The Regional Concept for

Transportation Operations:

A Practitioner’s Guide
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-11-032

The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations: A Practitioner’s Guide

Mr. Wayne Berman, Federal Highway Administration, COTM

This practitioner’s guide is a collection of the observed successes and lessons learned from four metropolitan regions as they developed Regional Concepts for Transportation Operations (RCTOs), a management tool used by planners and operations practitioners 

to define a strategic direction for implementing effective regional transportation management and operations in a collaborative 

manner. This document provides information on how to develop and implement an RCTO effectively and efficiently by highlighting practices that have been used successfully to overcome challenges by the four implementing regions that forged ahead into 

this new territory. This guide offers lessons from these pioneering sites that can help other implementing regions to select the 

methods that are most effective in improving regional transportation system performance. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102

United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Jocelyn K. Bauer, Michael C. Smith, Kelley K. Pecheux

Regional concept for transportation operations, operations objectives, performance measures, collaboration, 

management and operations, Tucson, Southeast Michigan, 

Portland, Hampton Roads.

No restrictions.

Unclassified Unclassified 60 N/A

July 2011

DTFH61-06-D-00005

HOP

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
ii | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | iii

Contents

1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Background ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 What is an RCTO?................................................................................................................... 2

1.3	 Benefits of an RCTO................................................................................................................ 4

1.4 Updating and Maintaining an RCTO...................................................................................... 6

2 Putting the RCTO into Practice – RCTO Demonstration Sites...................................................8

2.1 Portland, Oregon.......................................................................................................................8

2.2 Tucson, Arizona Metropolitan Area ......................................................................................10

2.3 Southeast Michigan ................................................................................................................ 14

2.4 Hampton Roads, Virginia....................................................................................................... 18

3 Developing an RCTO – Key Insights for Success.........................................................................22

3.1 The Motivation Leading to an RCTO....................................................................................23

3.2 Collaborative Forum for Developing an RCTO.....................................................................25

3.3 Linking the RCTO and the Planning Process........................................................................32

3.4 The "What" and the "How" of the RCTO..............................................................................34

4 Looking Ahead..................................................................................................................................41

Appendix A: A Practitioner's Checklist for Developing and Maintaining an RCTO.................45

Appendix B: RCTO Fundamentals....................................................................................................47

B.1 Foundations in Systems Thinking .........................................................................................47

B.2 RCTO Scope ...........................................................................................................................47

B.3 RCTO Initiatives.....................................................................................................................48
iv | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

List of Tables

Table 1. Overview of Portland, Oregon Demonstration Site......................................................................9

Table 2. Overview of Tucson, Arizona Demonstration Site.....................................................................11

Table 3. The Tucson Team’s RCTO Focus Areas, Objectives, and Performance Measures...................12

Table 4. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives............................................................................13

Table 5. Overview of Southeast Michigan Demonstration Site ...............................................................15

Table 6. The Southeast Michigan Team’s RCTO Focus Areas and Objectives.......................................16

Table 7. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives............................................................................17

Table 8. Overview of Hampton Roads, Virginia Demonstration Site .....................................................19

Table 9. The Hampton Roads Team’s RCTO Objectives and Performance Measures for the TIM

Focus Area...................................................................................................................................20

Table 10. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives............................................................................21

Table 11. Guide to Topics Covered in Chapter 3 ........................................................................................22

Table 12. Action Plan from the PAG RCTO showing Organizational Responsibilities in

Integrating Area Traveler Information with Arizona 511 .........................................................39

Table 13.	 Example of a Resource Estimate for Activities Identified in the PAG RCTO...........................40
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | v

List of Figures

Figure 1. The 2007 FHWA Publication, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations –

The Blueprint for Action ..............................................................................................................1

Figure 2. Development Phases of an RCTO.................................................................................................3

Figure 3. The 2007 FHWA Publication, The Collaborative Advantage– Realizing the Tangible 

Benefits of Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration..................................................5

Figure 4.	 Benefits of Implementing an RCTO can Accrue to Individual Agencies and to

End Users of the Regional Transportation System......................................................................6

Figure 5. The RCTO can Evolve from "Problem-Driven" to a Broader, Integrated Approach

to Regional Transportation System Management and Operation ...............................................7

Figure 6. Map of the RCTO Demonstration Sites .......................................................................................8

Figure 7. Map of Southeast Michigan.........................................................................................................14

Figure 8. Map of Hampton Roads, Virginia...............................................................................................18

Figure 9. The Three Crucial Components to the Motivation for an RCTO ..............................................23

Figure 10. Metropolitan Mobility The Smart Way Executive Summary by Metro and ITS Oregon ........31

The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 1

1.1 Purpose and Background

This practitioner’s guide is a collection of the observed 

successes and lessons learned from four metropolitan 

regions as they developed Regional Concepts for 

Transportation Operations (RCTOs), a management tool 

used by planners and operations practitionersto define a

strategic direction for improving regional transportation 

management and operations in a collaborative manner. 

The purpose of this document is to provide information 

on how to develop and implement an RCTO effectively 

and efficiently by highlighting practices that have

been used successfully to overcome challenges by the 

four implementing regions that forged ahead into this 

new territory. This guide offers lessons from these 

pioneering sites that can help other implementing 

regions to select the methods that are most effective in 

improving regional transportation system performance. 

