operations objectives and performance 

measures. 
8-2 | Getting Started 

8.2 Self-Assessment

Agencies are at different levels of development in 

implementing an objectives-driven, performancebased approach. As the approach is scalable and 

can accommodate different levels of development, 

agencies should fi rst begin by determining their own 

progress. The purpose of this section is to provide 

a tool for agencies to assess the extent to which 

they have integrated the approach to planning for 

operations at their organization. The assessment 

tool presented in Table 5 should be regarded as 

a starting point for integration of the approach 

and assessing the degree to which the operations 

goals and objectives have been integrated. It is 

not a comprehensive tool covering all aspects 

of transportation planning, but will help clarify 

certain areas and identify opportunities for future 

improvement.

5. Incorporating M&O strategies into the planning and programming processes:

a. Identify strategies for achieving operations 

objectives and include them in the MTP.

b. Be sure to include discussion of M&O strategies that are funded by State, regional and 

local transportation agencies, even without 

use of Federal funding, in the MTP.

c. Develop a method to allocate funding 

to M&O projects. This may be done by 

competing M&O projects against all other 

types of projects, or the M&O projects may 

compete against each other for funding allocated through a line item reserved for M&O 

projects. 
Getting Started | 8-3

Operations Goals and Objectives

Does our MTP have one or more goals that focus on the improved 

performance of our regional transportation system?

Table 5: Assessment Tool to Measure Integration of an Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach

Does our MTP contain operations objectives that defi ne desired 

system performance outcomes?

Are our operations objectives specifi c and measurable?

Is it realistic that we will achieve our stated operations objectives?

Do our operations objectives contain a timeframe for achievement?

Do our operations objectives include multimodal considerations?

Have we identifi ed opportunities to build on our objectives as data 

becomes more available and performance trends become clear?

Have our operations goals and objectives been agreed upon by all 

our transportation system partners and stakeholders?

Performance Measures

No Action to DateBeginning to Make Progress

Partially Achieved

Mostly Achieved

Fully Achieved

Have we established performance measures that can be used to 

assess attainment of our operations objectives?

Have we assessed our transportation system’s performance 

according to our operation objectives to see where improvements 

are needed?

Have we identifi ed where we need additional data to support our 

performance measures and potential sources of that data?

Management and Operations Strategies

Have we identifi ed M&O strategies to meet our operations 

objectives?

Have we engaged both planners and operators to identify our M&O 

strategies?

Have we formed a committee or other mechanism to identify/ 

prioritize our strategies?

Have we clearly articulated how we prioritize our M&O strategies?

Have we put together an inventory of current M&O strategies 

in effect within our region, including those not traditionally 

incorporated into the MTP planning process?
8-4 | Getting Started 

Does our MTP clearly identify M&O strategies in a manner that lets 

decisionmakers clearly see the level of investment?

Are investment decisions included within our MTP based on the 

best combination of capital investments and operations strategies 

(performance-based planning)? 

Management and Operations Strategies, continued

No Action to DateBeginning to Make Progress

Partially Achieved

Mostly Achieved

Fully Achieved

Monitoring and Evaluation

Are we monitoring and evaluating our system performance on a 

regular basis?

Do we have a plan in place to re-evaluate our operations objectives 

and performance measures?

Have we regularly communicated our evaluation to our 

stakeholders?

Regional Collaboration and Commitment

Have we worked collaboratively with the leadership from the 

operating agencies in our region?

Have we engaged our non-traditional stakeholders (e.g., 

emergency responders, freight operators, business community) as 

well as our traditional transportation planning partners?

Have we leveraged our regional ITS architecture and/or ITS 

committees in our planning for operations?

Have we utilized a regional concept for transportation operations?
SAFETEA-LU Requirements | A-1

1.0 Management & Operations in 

the Planning Process

On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

and Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law 

and became the most recent reauthorization of the 

Nation’s surface transportation program. Along with 

identifying Federal funding for a range of transportation programs and other transportation-related 

regulations, SAFETEA-LU updated requirements for 

metropolitan transportation planning. A fi nal planning rule (23 CFR Part 450) was issued on February 

14, 2007. Beginning July 1, 2007, all newly adopted 

metropolitan transportation plans must comply with 

Federal regulations identifi ed in SAFETEA-LU and 

the associated planning rule. 

According to the planning rule, “Promote effi cient 

system management and operation” is one of the 

eight planning factors that must be addressed in 

metropolitan transportation plans. Below is an 

excerpt from the Statewide Transportation Planning; 

Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule, 

February 14, 2007, Federal Register (bold added to 

highlight points related to operations):

§ 450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.

(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process 

shall be continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, and provide for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will 

address the following factors:

(1) Support the economic vitality of the

metropolitan area, especially by enabling global 

competitiveness, productivity, and effi ciency; 

(2) Increase the safety of the transportation 

system for motorized and non-motorized users;

(3) Increase the security of the transportation 

system for motorized and non-motorized users;

(4) Increase accessibility and mobility of people 

and freight;

(5) Protect and enhance the environment,

promote energy conservation, improve the

quality of life, and promote consistency between 

transportation improvements and State and local 

planned growth and economic development

patterns;

(6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of 

the transportation system, across and between 

modes, for people and freight;

(7) Promote effi cient system management and 

operation; and

(8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing 

transportation system.

(b) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (a) of this section shall be refl ected, as 

appropriate, in the metropolitan transportation 

planning process. The degree of consideration and 

analysis of the factors should be based on the scale 

and complexity of many issues, including transportation system development, land use, employment, 

economic development, human and natural environment, and housing and community development.

The Final Rule also strengthens expectations for 

including management and operations strategies in the 

transportation planning process. The Rule states that 

metropolitan transportation plans shall include both 

long-range and short-range strategies/actions, including 

operational and management strategies that improve 

the performance of existing transportation facilities to 

relieve congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods.

Selected excerpts are presented below (bold added to 

highlight points related to operations):

§ 450.322 Development and content of the 

metropolitan transportation plan.

(a) The metropolitan transportation planning process 

shall include the development of a transportation 

plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning 

horizon as of the effective date. In nonattainment 

and maintenance areas, the effective date of the 

APPENDIX A. SAFETEA-LU

REQUIREMENTS
A-2 | SAFETEA-LU Requirements

transportation plan shall be the date of a conformity 

determination issued by the FHWA and the FTA. 

In attainment areas, the effective date of the 

transportation plan shall be its date of adoption by 

the MPO.

(b) The transportation plan shall include both 

long-range and short-range strategies/actions

that lead to the development of an integrated 

multimodal transportation system to facilitate the 

safe and effi cient movement of people and goods in 

addressing current and future transportation demand.

...

(f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at 

a minimum, include:

(1) The projected transportation demand of 

persons and goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the transportation 

plan; 

(2) Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian 

walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors) that should function as an 

integrated metropolitan transportation system, 

giving emphasis to those facilities that serve 

important national and regional transportation 

functions over the period of the transportation 

plan. In addition, the locally preferred alternative selected from an Alternatives Analysis 

under the FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) 

needs to be adopted as part of the metropolitan 

transportation plan as a condition for funding 

under 49 U.S.C. 5309;

(3) Operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing 

transportation facilities to relieve vehicular 

congestion and maximize the safety and 

mobility of people and goods;

(4) Consideration of the results of the congestion management process in [Transportation 

Management Areas] TMAs that meet the 

requirements of this subpart, including the 

identifi cation of [single-occupancy vehicle] 

SOV projects that result from a congestion 

management process in TMAs that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide;

2.0 Transportation Systems Management and Operations

The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 

2008 amended Section 101(a) of Title 23 U.S.C. 

to include a defi nition of transportation systems 

management and operations (TSM&O). TSM&O is 

also referred to as “management and operations” or 

“M&O.” 

Below is an excerpt from the SAFETEA-LU 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008:

(h) Transportation Systems Management and 

Operations Defi ned- Section 101(a) of title 23, 

United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following:

(39) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘transportation 

systems management and operations’ means 

an integrated program to optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through the 

implementation of multimodal and intermodal, 

cross-jurisdictional systems, services, and 

projects designed to preserve capacity and 

improve security, safety, and reliability of the 

transportation system.