In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

began working with four regions interested in increasing 

collaboration and improving operations through the use 

of an RCTO. These regions served as “demonstration 

sites” and were willing to share insights into how 

best to carry out the process of developing an RCTO 

with FHWA and the public. This document combines 

the insights gained from observing and learning 

from the demonstration site teams over the course of 

approximately 5 years into a collection of techniques 

and approaches to be considered as practitioners work 

together to develop their RCTOs. 

The idea for an RCTO was first identified by a

broad-based working group on linking planning and 

operations, sponsored by FHWA and the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), as an effective way 

to link transportation operations and transportation 

planning. FHWA later published Regional Concept for 

Transportation Operations – The Blueprint for Action,1 a 

primer on the RCTO that describes the elements of an 

RCTO and its development. 

1 Introduction

Building on this work, 

FHWA invited public 

agencies to apply for 

demonstration projects 

through which participating 

jurisdictions and agencies 

within a region could 

increase collaboration 

by developing an RCTO. 

Initially, three sites 

were selected for RCTO 

demonstration projects: 

the greater Tucson region, 

with the Pima Association 

of Governments (PAG) as the lead entity; Southeast 

Michigan, with the Southeast Michigan Council of 

Governments (SEMCOG) as the lead entity; and 

Portland, Oregon, with the City of Portland as the lead 

entity. Shortly after the initiation of the demonstration 

initiatives, agencies led by the Hampton Roads 

Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) and 

the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in 

the Hampton Roads region 

began developing an RCTO, 

and this collaborative 

activity was incorporated 

into the demonstration 

effort. Each of the four 

demonstration sites created 

its own process to develop 

an RCTO, tailored to the 

region’s needs, current 

activities, and inter-agency 

relationships. 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations – The Blueprint for Action, FHWA-HOP-07-122 

(Washington, DC, 2007). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/rctoprimer/index.htm, last accessed June 13, 2011.

This guide highlights insights 

gained from the four Federal 

Highway Administration 

RCTO demonstration sites:

•	 Southeast Michigan

•	 Tucson, Arizona 

metropolitan area

•	 Portland, Oregon

•	 Hampton Roads, 

Virginia

Figure 1.

The 2007 FHWA Publication, Regional 

Concept for Transportation Operations – The 

Blueprint for Action 
2 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

an RCTO helps partnering agencies think through and 

reach consensus on what they want to achieve in the 

next 3 to 5 years and how they are going to accomplish 

it in the region. For the purposes of an RCTO, a region 

is considered to be any multi-jurisdictional area defined

by the collaborative partners; that area may or may 

not coincide with the boundaries of a metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO). An RCTO helps to 

formalize existing collaborative relationships and 

defines a common direction for the future, essentially

“getting everyone on the same page.” By implementing 

an RCTO, partners put into action within 3 to 5 years 

operations strategies that they will sustain over the 

long term. While the 3- to 5-year timeframe may be 

adjusted to meet the needs of the region, this shorter 

duration allows time for many management and 

operations strategies to be implemented while keeping 

the RCTO responsive to current system performance 

needs. Additionally, the timeframe offers a middle 

ground between operators who are focused on day-today activities and planners who are looking 20 to 25 

years into the future.

An RCTO focuses on operations objectives and 

strategies within one or more management and 

operations functions of regional significance such as

traveler information, road weather management, or 

traffic incident management. The topic of an RCTO

reflects regional expectations and opportunities

and may be motivated by a growing awareness of 

diminishing levels of service, a mandate from officials,

a recent natural disaster, a special event, or a shortage 

of resources. Within a region, there may be multiple 

RCTOs that focus on different operations functions or 

services. 

Participants in developing and implementing an RCTO 

may be managers and decisionmakers from local, State, 

or regional transportation agencies responsible for dayto-day operations, metropolitan planning organizations, 

and public safety entities. Depending on the scope of 

the RCTO, non-traditional participants such as freight 

operators, tourism bureaus, and economic development 

agencies may need to be engaged. Well-respected 

leaders who are willing to champion the common goals 

of the partners and guide the development of the RCTO 

are necessary for its success. It may be most effective 

to have a leader involved with transportation planning 

as well as a leader from the operations community 

in order to bridge the two communities and bring an 

understanding of both planning and operations to 

the task of developing an RCTO. The following are 

Common features across all four demonstration sites 

include:

•	 Strong and persistent leadership to guide the 

effort and maintain momentum for developing and 

implementing an RCTO.

•	 An iterative process for bringing participants 

into the RCTO process as the RCTO objectives 

are formulated and agreed to by all participating 

agencies.

•	 Leveraging and building upon existing 

relationships to gain support for an RCTO.

•	 Focusing on current or anticipated needs as a 

motivation for developing an RCTO.

The RCTO and the process for developing an RCTO 

proved to be valuable in the demonstration sites 

and, at least in some cases, were institutionalized as 

the mechanism for identifying operations projects 

to be funded through the regional transportation 

improvement program (TIP). While the RCTO process 

can be independent of the planning process in cases 

where it focuses primarily on how operators work 

together on a day-to-day basis, it can be an effective 

mechanism for incorporating operations considerations 

into the planning process so that funds needed to 

implement operations strategies can be integrated into 

regional capital investment plans. 