(B) INCLUSIONS- The term `transportation systems management and operations’ 

includes--

(i) regional operations collaboration and 

coordination activities between transportation and public safety agencies; and

(ii) improvements to the transportation 

system, such as traffi c detection and surveillance, arterial management, freeway 

management, demand management, work 

zone management, emergency management, electronic toll collection, automated 

enforcement, traffi c incident management, 

roadway weather management, traveler 

information services, commercial vehicle 

operations, traffi c control, freight management, and coordination of highway, rail, 

transit, bicycle, and pedestrian operations.
SAFETEA-LU Requirements | A-3

3.0 Congestion Management

Process

SAFETEA-LU also made a signifi cant change 

regarding congestion management. Title III Section 

3005 and Title VI Section 6001 updated the requirement for addressing congestion in Transportation 

Management Areas, mandating the incorporation of a 

“congestion management process” (CMP) within the 

metropolitan planning process.

The law requires a CMP in TMAs – urban areas with 

a population greater than 200,000 – as opposed to a 

congestion management system (CMS). The change 

in name (and acronym) is intended to be a substantive change in perspective and practice intended to 

encourage targeted areas to address congestion management through a process that provides for effective 

M&O and an enhanced linkage to both the planning 

process and the environmental review process that 

is based on cooperatively developed travel demand 

reduction and operational management strategies and 

capacity increases. This new focus retains the traditional role of the MPO in long-range transportation 

planning, but empowers the MPO and its partners in 

planning for the ongoing operations and management 

of the transportation system.

Below is language from the Statewide Transportation 

Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; 

Final Rule, February 14, 2007, Federal Register 

(bold added to highlight points):

Sec. 450.320 Congestion management process in transportation management areas.

(a) The transportation planning process in a TMA 

shall address congestion management through 

a process that provides for safe and effective 

integrated management and operation of the 

multimodal transportation system, based on a 

cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23 

U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 through the 

use of travel demand reduction and operational 

management strategies.

(b) The development of a congestion management process should result in multimodal system 

performance measures and strategies that can be 

refl ected in the metropolitan transportation plan and 

the TIP. The level of system performance deemed 

acceptable by State and local transportation offi cials 

may vary by type of transportation facility, geographic location (metropolitan area or subarea), and/

or time of day. In addition, consideration should 

be given to strategies that manage demand, 

reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, and 

improve transportation system management and 

operations. Where the addition of general purpose 

lanes is determined to be an appropriate congestion management strategy, explicit consideration is 

to be given to the incorporation of appropriate 

features into the SOV project to facilitate future 

demand management strategies and operational 

improvements that will maintain the functional 

integrity and safety of those lanes.

(c) The congestion management process shall be 

developed, established, and implemented as part of 

the metropolitan transportation planning process that 

includes coordination with transportation system 

management and operations activities. The congestion management process shall include:

(1) Methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the multimodal transportation 

system, identify the causes of recurring and nonrecurring congestion, identify and evaluate alternative strategies, provide information supporting 

the implementation of actions, and evaluate the 

effectiveness of implemented actions; 

(2) Defi nition of congestion management 

objectives and appropriate performance 

measures to assess the extent of congestion and 

support the evaluation of the effectiveness of 

congestion reduction and mobility enhancement 

strategies for the movement of people and goods. 

Since levels of acceptable system performance 

may vary among local communities,

performance measures should be tailored 

to the specifi c needs of the area and established cooperatively by the State(s), affected 

MPO(s), and local offi cials in consultation 

with the operators of major modes of

transportation in the coverage area;
A-4 | SAFETEA-LU Requirements

(3) Establishment of a coordinated program 

for data collection and system performance 

monitoring to defi ne the extent and duration 

of congestion, to contribute in determining the 

causes of congestion, and evaluate the effi ciency 

and effectiveness of implemented actions. To 

the extent possible, this data collection program 

should be coordinated with existing data sources 

(including archived operational/ITS data) and 

coordinated with operations managers in the 

metropolitan area; 

(4) Identifi cation and evaluation of the anticipated performance and expected benefi ts of 

appropriate congestion management strategies that will contribute to the more effective 

use and improved safety of existing and future 

transportation systems based on the established 

performance measures. The following categories 

of strategies, or combinations of strategies, are 

some examples of what should be appropriately 

considered for each area:

(i) Demand management measures, including 

growth management and congestion pricing;

(ii) Traffi c operational improvements;

(iii) Public transportation improvements;

(iv) ITS technologies as related to the regional 

ITS architecture; and

(v) Where necessary, additional system

capacity;

(5) Identifi cation of an implementation 

schedule, implementation responsibilities, and 

possible funding sources for each strategy (or 

combination of strategies) proposed for implementation; and

(6) Implementation of a process for periodic 

assessment of the effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area’s 

established performance measures. The 

results of this evaluation shall be provided to 

decisionmakers and the public to provide guidance on selection of effective strategies for 

future implementation.

(d) In a TMA designated as nonattainment area for 

ozone or carbon monoxide pursuant to the Clean 

Air Act, Federal funds may not be programmed for 

any project that will result in a signifi cant increase in 

the carrying capacity for SOVs (i.e., a new general purpose highway on a new location or adding 

general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety 

improvements or the elimination of bottlenecks), 

unless the project is addressed through a congestion 

management process meeting the requirements of 

this section.

(e) In TMAs designated as nonattainment for 

ozone or carbon monoxide, the congestion management process shall provide an appropriate 

analysis of reasonable (including multimodal) 

travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor in which a 

project that will result in a signifi cant increase 

in capacity for SOVs (as described in paragraph 

(d) of this section) is proposed to be advanced with 

Federal funds. If the analysis demonstrates that 

travel demand reduction and operational management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for additional capacity in the corridor and additional SOV 

capacity is warranted, then the congestion management process shall identify all reasonable strategies 

to manage the SOV facility safely and effectively 

(or to facilitate its management in the future). Other 

travel demand reduction and operational management strategies appropriate for the corridor, but not 

appropriate for incorporation into the SOV facility 

itself, shall also be identifi ed through the congestion management process. All identifi ed reasonable 

travel demand reduction and operational management strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV 

project or committed to by the State and MPO for 

implementation.

(f) State laws, rules, or regulations pertaining to 

congestion management systems or programs may 

constitute the congestion management process, if the 

FHWA and the FTA fi nd that the State laws, rules, or 

regulations are consistent with, and fulfi ll the intent 

of, the purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 

5303.
Components of the CMP | B-1

1.0 Developing a CMP:

The “8 Steps”

The congestion management process (CMP) uses 

the objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

described in this guidebook to focus on managing 

congestion. The CMP looks at M&O and other 

strategies for managing congestion, focusing on 

developing objectives that drive performance-based 

planning for responding to congestion. The CMP is 

based upon objectives articulated in the metropolitan 

transportation plan (MTP). The CMP incorporates 

specifi c, measurable, agreed-upon, realistic, and 

time-bound objectives that refl ect regional goals. 

And, as an integral part of the planning process, the 

CMP feeds projects and strategies directly into the 

MTP and transportation improvement program (TIP). 

Developing a CMP typically follows an eight-step 

process. Figure 6 illustrates the entire framework for 

the CMP process.

Step 1 – Develop Congestion Management 

Objectives

The fi rst step in developing a CMP is to identify objectives that focus on congestion management. These 

objectives typically are derived from the vision and 

goals articulated in the MTP. These objectives include 

SMART criteria, as within the objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach, and are defi ned in terms 

that enable stakeholders to focus on specifi c aspects 

of congestion. For example, objectives for commute 

trips may be different from objectives for other travel 

purposes. Alternatively, objectives may be established 

only for peak period travel as opposed to off-peak 

period. Objectives may also be developed for freight 

movement, and may be focused on activity areas or 

corridors where the movement of goods is particularly 

important, such as a port, terminal, or freight corridor.