This guide is designed first to give the reader a brief

background on the RCTO and the demonstration 

sites and then to showcase insights and lessons on 

developing an RCTO based on the demonstration sites’ 

experiences. Following that design, the remainder 

of this chapter defines an RCTO, its benefits, and its

maintenance needs. Chapter 2 provides a snapshot of 

the four demonstration sites, including their RCTOs’ 

focus areas, approaches, and outcomes. Key insights 

derived from the demonstration sites’ experiences for 

the successful development of an RCTO are captured 

in Chapter 3. The guide concludes with a look to the 

future of the RCTO and a checklist for developing and 

sustaining an RCTO in Appendix A. Throughout its 

contents, the document highlights the role of the RCTO 

in the transportation planning process.

1.2 What is an RCTO?

As defined in Regional Concept for Transportation 

Operations – The Blueprint for Action, an RCTO 

is a management tool that assists in planning and 

implementing management and operations strategies 

in a collaborative and sustained manner. Developing 
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 3

examples of participants who could be involved in 

developing an RCTO:

•	 Traffic operations engineers and managers.

•	 Transportation planners.

•	 Transit operations managers.

•	 Police and fire officials.

•	 Emergency medical service (EMS) officials.

•	 Emergency managers.

•	 Port authority managers. 

•	 Bridge and toll facility operators.

•	 Trucking association representatives.

•	 Chamber of commerce representatives.

•	 Economic development advocates.

At the core, an RCTO defines what the participants

would like to achieve and how they are going to achieve 

it. This core takes form in six elements that serve as 

a common framework for developing an RCTO for a 

specific region. Central to an RCTO, the operations

objective defines the desired outcome, the “what,”

in specific and measurable terms. The motivation

supports the operations objective by grounding the 

collaborative action in regional needs, agency goals, 

or operational concerns. The other four elements—

approach, relationships and procedures, resource 

arrangements, and physical improvements—work in 

concert to define “how” the partners will attain the

operations objective. While the approach is the overall 

scheme for the collaborative effort, the remaining 

elements—relationships and procedures, resource 

arrangements, and physical improvements—translate 

the approach into the specific, tangible elements that

are required to achieve the operations objective. The 

requirements should be described in sufficient detail

for decisionmakers to make informed commitments 

regarding resources and institutional arrangements. 

The following diagram illustrates how an RCTO could 

be developed. There are three distinct phases. As 

shown, the motivation element is not created during the 

development of an RCTO. It is an issue observed by the 

partners that prompts the initiation of an RCTO and is 

then recorded. The first phase islargely driven by values

and needs, and it consists of forming the operations 

objective, which establishes the desired outcome. 

The second phase identifies possible approaches to

achieving the operations objective and culminates 

in the selection of a particular course of action. The 

third phase translates the approach into more specific,

tangible elements that guide joint or coordinated actions 

including system design, resource allocation, and interagency and multi-jurisdictional agreements. 

This process is inherently iterative in nature in that 

operations objectives or the approach may need to be 

revised once the necessary relationships, resources, and 

other commitments are fully understood. 

Motivation

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Operations

Objectives Approach

Relationships

and Procedures

Resource

Arrangements

Physical

Improvements

Feedback

PHASE 3

Feedback

Figure 2. Development Phases of an RCTO

The six key elements of a Regional Concept for 

Transportation Operations are:

•	 Motivation (“Why”): Reasons for developing an RCTO 

based on regional needs, goals, or operational concerns.

•	 Operations Objective (“What”): Desired nearterm outcome(s) in terms of transportation system 

performance and related performance measures.

•	 Approach (“How”): Overall description of how the 

operations objective will be achieved.

•	 Relationships and Procedures: Institutional 

arrangements, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), 

protocols, information sharing, etc.

•	 Physical Improvements: Facilities, equipment, 

systems, etc.

•	 Resource Arrangements: Sources and use of funding, 

staff, equipment, etc.
4 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

1.3 Benefits of an RCTO

An RCTO imparts significant benefits to operators

and planners, who are part of a collaborative effort 

to advance management and operations strategies in 

a region. An RCTO helps to advance and strengthen 

the collaboration, and, in 

turn, the collaboration 

brings tangible benefits

to the participating 

agencies and the public. 

The ultimate benefit of an

RCTO is the improvement 

in regional transportation 

system performance 

that is realized when 

jurisdictions and 

agencies work together 

toward commonly held 

operations objectives.

Strengthening the Collaborative Effort

The collaborative effort between operators and planners 

is strengthened because an RCTO:

•	 Brings together varied transportation operations 

perspectives, priorities, and cultures from 

different agencies and jurisdictions. 

•	 Facilitates the coordination of priorities, 

leveraging of resources, and alleviating of 

duplicative efforts. 

•	 Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the

partners in the collaborative effort.

•	 Garners commitments from agencies and 

jurisdictions to a common regional approach to 

transportation management and operations. 

•	 Establishes credibility with decisionmakers and 

the public by demonstrating that multiple agencies 

are standing behind the same operations objective.

•	 Provides a foundation for expanded collaboration 

that supports outreach to and engagement with 

new partners for the purpose of promoting 

expanded functions, in effect providing a 

“rallying point” for regional transportation 

systems management and operations.

A further advantage of developing and implementing 

an RCTO comes in the form of the institutional 

memory created by following a process for developing 

operations objectives and the strategies for achieving 

them. Operational improvements often come about 

because of the effort, interest, and expertise of 

individuals or individual agencies, and there may be 

little or no record of how potential improvements were 

identified or adopted. An RCTO leaves an “audit trail”

of decisions, agreements, and actions taken collectively 

and by individual agencies and, importantly, how these 

decisions, agreements, and actions relate to achieving 

operations objectives. 

Benefits to Transportation Planners

Participating in the development of an RCTO offers 

several benefitsto metropolitan transportation planners.

Planners from MPOs are responsible for fostering the 

involvement of all users (including operators) of the 

transportation system in preparing and maintaining a 

metropolitan transportation plan. Additionally, MPOs 

must respond to requirements in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)—the funding and 

authorization bill that governs U.S. Federal surface 

transportation spending—for considering management 

and operations in the transportation planning 

process. “Promote efficient system management and

operation”2

 is one of the eight planning factors that 

must be addressed in metropolitan transportation 

plans. According to SAFETEA-LU, the metropolitan 

transportation plan must 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.”3

 Furthermore, a congestion 

management process that provides for the “safe and 

effective integrated management and operation of 

the multimodal transportation system”4

 is required in 

transportation management areas (TMA). 

To help address these requirements, metropolitan 

planners can use an RCTO as a tool to bring operators 

and operations considerations into the planning process. 

“The RCTO, with an emphasis on 

transportation outcomes, made 

it feasible to bring planners and 

operators together. Talking about 

outcomes of operations is a great 

way to achieve the bridge between 

planners and operators.” 

– Jonathon Makler, Oregon 

Transportation Research 

and Education Consortium; 

formerly with Metro and City 

of Portland, Oregon

2 United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 134(h).

3 United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 134(i).

4 United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 134(k).
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 5

Among its many benefits, an RCTO can:

•	 Offer a mechanism for identifying and introducing 

operations objectives and performance measures 

into the transportation planning process.

•	 Provide a pathway to broad support for regionally 

significant operations initiatives.

•	 Facilitate the exchange of system performance 

data with operating agencies to be used in 

assessing system needs and the impacts of 

transportation programs.

•	 Identify regionally supported operations strategies 

that can be entered into the plan and used to create 

projects and programs for the TIP.

•	 Engage operators and other stakeholders in the 

planning process and bring in the perspective of 

non-traditional stakeholders such as public safety 

personnel.

Benefits to Transportation Operators

The primary benefits to transportation operators are

realized as the participating jurisdictions and agencies

take action on what they agree to do in an RCTO. Most 

regions do not have an overarching entity (jurisdiction 

or agency) with executive control over reporting 

organizations and functions. Consequently, benefits

depend upon individual agencies acting together to 

implement an RCTO. This requires that participating 

agencies have the support and commitment of their 

leadership and that they be able to demonstrate 

anticipated benefits to the leadership as the benefits

accrue. 

FHWA recently published 

The Collaborative Advantage – 

Realizing the Tangible Benefits 

of Regional Transportation 

Operations Collaboration.

5

Figure 4 shows some of the 

tangible benefits that can accrue

directly to the agencies working 

together. The benefits can

accrue in terms of the quantity 

or quality of resources available, 

agency operations, and outcomes 

that help achieve agency goals. 

When agencies work together 

to secure resources and perform 

the functions needed to achieve 

the RCTO objectives, they 

find ways to acquire and apply

resources efficiently: sharing

critical skills, negotiating favorable terms in joint 

purchasing decisions, sharing facilities, developing 

standards for materials and supplies that allow resource 

sharing, etc. They 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. 

The collaborating partners—those responsible for 

developing, implementing, and maintaining the 

RCTO—must realize, measure, and publicize the 

benefits of the RCTO to senior decisionmakers and the

public in ways that enable those groups to understand 

the importance of a regional approach to transportation 

systems management and operations.

In the Southeast Michigan demonstration site, the close work between the Southeast Michigan Council of 

Governments (SEMCOG) and operating agencies helped the participants to recognize more opportunities 

and benefits of collaborating on operations issues. The leader from SEMCOG noted that the RCTO

operating agency participants saw that they could benefit from SEMCOG’s regional data analysis and

forecasting, helping them attain a broader understanding of current and future conditions. The leader also 

noted that regional planners at SEMCOG have an even better understanding of the needs of operators in the 

region as a result of their RCTO development and are now in a better position to provide input on operations 

improvements from a regional perspective.

5 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, The Collaborative Advantage – Realizing the Tangible Benefits of Regional 

Transportation Operations Collaboration, FHWA-HOP-08-001 (Washington, DC, 2007). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

publications/benefits_guide/index.htm, last accessed June 13, 2011.

Figure 3.

The 2007 FHWA Publication, The 

Collaborative Advantage– Realizing 

the Tangible Benefits of Regional 

Transportation Operations Collaboration
6 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

1.4 Updating and Maintaining

an RCTO

An RCTO has a recommended time horizon of 3 to 5 

years and requires updating as operational objectives are 

achieved, new demands are realized, new requirements 

are established, and new possibilities are conceived. 