Step 2 – Identify the Area of Application

The CMP should be applied to a specifi c geographic 

area and network of surface transportation facilities. 

Often an area of application may align with the same 

geographic area as for the regional ITS architecture. 

This alignment would allow system inventories and 

network descriptions to link together. The area of 

application must encompass at least the transportation 

management area (TMA) boundary, though it may 

be advantageous to include the entire metropolitan 

area boundary (TMA boundary plus the area that 

will become urbanized within the next 20 years). In 

non-TMAs, the area of application is most likely the 

MPO planning area boundary. In some areas, where 

signifi cant facilities or activity centers border the limits 

of a given metropolitan area, it may be appropriate 

to expand the CMP boundaries to include a broader 

analysis area.

Develop Congestion Management Objectives

Identify Area of Application

Define System/Network of Interest

Develop Performance Measures

Institute System Performance Monitoring Plan

Identify/Evaluate Strategies

Implement Selected Strategies/Manage System

Monitor Strategy Effectiveness

Apply at scale of region, corridor, or activity area

Congestion Management Process (CMP) Framework Integrate with MTP, TIP, other efforts

Figure 6: The 8-Step Framework for the CMP

The congestion management process (CMP) is 

required as an integral part of the metropolitan planning process in transportation management areas 

(TMAs) – urbanized areas with a population over 

200,000 people – or any area where designation as 

a TMA has been requested. Although the CMP is 

not required in non-TMAs, the CMP represents an 

objectives-driven, performance-based approach to 

managing congestion; therefore, the CMP should 

be considered in all metropolitan areas facing current and future congestion challenges.

APPENDIX B. COMPONENTS

OF THE CMP 
B-2 | Components of the CMP

(including travel demand management), land use strategies, and infrastructure improvements. An evaluation 

would rely upon the performance measures selected and 

assess whether associated objectives were realized.

Step 7 – Implement Selected Strategies/

Manage the System

This step involves the implementing and managing the 

defi ned strategies. Managers of the CMP should work 

closely with the operating agencies that have participated in the CMP. Information developed throughout the 

process should be applied to establish priorities in the 

TIP, thereby facilitating the implementation of the CMP. 

This ensures a linkage between the CMP and funding 

decisions either through a formal ranking and weighting 

of strategies and projects, or through other formal or 

informal approaches.

Step 8 – Monitor Strategy Effectiveness

Finally, as with the objectives-driven, performancebased approach, the CMP is an iterative process. Each 

step is evaluated and opportunities for improvement are 

noted. Based on the feedback received, an MPO should 

revise its CMP and restart the process anew.

2.0 Beyond the “8 Steps”

Beyond developing a CMP, a region should consider 

the viability of its process too. In addition to the 

eight steps, some extra effort should be made to 

ensure that the CMP continues to meet the needs of a 

region. Among these recommendations:

• Decide on what you want to accomplish. 

There should be general agreement on how the 

goals and objectives expressed in the MTP are 

articulated in the CMP. Different stakeholders 

will have different objectives, which should be 

accommodated in the process.

• Develop a working team or steering committee. Existing organizational arrangements 

may be appropriate, or new committees can 

be formed. Either way, it is important for 

the groups to have a broad membership that 

includes planning and operations staffs from the 

member organizations of the MPO – representatives from local jurisdictions, State DOTs, and 

public transportation operators.

Step 3 – Defi ne the System/Network of 

Interest

Whatever the area of application used, the CMP should 

defi ne the system characteristics and transportation network under consideration. The CMP should be multimodal, so the network should include both highway and 

transit facilities. Freight and/or rail transportation assets 

may also be included as conditions warrant. The CMP 

could consider particular corridors or activity centers, in 

addition to encompassing an entire metropolitan area. 

Finally, the CMP may also comprise a combination of 

regional, corridor, and activity area defi nitions, with 

each component serving different, specifi c purposes.

Step 4 – Develop Performance Measures

As with the objectives-driven, performance-based 

approach, performance measures created for the CMP 

should be derived from the goals and objectives established during the MTP process. Performance measures 

should refl ect the impact of congestion on travelers and 

on economic activity, such as the number of highway 

accidents or lost time due to congestion. Measures 

developed should be fl exible in their application and 

may change over time. Measures should include multimodal consideration. For example, measures related 

to highway congestion should be accompanied by those 

for transit, goods movement, and non-motorized modes. 

Finally, ideal performance measures will allow system 

performance to be tracked over time.

Step 5 – Institute System Performance 

Monitoring Plan

For a CMP to be truly effective, it requires a coordinated program of data collection and system performance 

monitoring to assess the extent of congestion and to see 

whether remedial steps are working. Data collection 

needs are based on the performance measures selected. 

The data should be relevant to the area, readily available, timely, reliable, consistent, and susceptible to 

forecasting. Common sources of data include traditional methods such as travel surveys and screen line 

counts, traffi c counts, ITS traffi c detection devices, 

aerial surveys, and speed surveys.

Step 6 – Identify/Evaluate Strategies

As the CMP is performance-based, strategies that 

manage congestion should be identifi ed and evaluated 

for their performance. A full range of potential strategies should be considered, including M&O strategies 
Components of the CMP | B-3

• Prepare a timeline for developing the CMP. 

As with any strategy, it is smart to set specifi c 

tasks, schedules, levels of effort, and responsibilities for carrying out the CMP. If the CMP is part 

of the MTP, strategies can be treated just like the 

other implementation measures. But, whether 

or not the CMP is prepared as an element of 

the MTP, the timeline ought to allow time for 

the CMP to “feed” projects and strategies to the 

MTP development process. The timeline also 

should identify an update schedule as well as 

data collection and analysis activities in support 

of periodic assessments of the effectiveness of 

implemented congestion management strategies.

• Conduct a self assessment. Assess not only 

where your MPO stands in developing a CMP, 

but what you are doing now to address congestion in terms of both long-range planning and 

short-range efforts to manage congestion. 

• Defi ne a clear role for the State DOT and 

other operators. While MPOs generally welcome the involvement of the State DOT in the 

metropolitan planning process, the active participation of the DOT in the CMP is not always 

clearly defi ned. The perspective of the DOT as 

an operator is important in sharing data and developing congestion mitigation strategies. Yet, 

it is also important that the DOT appreciate the 

perspective and priorities of other participants. 

“Acceptable” levels of congestion may differ 

according to transportation facility, geographic 

location (metropolitan area or subarea), and/or 

time of day. For instance, a higher level of congestion may be acceptable in a transit-oriented 

development (TOD) area where planners hope 

to encourage the use of public transportation, 

while system operators may wish to maintain a 

higher level of service in areas poorly served by 

transit. In any case, the operators of facilities – 

including the State DOT – should be sensitive 

to the priorities of various stakeholders in the 

CMP.

 The Final Rule on Statewide and Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning makes clear that 

coordination and consultation between the 

State DOT and MPO is required; State DOTs 

are “encouraged to rely on information, studies, or analyses provided by the MPOs for 

portions of the transportation system located 

in metropolitan planning areas” (§450.208). 

Furthermore, the statewide planning process 

“shall (to the maximum extent practicable) be 

consistent with the development of applicable 

regional intelligent transportation systems (ITS) 

architectures...” The Final Rule also encourages “consultation with, or joint efforts among, 

the State(s), MPO(s), and/or public transportation operators” (§450.212). The States should 

be partners in the development and application 

of the CMP, particularly for portions of the 

transportation network within the MPO that are 

operated by the State DOT.

• Collaborate. Collaboration on regional 

operations, including the development and 

implementation of the CMP, is essential. 

Collaboration enables development of projects 

and policies that have a regional effect on users, 

including activities such as incident management, advanced traveler information services, 

public safety and security, management of the 

impacts of special events, and implementation 

of electronic payment measures. Moreover, collaboration among operators, service providers, 

and planners for all surface modes affecting, or 

affected by, congestion, helps to answer questions about the long-term operation, integration, 

and evolution of facilities and services.

3.0 Other Considerations

Applying the CMP in Developing the MTP

The congestion management process provides a 

mechanism for identifying short-, medium-, and 

long-term strategies for addressing congestion on a 

system-wide, corridor-level, or site-specifi c basis. 