Ideally, a schedule for re-visiting the RCTO objectives, 

performance measures, and approaches should be 

established during the development of the RCTO along 

with responsibilities for leading that effort. Updating 

the RCTO will ensure that it stays useful and relevant 

given current circumstances.

In many cases, an RCTO is developed in response to a 

particular event or concern that gains visibility because 

of its immediate effect on customers or, importantly, 

individuals in leadership positions. The motivation for 

developing an RCTO is driven by a particular problem 

that needs to be addressed either because of its inherent 

urgency or because of the visibility it has gained with 

senior leadership. While developing an RCTO in 

response to an urgent need may be desirable, it may 

not be sustainable beyond the time the event or incident 

was “front page” news. Consequently, updating and 

maintaining an RCTO should be a more deliberate, 

thoughtful, collaborative activity that transitions 

from addressing mutual problems to identification of

opportunities for improving regional transportation 

system performance through a wide range of strategies. 

Ultimately, an RCTO becomes a fully integrated 

element of the way a regional transportation system is 

managed.

The transition from “problem solving” to “performance 

management” to “regional transportation system 

integration” is both important and non-trivial as 

illustrated in Figure 3.7

 It is important because, 

unless the partners seek the higher level approaches, 

the RCTO will continue to focus exclusively on 

the visible problems, overlooking opportunities for 

regional integration (institutional, policy, technical) 

where greater benefits can be realized. It is nontrivial because it is at the higher levels of integration 

where greater trust is required among participating 

agencies and jurisdictions since regional integration 

typically requires data and resource sharing, more 

complex institutional arrangements, and, importantly, 

Figure 4. Benefits of Implementing an RCTO can Accrue to Individual Agencies and to End Users of the Regional Transportation System.6

6 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, The Collaborative Advantage – Realizing the Tangible Benefits of Regional 

Transportation Operations Collaboration, FHWA-HOP-08-001 (Washington, DC, 2007). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

publications/benefits_guide/index.htm, last accessed June 13, 2011.

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

Working Together to Improve Transportation Safety, Reliability, and Security (Washington, DC, 2003). Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/

lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13686.html, last accessed June 14, 2011.

Inputs/Resources

•	 Funding

•	 People

•	 Equipment

•	 Facilities

•	 Technology

•	 Materials/Supplies

•	 Infrastructure

•	 Other

Operations

•	 Traveler Information

•	 Incident management

•	 Winter maintenance

•	 Freeway management

•	 Transit operations

•	 Traffic signal systems

•	 Other

Outcomes/Results

•	 Mobility

•	 Reliability

•	 Security

•	 Safety

•	 Environmental

•	 Energy

•	 Customer satisfaction

•	 Other

Illustrative benefits:

expanded 511 coverage, 

improved incident response, 

increased frequency of signal 

retiming

Illustrative benefits:

reduced equipment and/or material 

costs, access to more and/or 

better trained staff, improved 

equipment/technology, standards 

for equipment/technology Illustrative benefits:

fewer crashes, improved air quality, 

lower fuel consumption, shorter 

travel times, better travel times
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 7

greater reliance on partner agencies and jurisdictions 

in performing functions related to achieving regional 

goals. When agencies and jurisdictions seek integrated 

approaches at a regional level, they demonstrate a longterm commitment to addressing needs of individual 

jurisdictions in the context of meeting regional needs. 

The challenge decisionmakers face is that of satisfying 

their individual constituencies while at the same time 

thinking regionally. An RCTO can help capture the 

vision of transportation system operation that can be 

used to secure funding, improve performance, build 

solid partnerships, and communicate benefits to senior

decisionmakers and the traveling public.

Accountability during implementation of an RCTO 

is needed to ensure that the approach identified in

the RCTO is acted on and that the work of the group 

actually leads in the direction of the operations 

objective. Performance measurement is needed and 

is an essential part of “acting together.” Monitoring 

performance and measuring progress toward common 

objectives helps to maintain the RCTO by providing 

feedback that reinforces the commitment to the 

objectives and identifying opportunities for expanding 

the RCTO to include additional jurisdictions, agencies, 

and functions.

Reaching an operations objective and then halting is 

not enough effort to attain sustained benefits from an

RCTO. While an RCTO describes how the participants 

should work together to reach an objective, an RCTO 

should also put in place relationships and processes for 

acting together that sustain an operations objective. 

For example, if an RCTO objective is to synchronize 

traffic signals throughout a network of major arterials

in the region, individual jurisdictions may need to 

acquire (or participate in acquiring through joint 

purchasing agreements) and install the hardware and 

software required to achieve the objective. Moreover, 

once the necessary technology is deployed, individual 

jurisdictions (or agencies within jurisdictions) must 

consent to signal timing plans that achieve the agreed 

upon operational objectives, e.g., giving priority to 

major arterials during peak demand periods or agreeing 

to timing designed to move traffic to and from special

events. To sustain the benefits ofreaching the operations

objective, the RCTO must also include commitment 

from the participants to continue to use coordinated 

signal timing plans and update them regularly.

Figure 5.