Once operations objectives relevant to the area in 

question have been established, the CMP draws 

upon appropriate performance measures to identify 

specifi c congestion problems. Data from the MPO’s 

resources or from the appropriate operating agency 

is used to characterize the nature of the congestion 

problems, and technical tools are applied to help 

identify appropriate strategies.
B-4 | Components of the CMP

The CMP uses a cooperative approach to involve 

both affected operators and the public in a consideration of strategies, both in terms of the effectiveness 

of proposed solutions and the acceptability to various 

stakeholders. Together, affected parties and system 

operators determine the availability of resources and 

the timing for implementation of proposed strategies. The actions identifi ed through the CMP then 

become part of the alternatives analysis process, 

in which proposed solutions to the broad array of 

regional problems are considered in context. Actions 

offered through the CMP are then incorporated into 

the MTP, based on how they compete with projects 

and programs proposed by other interests during the 

planning process.

Relationship of the CMP to the Regional ITS 

Architecture 

The CMP and the regional ITS architecture are 

both technical tools that assist planners and system 

operators in developing and selecting strategies for 

improving the movement of people and goods in a 

region. The regional ITS architecture focuses on 

the application of information and communications 

technology to transportation problems in a technologically coordinated way. A common framework 

guides practitioners in establishing communications 

(and, ideally, integration) across technology applications and helps them to choose the most appropriate 

strategies for processing transportation information. 

The regional ITS architecture defi nes the system 

components, key functions, organizations involved in 

developing an architecture, and the type of information to be shared between organizations and between 

parts of the system.

While the CMP is not focused on any particular set 

of strategies, an understanding of the regional ITS 

architecture is crucial in appreciating the existing and 

future interconnections, or even the simple ability to 

communicate, between agencies and systems. The 

ITS architecture, which is by design a living document that is intended to be updated on a periodic 

basis, provides an institutional framework as well as 

a vision for the interconnections among technologies, 

systems, and subsystems.

Applying the CMP in Nonattainment TMAs 

SAFETEA-LU requires that “for transportation management areas classifi ed as non-attainment for ozone 

or carbon monoxide pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 

Federal funds may not be advanced in such area for 

any highway project that will result in a signifi cant 

increase in the carrying capacity for single-occupant 

vehicles (SOV) unless the project is addressed 

through a congestion management process.” While 

capacity-expanding projects are not prohibited, the 

CMP requirement means that the MPO must consider 

alternatives to capacity increases, and that measures 

would be incorporated into the project to make the 

most effi cient use of the new capacity once it has 

been constructed. In all TMAs, attainment or nonattainment, the CMP should identify strategies that 

complement proposed improvements. These may be 

measures such as ramp meters for new freeway lanes 

or access management on a parallel arterial. These 

complementary strategies extend the life of the SOV 

capacity in which we invest.

In ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment 

TMAs, MPOs must establish a congestion management process that gives priority to strategies that 

reduce congestion and improve the movement of 

people and goods without requiring the construction 

of new highway capacity. The decision process in 

dealing with this restriction on SOV capacity-expanding projects must be documented as part of the 

CMP in these areas.

Addressing Recurring and Non-Recurring

Congestion

The CMP should enable the MPO to address both recurring congestion (usually caused by “bottlenecks” 

where capacity is constricted or where merging and 

weaving patterns cause confl icts) and non-recurring 

congestion (resulting from incidents, special events, 

or other phenomena like adverse weather). Either 

type of congestion may require analysis at the corridor or facility level in order to pinpoint problem 

locations or to identify and evaluate potential mitigation strategies.

The CMP should also be designed to enable assessment of activities that may not apply to a particular 

location, such as incident response strategies. 

Incident-related delay accounts for a large and growing proportion of travel delay, particularly in regions 

where travel demand is already stressing an overburdened system.
Components of the CMP | B-5

Tying Funding to the CMP

Some CMP projects and strategies can be implemented by the MPO through inclusion in the TIP. It may 

be necessary to convince the TIP committee or decisionmaking body on the merits of the CMP projects 

by ranking projects relative to their benefi ts. Other 

CMP projects/strategies may need to be included in 

State or local programs to accomplish implementation. Those projects that support the goals and objectives of the plan should be implemented; projects 

should be ranked according to how well they meet 

the goals and objectives of the plan.
C-1 | Applications of the Approach

1.0 Linking Planning and NEPA

SAFETEA-LU illustrates the close links between the 

metropolitan transportation planning process as practiced by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) 

and the environmental analysis undertaken by project 

sponsors. Legal guidance previously distributed to 

planning agencies35 notes that:

...much of the data and decision-making undertaken by State and local offi cials during the 

planning process carry forward into the project 

development activities that follow the TIP or 

STIP. This means that the planning process 

and the environmental assessment required 

during project development by NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) should work in tandem, 

with the results of the transportation planning 

process feeding into the NEPA process.36

The memorandum points out that this close linkage is 

not always observed in the course of project development. As stated by the authors of the memo:

In practice, the environmental analyses

produced during the NEPA process are sometimes disconnected from the analyses used to 

prepare transportation plans, transportation 

improvement programs, and supporting

corridor or subarea studies. Analyses and decisions occurring during transportation planning 

can be ignored or redone in the NEPA process, 

resulting in a duplication of work and delays in 

implementation of transportation projects. The 

sharp separation between the work done during 

the transportation planning process and the 

NEPA analysis and documentation process is 

not necessary.37

As stated, planning information can and should be 

incorporated into the environmental review process, 

rather than starting with a blank page for every 

project.

35 Memorandum: Integration of Planning and NEPA Processes, February 22, 2005; D.J. Gribbin, Chief Counsel, FHWA and Judith S. 

Kaleta, Acting Chief Counsel, FTA, to Cindy Burbank, Associate Administrator, Offi ce of Planning, Environment and Realty, FHWA, and 

David A Vozzolo, Deputy Associate Administrator, Offi ce of Planning and Environment, FTA.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

As further discussed in the memo, “NEPA and the 

government-wide regulations that carry out NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1500 et seq.) clearly contemplate 

the integration of the NEPA process with planning 

processes.” In 40 CFR 1501.2, Federal agencies are 

required to “integrate the NEPA process with other 

planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that 

planning and (agency) decisions refl ect environmental values....”38

Sections of the Final Rule referring to transportation 

planning studies and project development (§450.318, 

p. 7274) discuss the high standards that must be met 

for incorporation of planning studies into the NEPA 

process. The Rule notes that: 

Publicly available documents or other source 

material produced by, or in support of, the 

transportation planning process described in 

this subpart may be incorporated directly or by 

reference into subsequent NEPA documents, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21, if:

1. The NEPA lead agencies agree that such incorporation will aid in establishing or evaluating 

the purpose and need for the Federal action, 

reasonable alternatives, cumulative or other 

impacts on the human and natural environment, 

or mitigation of these impacts; and

2. The systems-level, corridor, or subarea planning 

study is conducted with:

i. Involvement of interested State, local, 

Tribal, and Federal agencies;

ii. Public review;

iii. Reasonable opportunity to comment during 

the metropolitan transportation planning 

process and development of the corridor or 

subarea planning study;

APPENDIX C. APPLICATIONS

OF THE APPROACH
Applications of the Approach | C-2

iv. Documentation of relevant decisions in a 

form that is identifi able and available for 

review during the NEPA scoping process 

and can be appended to or referenced in the 

NEPA document; and

v. The review of the FHWA and the FTA, as 

appropriate.39

Appendix A to 23 CFR 450, while addressing the 

level of detail appropriate for incorporating planning analysis in project development studies, notes 

that, for purposes of transportation planning alone, 

a planning-level analysis does not need to rise to the 

level of detail required in the NEPA process. Rather, 

the planning-level analysis needs to be accurate, up 

to date, and should adequately support recommended 

improvements in the statewide or metropolitan longrange transportation plan. 

SAFETEA-LU requires transportation planning 

processes to focus on setting a context and following 

acceptable procedures. For example, SAFETEALU requires “a discussion of the types of potential 

environmental mitigation activities’’ and potential 

areas for their implementation, rather than details on 

specifi c strategies. SAFETEA-LU also emphasizes 

consultation with Federal, State, Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies.

However, the environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS) ultimately 

will be judged by the standards applicable under the 

NEPA regulations and guidance from the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ). To the extent the 

information incorporated from the transportation 

planning process, standing alone, does not contain 

all of the information or analysis required by NEPA, 

it will need to be supplemented by other information 

contained in the EIS or EA that would, in conjunction with the information from the plan, collectively 

meet the requirements of NEPA.

In this context, the congestion management process, 

if appropriately developed, can provide at a minimum a valuable starting point for the NEPA process, 

and, ideally, could give the agency a “running start” 

on critical components of the NEPA process such 

as purpose, need, and alternatives screening, among 

others.

The congestion management process is one of many 

elements feeding into the metropolitan transportation planning process. Along with requirements for 

coordination with State and local offi cials, consultation with Federal and tribal agencies, and consistency 

with the regional or statewide ITS Architecture, the 

CMP provides a mechanism for addressing regional, 

corridor-wide, and spot congestion issues in a 

comprehensive fashion. At the same time, the CMP 

works with the eight planning factors that should 

be considered in preparing long-range plans, and 

especially with promoting effi cient and effective 

transportation system M&O.

The CMP is not intended to replace any of the existing elements of the planning process, but instead 

to complement and effi ciently organize existing 

methods and techniques. The CMP also is focusing 

on management and operations strategies as potential 

means for mitigating or offsetting existing and future 

congestion. By emphasizing system performance 

measures and the data needs derived from such 

measures, the CMP helps system planners to identify 

ways to maximize the use of existing capacity, and to 

extend the usefulness of proposed improvements by 

enhancing operational effi ciency and effectiveness.

39 Federal Register: February 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 30), Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule, Discussion of Comments, p. 7274. Available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-493.htm, last accessed 

December 6, 2009. 
C-3 | Applications of the Approach

The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) serves eight counties and 116 cities in the greater Kansas City 

bi-State (Missouri and Kansas) region. In 2001, MARC developed an enhanced congestion management system 

(CMS) designed to integrate with the regional transportation plan (RTP), transportation improvement program 

(TIP), and corridor evaluations, including the major investment study (MIS) planning processes. In developing its 

CMS, MARC identifi ed a “CMS Toolbox” that incorporated a broad catalog of potential strategies under the following headings: 

1. Highway projects.

2. Transit projects.

3. Bicycle and pedestrian projects.

4. Transportation demand management strategies.

5. Intelligent transportation systems and transportation systems management strategies.

6. Access management strategies. 

7. Land development strategies.

8. Parking management strategies.

MARC adopted a policy that its CMS Toolbox of strategies would be considered when the purpose and need for 

an environmental study includes congestion management. The agency wanted to demonstrate how any suggested capacity improvements had been evaluated using the congestion management process. 

At the time MARC was developing its CMP, the agency had established a network of facilities on which it collected data, including travel time studies and traffi c counts, but was only using CMS methods to support the regional 

planning process by providing data to potential project sponsors for the RTP and TIP. Because the system is less 

congested than most other metropolitan regions of comparable size, the CMS has been less of a planning focus 

than in other locations. 

MARC wanted to develop a transparent process to show how a capacity improvement had gone through the 

congestion management process. Linking NEPA studies with the CMS Toolbox was a logical approach given that 

alternatives defi ned with congestion relief potential would be developed, screened, and evaluated for any NEPA 

study underway in the region. The MARC Congestion Management System Policy adopted the following language on the integration of major investment studies to the metropolitan planning process:

The CMS Toolbox provides alternative congestion management strategies for consideration in MIS [Major Investment Studies] and Corridor Studies. When traffi c congestion is referenced in the Purpose and 

Need Statement for an MIS, the MIS shall consider the congestion management strategies included in 

the MARC CMS Toolbox as a starting point for the development of alternative strategies. This does not 

preclude the MIS from considering other strategies that may not be in the CMS Toolbox, nor does it 

require that the MIS select a strategy from the CMS Toolbox be the preferred alternative, however, the 

MIS document must include a discussion of how the CMS Toolbox strategies were addressed.40

Currently, there is no NEPA requirement that the CMS be incorporated into the NEPA process. MARC’s policy 

that NEPA studies incorporate the CMS Toolbox is not codifi ed in any agreements with implementing agencies, 

but instead is implemented on a voluntary and cooperative basis. However, MARC and the Missouri Department 

of Transportation (MoDOT) have worked closely in a number of instances to incorporate CMS Toolbox strategies 

into relevant projects. 

A major benefi t is that by coordinating planning and NEPA through the CMP, duplication or redoing the planning 

work in the NEPA process is avoided. This helps to “streamline” the NEPA process. Since adoption of the Policy, 

MARC has not been challenged about any projects in the TIP. MARC feels the region is accomplishing the goals 

that Congress had set for CMS when it was established, since transportation is being approached from a multimodal perspective. Overall, MARC feels that the partnerships among State, Federal, and regional government 

agencies are working well, with MARC staff continually involved in a signifi cant number of projects.

See: http://www.marc.org 

Current Practice: 

Linking NEPA studies with the Congestion Management System (CMS) Toolbox was a logical approach given that 

alternatives defi ned with congestion relief potential would be developed, screened, and evaluated for any NEPA 

study underway in the region.

40 Mid-America Regional Council, “MARC Congestion Management System Policy,” December 18, 2001. Available at:

http://www.marc.org/transportation/cms/policy.pdf, last accessed February 9, 2010. 
Applications of the Approach | C-4

2.0 Freight Planning

Most metropolitan areas face challenges in transportation planning for freight mobility. Dramatically increasing freight fl ows in the metropolitan areas have 

contributed to increased congestion in the transportation system, imposing costs on shippers, consumers, 

and the environment. Using CMP tools, processes, 

and data assists in freight planning.

The U.S. DOT has developed a “Framework for a 

National Freight Policy.”41 This framework contains 

a vision of freight transportation systems that will 

ensure the effi cient, reliable, safe, and secure movement of goods and support the Nation’s economic 

growth while improving environmental quality. The 

framework offers potential strategies that can be 

considered when assessing goods movement through 

the congestion management process.

The CMP can assist in addressing freight-specifi c 

congestion, and congestion impacting freight 

movement, by incorporating specifi c freight-related 

strategies in the development of an objectives-driven, 

performance-based approach to resolving congestion issues. Freight-specifi c strategies might include 

truck-only lanes, infrastructure improvements to 

remove freight bottlenecks, and designated truck 

routes.

3.0 Safety Planning

Incorporating safety as a regional priority and establishing specifi c safety-related performance objectives is an important fi rst step toward having safety 

considerations included in the metropolitan transportation planning process. When safety objectives are 

included in the MTP, this drives the development of 

safety-related performance measures in the CMP. An 

emphasis on safety becomes integral to the collection of crash and injury data, which further supports 

the analysis of safety during the planning process. 

As local jurisdictions develop and maintain crash information databases and conduct independent safety 

analyses, such data can further support the identifi cation of locations and types of safety improvements 

that are needed.

Involving local public safety offi cials as CMP stakeholders is key to identifying safety concerns and can 

provide useful input on key transportation safety 

issues. Planners can work with traffi c, engineering, and public works staff to develop safety-related 

objectives in the CMP. These measures allow safety 

countermeasures to be incorporated into highway 

rehabilitation or improvement projects. Stand-alone 

projects to address critical safety issues also can be 

incorporated into the planning process.

4.0 Land Use Integration

The planning and management of urban land use 

greatly impacts transportation demand on the surface 

transportation system. Since land use decisions are 

generally made at the local level, considerations with 

respect to jurisdictional control should be considered 

when advancing land use strategies.

Including operational objectives dealing with land 

use in the MTP highlights the importance of transportation investment for land development, regional 

demographic growth, and economic development. 