The RCTO can Evolve from "Problem-Driven" to a Broader, 

Integrated Approach to Regional Transportation System 

Management and Operation.8

8 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination A Primer for Working Together to Improve 

Transportation Safety, Reliability, and Security (Washington, DC, 2003). Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13686.html,

last accessed June 14, 2011.

Regional

Transportation System 

Integration

Performance 

Management

Mutual

Problem Solving
8 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

9 City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, November 2007 (Unpublished).

The objective of the demonstration initiative was to 

help the FHWA demonstrate and further develop—

from the realm of theory to that of practice—the 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations. 

The sites receiving the demonstration grant were to 

enhance existing regional transportation operations 

collaborative activities, which may address one or more 

transportation systems management and operations 

activities through the development of an RCTO. 

Although Hampton Roads, Virginia did not apply for 

or receive a demonstration grant from FHWA, the 

participants of the RCTO development effort in that 

region were willing to participate alongside the other 

sites and open up their processes for the benefit of

others interested in developing an RCTO. 

The four sections below provide a brief overview 

of the demonstration sites, the processes for RCTO 

development, highlights of their RCTOs, links to the 

metropolitan transportation planning process, and initial 

outcomes. The outcomes listed reflect the successes

during the development and up to approximately 3 years 

after the RCTO had been drafted. Sites often began to 

implement some of the actions from the RCTO while it 

was being developed.

2 Putting the RCTO into Practice – RCTO Demonstration Sites

2.1 Portland, Oregon9

Operating agencies and other stakeholders in Portland 

have been working together for more than 15 years on 

the deployment of intelligent transportation systems 

(ITS) involving many aspects of the transportation 

system such as freeways, arterials, transit, and freight 

movement. Through the RCTO project, these agencies 

were able to fully engage Metro, the region’s MPO, as 

a means to increase institutional support in the region 

and to formalize relationships that have enabled the 

unique culture of collaboration. 

Organization and Process for

Developing the RCTO

To organize for the development of the RCTO, the 

Portland grant was used to create a staff position 

within Metro rather than to retain a consultant. One 

significant motivation for this decision was to help

effect institutional change in the region by installing 

staff, albeit temporary (for the 2-year duration of the 

grant), at Metro to build an operations program. The 

City of Portland served as grantor and hiring agency 

and detailed the temporary employee to Metro.

The champion for Portland’s RCTO was the Portland 

City Commissioner in charge of Transportation. As a 

result of witnessing a minor fender-bender cause major 

traffic delays on Interstate 5 in downtown Portland, the

© iStockphoto.com/norme

Figure 6. Map of the RCTO Demonstration Sites 

Southeast 

Michigan

Hampton 

Roads, 

Virginia Tucson, Arizona

Portland, Oregon
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 9

Commissioner called for a detailed analysis of the crash 

as well as a multi-agency meeting to discuss ways to 

address these types of incidents in the future.

A few months later, the Commissioner convened a 

group, which comprised executives from agencies in 

the region and representatives from both other relevant 

City of Portland offices and the business community.

After brainstorming on ways to improve management 

of minor incidents, the group reached the consensus 

that the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation 

would organize an inter-agency staff-level task force 

that would delve into the issue collaboratively. Staff 

involved in the RCTO project offered to help facilitate 

the group and the resulting task force was called the 

Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Team.

In this situation, a formal collaborative process was 

created where none were active with respect to the topic. 

This process established a two-tier system. The higherlevel group, which was titled the Portland Operations 

Steering Team (POST), worked to form a consensus on 

the topics that needed to be addressed, including but not 

limited to traffic incident management, and to receive

briefings on the progress being made by the staff-level

task forces to which the work was delegated.

After a series of TIM Team meetings that involved 

brainstorming and discussions of strategies, the 

team developed a “menu of options” as well as a 

recommendation and an action plan.

Operations Focus Area

The RCTO focus area for Portland was the management 

of minor traffic incidents within the City of Portland.

The objective for the RCTO was articulated as: “reduce 

unnecessary (excess) delay associated with minor (noninjury) incidents that occur on freeways within the City 

of Portland.”10 Operations objectives identified in the

early stages of the process were to:

•	 Reduce the economic cost of congestion.

•	 Reduce incident-induced delay.

•	 Reduce tow truck arrival and on-scene times.

•	 Reduce secondary crashes.

•	 Reduce lane-hours of blockage.11

Link to Planning

One of the primary goals for the Portland demonstration 

site team was to improve the coordination of planning 

and operations. Metro saw the FHWA demonstration 

project as an opportunity to become more engaged 

with the operations community in Portland and 

fully incorporate operations into the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. The demonstration 

initiative led to the establishment of an operations 

program at Metro. The RCTO laid the groundwork for 

Metro to develop a Regional Transportation System 

Management and Operations (TSMO) Plan that defines

how management and operations can be used to support 

the desired performance outcomes.13 The TSMO Plan 

is a 10-year investment strategy that is part of the 2035 

Regional Transportation Plan completed in 2010. 

Regional characteristics •	 Located in Northwest U.S. close to the Pacific Ocean.

•	 More than 1.5 million residents in metropolitan area.12

Leadership team •	 Metro (MPO).

•	 City of Portland.

•	 Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT).

•	 TriMet (local transit operator).