Land development strategies have been used in 

some areas to manage demand on the transportation 

system, and to help agencies meet air quality conformity standards. Land use strategies can include limits 

on the amount and location of development until 

certain service standards are met, or policies that encourage development patterns better served by public 

transportation and non-motorized modes. Examples 

of land use strategies include transit-oriented development, densifi cation and infi ll strategies, and 

encouragement of mixed-use development.

For more information:

To learn more about applications for the elements of 

the objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

to plan for operations, read six case studies from 

across the country:

http://www.plan4operations.dot.gov/casestudies/benefi ts.htm.

41 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Freight Transportation, “Framework for a National Freight Policy,” Available at:

http://www.freight.dot.gov/freight_framework/index.cfm, last accessed December 6, 2009.
D-1 | Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations

The use of specifi c objectives and performance measures to manage operational performance is common 

practice among private companies and public organizations that are responsible for generating suffi cient 

revenue to meet cost and/or produce profi t through 

delivery of services in a competitive or service-driven context. The experiences of these organizations 

are a potentially rich source of information on how 

an objectives-driven, performance-based approach 

can be used to plan for and manage transportation 

operations in the public sector. 

This appendix provides a brief look at two delivery 

companies or organizations, a tollway organization, and two power companies. Each organization 

delivers a service over a physical infrastructure and 

closely monitors its operations and customer service 

to maintain and expand its customer base.

Based on the information gathered on performance 

management in self-sustaining private and public 

organizations, the following list of activities were 

developed for consideration in planning and managing transportation operations in the public sector: 

• Develop a balanced set of objectives and 

performance measures. In 1992, Kaplan and 

Norton developed a set of measures known as 

the “balanced scorecard” during a year-long research project with 12 companies at the leading 

edge of performance measurement. This scorecard gives top managers a quick but comprehensive view of the business from four important 

perspectives. It includes fi nancial measures as 

well as three operational measures that are the 

drivers of future fi nancial performance: customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the 

organization’s innovation and improvement activities. In the area of transportation operations, 

these four areas may be translated into external 

system outcomes (system effi ciency/reliability), 

customer satisfaction, operator activities (internal processes), and innovation/improvement 

activities. 

• Develop objectives for different levels or tiers 

in the organization based on responsibility. 

The Austin Energy Electric Service Delivery 

business area and a U.S. power company both 

develop and use objectives based on organizational level. At the highest level of the organization, the top-level management focuses on 

broad objectives and associated measures that 

describe how the organization is performing. At 

the lower levels of the organization, the objectives are increasingly specifi c and related to the 

responsibilities of the personnel at that level of 

the organization. This helps employees better 

understand what is expected of them and how 

they can contribute to the overall organizational 

objectives or goals.

• Assign weights to performance objectives 

according to their impact on customer satisfaction. Federal Express (FedEx) developed 

a 12-component index known as the Service 

Quality Indicator; each component is weighted 

to refl ect how signifi cantly it affects overall 

customer satisfaction. FedEx uses customer 

satisfaction surveys to update its measures and 

weights accordingly. 

• Set up a team for each objective or performance measure. FedEx set up a cross-functional action team for each component of its 

Service Quality Indicator. Each team is headed 

by a senior executive and assures the involvement of employees from all part of the company 

when needed.

• Communicate performance information 

regularly to staff. TNT Express Delivery 

Service in the United Kingdom uses a 7-indicator service performance report that is updated 

weekly and circulated among each package 

coordination and collection depot. The performance of each depot is indicated on the report 

and this creates competition among the depots 

for top performance. 

APPENDIX D. OPERATIONS OBJECTIVES

AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN PRIVATE

AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations | D-2

item in the SQI describes work process failures, and 

each is weighted to refl ect how signifi cantly it affects 

overall customer satisfaction. The SQI includes the following components/performance indicators, along with 

their weighting factors (shown in parentheses):43

• Right day late service failures (1)

• Wrong day late service failures (5)

• Traces (1)

• Complaints reopened by customers (5)

• Missing proofs of delivery (PODS) (1)

• Invoice adjustments requested (1)

• Missed pick-ups (10)

• Lost packages (10)

• Damaged packages (10)

• Overgoods (5)

• Abandoned calls (1)

• International SQI indicator (1)

FedEx uses advanced computers and tracking systems 

to gather and track data. Rapid analysis of operations 

data yields daily SQI reports transmitted to workers at 

all FedEx sites. Management meets daily to discuss the 

previous day’s performance, and weekly, monthly, and 

annual trends are tracked. Quality action teams (QAT) 

analyze data contained in the company’s major databases to identify the root causes of problems that surface in 

the SQI reviews.44

To reach its aggressive quality goals, the company has 

set up one cross-functional team for each service component in the SQI. A senior executive heads each team 

and assures the involvement of front-line employees, 

support personnel, and managers from all parts of the 

corporation when needed.45 In addition, the SQI measurements are directly linked to the corporate planning 

process. The SQI forms the basis on which corporative 

executives are evaluated and individual performance 

objectives are established and monitored. 

• Ensure objectives have a senior level champion. The package delivery companies of FedEx 

and TNT both have senior executives that serve 

as champions within the organization for the 

performance measurement system. At FedEx, 

one senior executive leads an action team on 

each performance indicator. An assessment of 

TNT by Moon and Fitzgerald contributes the 

successful use of a performance management 

system to push the strategic direction of the 

company to 5 properties. One of them is the 

corporate champion for the performance measurement system. There is a constant driving 

down of the corporate message from the head 

offi ce that they believe in the system and attach 

great importance to its results.

• Maintain a high-level of awareness of operational performance. One of the common 

features of the performance management systems in the organizations examined was a very 

high level of awareness of the performance of 

the system. In the case of the Illinois Tollway, 

it regularly tracks data on incident detection, 

response, and clearance times with time stamps 

and weekly reports. To manage congestion in 

construction zones, the Tollway installs sensors 

prior to construction to establish a baseline for 

operational performance, monitor performance 

during construction, and monitor performance 

following construction to see improvements. 

Below are brief case studies of the use of objectives and 

performance measures at two delivery companies or 

organizations, a tollway organization, and two power 

companies. 

Federal Express

Prior to 1989, FedEx assumed that on-time delivery was 

what their customers expected and valued most; however, input from customers showed them that customers 

expected much more.42 In an effort to spur progress 

toward their ultimate target of 100 percent customer 

satisfaction, FedEx developed a 12-component index, 

known as the Service Quality Indicator (SQI). Each 

42 Labovitz, G., Y.S. Chang, and V. Rosansky. Making Quality Work: A Leadership Guide for the Results-Driven Manager, John Wiley 

and Sons, 1994.

43 Morris, D.D. and R.J. Baker, “Measuring what matters: [want to know how successful your fi rm is? Take the customer’s point of 

view],” August, 2003. Available at: http://fi ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICC/is_2_72/ai_107755417, last accessed December 6,

2009. 

44 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1990 Winner Federal Express Corporation,” 

October 17, 2002, http://www.quality.nist.gov/FederalExpress_90.htm (February 25, 2009). 

45 Ibid.
D-3 | Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations

While the SQI measures internal process performance, 

FedEx relies on a customer satisfaction survey to 

measure satisfaction from the customer’s perspective. 

Not only can the customer satisfaction survey capture 

aspects of service quality that the SQI does not include, 

it can also capture the changing expectations of customers. This allows FedEx to recheck customer requirements and perceptions and to update its measures and 

weights accordingly. This ensures that the customer’s 

voice always drives FedEx’s actions and processes.46 

The customer satisfaction survey consists of a quarterly 

telephone survey, a targeted customer survey, FedEx 

comment cards, a customer automation survey, and a 

Canadian customer survey.

Since being placed in service in the late 1980s, the 

SQI has enabled FedEx to increase its on-time delivery performance from 95 percent to 99.7 percent in 

2003 without adding signifi cant costs.47 FORTUNE 

has ranked FedEx among the Global Most Admired 

Companies and America’s Most Admired Companies 

lists since 2002 and 2001, respectively. The company 

has also been on the list of FORTUNE magazine’s 

“100 Best Companies to Work For” for 12 of the past 

13 years.48 The connection between what the company 

measures and rewards and their industry dominance is 

solidly linked.49

TNT Express Delivery Services

TNT provides global express delivery services, including parcels and freight. L. Fitzgerald and P. Moon 

conducted an in-depth study on the role of performance 

measurement at TNT Express Delivery Services in the 

United Kingdom (UK).50 This case study summarizes 

the relevant fi ndings of that research. 

The operational system of TNT adopted by the company is structured like a giant wheel, with a central 

hub and a set of spokes. On the outer rim, there are 28 

depots strategically situated around the country. Each 

weekday, each depot is responsible for the coordination 

and collection of all packages being sent by customers 

in their territory. These packages are sorted at the depot 

and those being sent outside of the territory are packed 

on trucks and sent to the hub. 

TNT’s primary objective is to deliver the packages to 

the right place at the right time, and TNT employs a 

variety of metrics to measure and track its operational 

performance. Delivery performance is perceived to 

be fundamental to the success of TNT, and TNT has 

a clearly defi ned method for measuring their delivery 

performance. They do this using what they call the 

7-Star Service Performance Report, which is measured 

weekly. The seven indicators, or performance measures, included on the report include:

• Percent delivery on time.

• Failures.

• Percent deliveries that result in credit notes or 

that are unmatched with invoices.

• Percent misroutes.

• Number of late trucks (trucks arriving late at the 

hub).

• Loss claims as a percent of revenue.

• Damage claims as a percent of revenue.

A standard target is set for each of the indicators, and 

any depot achieving the target or better across all categories would gain a 7 star rating for the week. Reports 

are generated weekly in the form of a league table, 

which rank orders the depots according to delivery 

on-time performance. Reports are circulated so that all 

depots know how they performed overall and in comparison to the other depots.

Based on an assessment by Moon and Fitzgerald, TNT 

has been successful at using its performance management system to push the strategic direction of the 

company into all aspects of its operations. Moon and 

Fitzgerald identify fi ve properties of their performance 

management system that have allowed them to do this:

• Measuring the right things. The objectives 

and performance measures are well understood 

and communicated throughout the organization. 

46 Howell, M.T. Actionable Performance Measurement: A Key to Success, American Society for Quality, 2006.

47 Morris and Baker (2003).

48 Forbes.com, “FedEx Named Among FORTUNE Magazine’s 2010 ‘Best Companies to Work For,’” January 21, 2010. Available at: 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2010/01/21/businesswire134307423.html (accessed February 15, 2010).

49 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002

50 Moon, P. and L. Fitzgerald, “Delivering the goods at TNT: The role of the performance measurement system,” Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, 1996, pp. 431-457.
Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations | D-4

evolved over time. It began with the use of a computer 

aided dispatch (CAD) system and then started using 

an integrated approach of dedicated police as well as 

maintenance staff to keep things moving. The Tollway 

created procedures and systems that were later integrated into a centralized traffi c operations center. 

The Illinois Tollway has worked to measure, monitor, 

and improve its performance in four key operations 

areas: overall traffi c operations, toll collection, incident 

management, and construction work zone management.

Overall Traffi c Operations

Since the early 2000s, the Tollway has focused on 

measuring how the system is operating and performing 

(e.g., locations of back-ups, slow downs, travel times). 

Performance measures for overall traffi c operations include traffi c volumes, speeds, travel times, and lengths 

of back-ups. While there are stated performance targets 

related to congestion, the Tollway has established levels 

of tolerance that have been adjusted over time to better 

meet needs. For example, the tolerance threshold for 

the length of a back-up has been cut in half.

Toll Collection

Key performance measures for toll collection operations include congestion, number of incidents, and the 

percent of customers using I-PASS (electronic toll collection). Customer feedback has resulted in the Tollway 

converting the entire system to open road tolling (ORT). 

As a result of the ORT, the Tollway has eliminated 

congestion that used to be at the toll plazas, and crashes 

have dropped dramatically.

Incident Management

The Tollway’s objective is to clear incidents quickly 

and safely. Key performance measures for incident 

response include detection, confi rmation, communication, response, and clearance times. It tracks these measures regularly with time stamps and weekly reports. 

The Tollway uses a computer-aided dispatch system 

integrated with a traffi c incident management system to 

facilitate the process. In addition, it audits and monitors tow activity. The Tollway has numerous (35-45) 

agreements with private towing and recovery fi rms, all 

with response times and other performance criteria that 

they must adhere to. All towing performance is audited. 

The Tollway maintains 55 agreements with local fi re 

departments and protection districts that cover emergency services provided on the Tollway.

The specifi c measures cover a range of dimensions thought to be central to corporate success. 

Key issues are translated into detailed action 

plans so that every individual is aware of their 

role and the requirements of that role.

• Internal benchmarking. Internal benchmarking is used by TNT to provide sets of absolute 

standards that the depots are expected to maintain, and there is a continual push from central 

management to reach the standards.

• Reward mechanisms. Incentive schemes 

are used throughout the business, linking the 

achievement of company targets with fi nancial 

rewards. Each functional area at the depots has 

its bonus scheme that focuses on the key performance measures for that function.

• League tables. League tables, generated 

weekly, display each depot’s performance 

relative to the others. These tables encourage 

competition, in terms of performance, between 

the depots.

• Corporate champion. There is a constant 

driving down of the corporate message from the 

head offi ce. They believe in the performance 

measurement system and attach great importance to the results and “getting the service level 

right.”

Illinois Tollway51

The Illinois Tollway operates 286 miles of Interstate 

highway that serves approximately 1.4 million customers a day, about 11.5 percent of which is commercial 

vehicle traffi c. The Tollway’s mission is to provide and 

promote a safe and effi cient system of toll-supported 

highways while ensuring the highest possible level of 

service to its customers. To provide customers with a 

premium ride, the Tollway relies on the top-down support considered critical to its overall performance and 

delivery of service.

The Tollway began developing and monitoring performance in the early 1980s when traffi c volumes were 

growing, and it started seeing congestion at its toll 

plazas. It also began looking at incidents that were resulting from the increased congestion. In the late 1980s 

to early 1990s, the Tollway began a concerted effort 

to manage traffi c over the entire network, and this has 

51 Telephone Interview with John L. Benda, General Manager of Maintenance & Traffi c, Illinois Tollway. March 2009. 
D-5 | Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations

Internally, the Tollway gains commitment to improved 

incident response performance through a high level of 

communication that includes incident debriefi ng and 

regular training. All maintenance employees are trained 

in incident response and are empowered to divert from 

routine maintenance activity to respond to a reported 

incident upon notifi cation by central dispatch. Tollway 

employees are fi rst on the scene in 60 percent of incidents. Externally, the Tollway gains commitment to 

performance through formal agreements that establish a 

framework for cooperation. They produce quarterly reports for the Governor’s offi ce regarding non-recurrent 

congestion.

Construction Work Zone Management 

The Tollway’s focus is on knowing how its system 

is operating during construction. Key performance 

measures for operations during construction include 

traffi c volumes, congestion, average travel times, and 

number of incidents. The Tollway installs sensors prior 

to construction to establish a baseline, measure performance during construction, and measure improvements 

after construction is complete. CCTV cameras located 

at construction zone entrances and throughout the construction zone monitor the effectiveness of maintenance 

of traffi c schemes and allow for quick assessments and 

adjustments as necessary to facilitate safe and effi cient 

movement of vehicles through construction zones.

Because of this performance monitoring, the Tollway 

operators know where back-ups are going to be and 

can get the word out to their customers. The Tollway 

management strives for a high level of communication 

with the public both in advance of major construction 

and continuously throughout the construction season. 

It notifi es the public a minimum of 10 days prior to 

construction or any major phase changes, provides daily 

updates, and actively sends messages to customers on 

work zone status via multiple means of communication, including press releases, email alerts, daily lane 

closure reports, dynamic message sign and portable 

changeable message sign deployments, as well as webbased regional automated traveler information system. 