History of collaboration Operating agencies and other stakeholders in Portland have been working 

together for more than 15 years primarily through TransPort TAC (Transportation 

Portland Technical Advisory Committee). Collaborative efforts in the region 

have focused primarily around the design and implementation of ITS. Partners 

have included city, county, and State transportation departments as well as the 

local transit operator and university. The TransPort partnership was formalized 

as an MPO advisory committee in 2005.

RCTO Focus area Traffic incident management.

Table 1. Overview of Portland, Oregon Demonstration Site

10 City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, November 2007 (Unpublished).

11 Ibid.

12 Metro Regional Government, About Metro, 2011. Available at: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24201,

last accessed June 13, 2011.
10 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Outcomes or Successes

The near-term outcome of the effort in Portland resulted 

in a framework of procedures, policies, and physical 

capital needs as well as a list of action items that the 

TIM Team used to advance incident management. The 

region made progress on several actionsidentified in the

RCTO during the RCTO development and following its 

completion: 

•	 Portland Bureau of Transportation introduced 

State legislation regarding quick clearance and 

“Move It” practices. Oregon State Legislature 

passed these into law during the 2007 session. 

•	 The TIM Team task force met several times over 

approximately 1 year.

•	 Metro established a transportation operations 

program that includes a permanent staff position.

•	 A programmatic allocation of funding for ITS/

operations projects was established in the TIP.

•	 Stakeholders developed an awareness of the 

importance of transportation operations through 

monthly newsletters, MPO and other stakeholder 

briefings, and an executive-level operations

workshop.

•	 The City of Portland Bureau of Transportation 

hosted a 2-day FHWA course on incident 

management.

•	 Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division undertook

the creation of a new training video for field

officers related to the management of an incident.

The development of the RCTO in Portland led to a 

much stronger role for operations in the planning and 

programming processes. Shortly after the development 

of the RCTO, Metro began the process of updating its 

metropolitan transportation plan and recognized the 

need to create a more detailed strategy for managing 

and operating the transportation system over the next 10 

years. The TSMO Plan was guided by the collaborative 

efforts of TransPort (the operations subcommittee), 

the Regional Travel Option (RTO) Subcommittee, 

and a newly formed TSMO Policy Work Group. The 

TSMO Plan addressed the issue of how to best use the 

programmatic allocations of funding for ITS/operations 

and travel demand management. It broadened the scope 

of operations from just TIM in the RCTO to cover four 

management and operations areas:

1. Multimodal traffic management;

2. Traveler information;

3. Traffic incident management; and

4. Transportation demand management.

The goals, objectives, and projects for traffic incident

management in the TSMO Plan built on the content 

of the RCTO. Through the TSMO Plan, projects to 

expand incident management teams and training, 

integrate voice and data networks to improve interagency communication during incidents, and increase 

overall incident management capabilities were included 

as part of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The 

2010–2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement 

Program14 contains $1.65 million for “Active Traffic

Incident Management” including improved towing 

performance. In addition, the TSMO Plan and the 

2010–2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement 

Program include projects to develop RCTOs on 

arterial performance measurement and active traffic

management.

2.2 Tucson, Arizona 

Metropolitan Area15

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) embarked 

on this demonstration project to build on existing 

collaborative efforts in the region and to prepare for 

major reconstruction of Interstate 10 through Tucson. 

With a 60 percent increase in population between 1982 

and 2003, advancing transportation operations on a 

regional level was needed to keep up with the influx of

people and vehicles. Table 2 presents an overview of 

the Tucson demonstration site.

Source: Pima Association of Governments

13 Metro Regional Government, Regional Transportation System Management and Operations Plan, June 2010. Available at:

http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/regional_tsmo_refinement_plan_june2010_final.pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011.

14 Metro, 2010-13 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, September 21, 2010. Available at: http://library.oregonmetro.

gov/files//mtip_draft_council_adopt_web.pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011.

15 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 11

Organization and Process for

Developing the RCTO

The Tucson area demonstration was led and hosted by 

PAG, the region’s MPO, and its member agencies: the 

City of Tucson, Arizona DOT, Pima County Department 

of Transportation, and the Pima County Office of

Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The 

individual who served as the leader and convener for 

the RCTO was a senior planner from PAG. Through 

the FHWA grant, PAG hired a consultant to assist in 

facilitating the multi-agency meetings, to synthesize 

and document the input of the participants, and to work 

one-on-one with the RCTO leader to propose elements 

of the RCTO for discussion. PAG formed an RCTO 

working group drawing primarily from members of 

the Transportation Systems Subcommittee to develop 

the RCTO. The RCTO was developed using a series 

of stakeholder interviews and regular meetings of the 

RCTO development group.

Operations Focus Areas and Objectives

During facilitated RCTO working group meetings, 

participants developed a wide variety of operations 

objectives and related performance measures for each 

of six operations areas. During the RCTO process, 

stakeholders recognized that significant effort and

collaboration would be required to fully develop 

and implement action plans for each operations area. 

Because of this, stakeholders focused their efforts on 

three operations areas, which are shown in Table 3.

Regional characteristics •	 Population of metropolitan region approximately 980,000.16

•	 Region is experiencing rapid population growth.

•	 From 1982 to 2003, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) grew by 213 

percent.