Austin Energy

Austin Energy is a community-owned electric utility 

located in Austin, Texas. The utility provides a portion 

of its profi ts each year to help fund city services. Austin 

Energy produces and delivers energy to approximately 

400,000 customers. It is the 9th largest municipal 

electric company in the United States. Austin Energy 

generates power through coal, gas-fi red, and nuclear 

plants, captures renewable wind energy, and purchases 

energy from outside providers. Austin Energy operates 

a transmission and distribution system.52

Austin Energy has adopted three overarching strategies 

to maintain a successful organization. In support of 

these strategies, Austin Energy developed fi ve strategic 

objectives. The strategies and strategic objectives are as 

follows:53

• Strategy: Risk Management.

– Objective: Maintain Financial Integrity.

• Strategy: Excellent Customer Service.

– Objective: Create and Sustain Economic 

Development.

– Objective: Customer Satisfaction.

– Objective: Exceptional System Reliability.

• Strategy: Energy Resource.

– Objective: Renewable Portfolio Standard and 

Energy Effi ciency.

Each objective is tracked using one of more performance measures and associated performance targets. 

Austin Energy measures system reliability with six reliability performance measures. Three measures focus 

on the delivery of electric services and the other three 

measures focus on power production. The performance 

measures that Austin Energy uses to gauge the delivery 

of electric services are:

• SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration 

Index): A common measure of the duration of 

power outages on the distribution system.

52 Austin Energy, “Company Profi le.” Available at: http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Company%20Profi le/index.htm, last

accessed December 31, 2009.

53 Austin Energy, Strategic Plan Update, 2008. Available at:

http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Strategic%20Plan/strategicPlanningUpdate_2008.pdf, last accessed December 31, 2009. 
Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations | D-6

into the organizational performance measures. The 

second tier key performance indicators are operational 

in nature and are used by managers to manage the business. Managers are held accountable for achieving the 

performance targets. The third tier of key performance 

indicators support the fi rst two tiers and are focused on 

process and effi ciency. They support action plans and 

are used by supervisors for day-to-day activities.

The fi rst-tier performance measures are reported to 

the community as part of the overall organization’s 

performance measures regularly through the Austin 

Energy website, bulletin boards, and a regular newsletter. Performance trends are reported monthly for cost, 

reliability/regulatory, and safety measures, whereas 

customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction trends 

are reported on an annual basis. Austin Energy strongly 

believes that tracking and reporting performance results 

is important for successfully managing and improving 

an organization. 

The Austin Energy Electric Service Delivery business 

area vice president and the business area management 

meet every 6 months to discuss the effectiveness of the 

quality management system. As part of these meetings, performance results are examined for the key 

performance indicators and action plans are initiated for 

measures that are trending in the wrong direction. The 

meeting participants also re-evaluate the indicators and 

targets. 

Several benefi ts have been realized by the Electric 

Service Delivery area because of its quality improvement effort including improvements in: communications and collaboration between operational work 

groups, the documentation of issues as they occur, 

identifi cation of root causes, and action plans developed 

and carried out to address these issues. The quality 

improvement effort seems to be winning over many of 

the impacted employees. Austin Energy reported that 

the ISO 9000:2001 standard gave it a needed framework to help manage its business. For others working toward developing a quality management system, 

Austin Energy emphasized the importance of not trying 

to design a perfect system, but instead of developing 

a solid foundation that can be continuously improved 

over the long term.56

• SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency 

Index): A common measure of the frequency of 

power outages on the distribution system.

• SATLPI (System Average Transmission Line 

Performance Index): A measure of voltage sags 

or line faults on the transmission system.

The three performance measures that Austin Energy 

uses to access the reliability of its power production 

rely on a metric called the equivalent availability factor 

(EAF), a measure of the availability of power for use. 

The three measures using EAF include the availability 

of power at two power generating facilities and the 

availability of power during peak season. 

The organization also aims to have renewable energy 

comprise 30 percent of its power generation portfolio 

and to improve energy effi ciency by 15 percent by 

2020. Austin Energy assesses stakeholder satisfaction 

with surveys of both customer and employee satisfaction. It aims to achieve a customer satisfaction target of 

83 percent by fi scal year 2010, a measure based on the 

American Customer Satisfaction Index.54 

In 2006, Austin Energy’s Electric Service Delivery 

business area began a formal quality management effort 

and in 2008, achieved certifi cation under the

ISO 9001:2000 standard. The ISO 9001:2000 standard 

specifi es the requirements for a quality management 

system and emphasizes improvements in the effectiveness of processes through numerical performance measures. The Electric Service Delivery business area used 

a balanced scorecard approach to ensure service quality. 

It developed key performance indicators (performance 

measures and numerical targets) in the areas of cost, 

reliability/regulatory, customer satisfaction, safety, 

and employee satisfaction. With limited resources, the 

business area recognized the importance of balancing 

efforts to improve service with costs.55

The Electric Service Delivery business area divided its 

key performance indicators into three tiers according to 

organizational responsibility. The strategic performance 

indicators are used at the fi rst tier by executives to lead 

the business area. These measures are aligned with the 

overall Austin Energy organizational strategies and feed 

54 Austin Energy, Strategic Plan Update, 2008. Available at:

http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Strategic%20Plan/strategicPlanningUpdate_2008.pdf, last

accessed December 31, 2009.

55 Telephone Interview with Mercedes Sanchez, Austin Energy. December 3, 2009. 

56 Telephone Interview with Mercedes Sanchez, Austin Energy. March 2009.
D-7 | Operations Objectives and Performance Measures in Private and Public Organizations

A U.S. Power Company

The representative of a power company located in the 

United States, which requested to remain anonymous 

for the purposes of this case study, provided information 

on the objectives and performance measures used at the 

company for managing operational performance. 

The company uses four categories of operational 

performance measures that are typically tracked using a 

rolling 12-month average:

1. Safety

2. Reliability

3. Customer Satisfaction

4. Process Improvement

The performance goals are developed according to 

tiers in the organization. Goals at tier 0, the top level, 

address the highest level organizational objectives and 

do not necessarily apply to all departments. A hierarchy 

of tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 goals address the objectives in 

increasing specifi city. There are numerous specifi c tier 

3 goals that are managed at the working group level.

The company measures reliability primarily through 

non-storm management indices, measures that do not 

account for problems encountered during storms. The 

main index used is the System Average Interruption 

Duration Index (SAIDI). This is a product of the 

number of customers with outages and the average 

duration of outages. The company has an initiative 

underway to identify customers with frequent outages 

(5+ per year) and improve their service.

The company collects reliability data on an hourly basis 

and compiles the data daily. Outage information is collected from call centers and, increasingly, from the grid 

itself. 

The company assesses customer satisfaction through 

quarterly phone interviews of residential customers. 

Management sets a specifi c percentage of customer 

satisfaction as a goal. The company arrived at this 

target through benchmarking other power companies’ 

customer satisfaction results, arriving at typical industry 

number, and adding to it to attempt to out-perform the 

industry. The company only recently began developing 

its process improvement objectives. 

The company’s performance measures were originally developed by benchmarking and analysis of best 

practices of comparable organizations. Identifying 

comparable organizations was diffi cult. For example, 

some have more underground assets or more network 

interconnects, making them less prone to outages. The 

performance measures were developed from the top 

down. The tier 0 goals were determined by defi ning 

the highest level organizational objectives. Tier 1 goals 

were developed to expand on the tier 0 goals. Tier 2 

goals were developed to support the tier 1 goals, and so 

on.

Company management communicates its performance 

measures to staff by posting performance information on the company website and through bulletin 

boards. Operations managers hold monthly meetings 

to coordinate their activities and each working group 

has milestones and tracks its progress against them. 

Typically the top-level goals are simply reported as successes or failures and most performance measures are 

tracked publicly.

The power company representative reported that the 

company had benefi tted from the performance measurement approach. Despite staff reductions over the last 

few years, the company has remained above average 

in national rankings. He also stated that performance 

measurement has elevated the importance of customer 

satisfaction.



Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Toll-Free “Help Line” 866-367-7487

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No.: FHWA-HOP-10-026