Leadership •	 Pima Association of Governments.

History of collaboration Formal ITS planning began in the region in 1994, and PAG members provided 

financial and in-kind support for the effort. In 1996 the ITS Working Group, 

made up of operators in the region, was formed to guide the implementation of 

the 1996 ITS Strategic Deployment Plan. Members of the group increasingly 

used their meetings to discuss operations topics outside of ITS, which led to 

the group’s renaming as the Transportation Systems Subcommittee in 2002.

Primary participants •	 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT).

•	 Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS).

•	 City of Tucson.

•	 Pima County Department of Transportation.

•	 Pima County Office of Emergency Management and Homeland 

Security. 

•	 Eight PAG member agencies (cities, towns, and tribes).

RCTO focus areas •	 Arterial management operations.

•	 Traveler information.

•	 Work zone management.

Table 2. Overview of Tucson, Arizona Demonstration Site

16 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Population and Housing Occupancy Status: 2010 - United States -- Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Area; and for Puerto Rico. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, last 

accessed June 13, 2011.
12 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

RCTO Focus Area Operations Objectives Performance Measure

years.a major reconstruction effort over the next several primary freeway through Tucson, is undergoing they are becoming even more vital as I-10, a transportation system in the Tucson region, and Motivation: Arterial roads dominate the Arterial management operations •	



metropolitan arterials by:events and non-recurring incidents on Tucson reduce traveler delay due to both recurring Provide more predictable travel times and 

Improving traffic signal timing,

jurisdictional boundaries.coordination, and management across all 

 Improving traffic incident management. Improving coordination among traffic,

public safety, and transit agencies.

•	 Improve traveler safety.

•	 Number of signals for which traffic signal

year.timing plans were reviewed and updated each 

•	

program.as measured by PAG travel time data Arterial travel times and standard deviation 

•	 Crash rates.

information.use of the existing systems in disseminating region, reduce duplicative efforts, and make better coordinate traveler information systems in the Motivation: The stakeholders saw the need to Traveler information •	

the region.multi-modal traveler information services in quality, quantity, accessibility, and use of Reduce traveler delay by improving the 

•	

traveler information.Improve the data management and storage of 

•	

habits.Educate roadway users to improve driver 

•	

closures).services (work zones, incidents, other Tucson metropolitan area traveler information Provide current and accurate information to 

•	

numbersystem from the Tucson metropolitan area and Number of calls placed to 511 telephone 

of website hits for Tucson-specific

travel information.

•	

for the Tucson metropolitan area.events) that are entered into HCRS per year Number of events (incidents and planned 

•	

information to distribute to the public.Number of media outlets using traveler 

willminimize the impact on travelers. In addition, there coordination to schedule the work in ways that performed by individual agencies with no formal Motivation: Construction in the Tucson area is Work zone management

be a significant increase in new construction

Plan and the 1⁄2-cent excise tax to fund the plan.20-year Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) projects in the region due to the 2006 passage of a 

•	

scale work zones. Improve multi-agency coordination for large-

•	 Reduce traveler delay due to work zones.•	

reliability within work zones.Improve speed management and travel time 

•	 Maintain/improve work zone safety. •	 Reduce the number of traffic-related incidents

within work zones.

•	

emergency response routes.Minimize the impact of work zones on 

•	

RuleNumber of Work Zone Safety and Mobility 

training and certification classes held

per year and number of attendees.

•	 Number of traffic related incidents within

work zones.

•	

program.Planning and Programming Coordination Jurisdictional partnership in the Construction 

Table 3. The Tucson Team’s RCTO Focus Areas, Objectives, and Performance Measures1717 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 13

Approach for Meeting Objectives

During the RCTO process, stakeholders began 

developing action plans for each of the operations areas. 

These approaches are described in Table 4.

Link to Planning

The link between the RCTO and the metropolitan 

planning process was facilitated in the Tucson region 

by the demonstration site leader, a senior planner from 

PAG. Once operations strategies were identified and

agreed upon by the participating agencies, the leader 

from PAG helped include operations programs for 

consideration for regional funding. As a result, PAG 

established a regional traffic signal program in its 2040

Regional Transportation Plan and allocated funding 

in its TIP. Additionally, operators in the region are 

increasingly seeking out PAG as the host for regional 

operations coordination efforts. The Tucson region 

also used its RCTO as a starting point in establishing 

objectives, performance measures, and initiatives in its 

congestion management process. 

Outcomes or Successes

Coordination of existing practices such as traveler 

information and work zone management allows 

agencies to provide better service to travelers:

•	 PAG has secured funding for a regional traffic

signal program. 

RCTO Focus Area Approach

Arterial management 

operations

•	 Implement a program to review and optimize traffic signal 

timing plans on major arterials, state highways, and at freeway 

interchanges regularly (every 3 to 5 years). 

•	 Identify multi-jurisdictional opportunities for sharing resources 

to support transportation operations. A specific opportunity 

that should be explored is deployment and operations of arterial 

dynamic message signs (DMS).

Traveler information Establish compatibility between Arizona 511 system and TransView:

•	 Improve the Tucson area maps within the Highway Condition 

Reporting System (HCRS) to be commensurate with 1⁄2 mile grid 

system.

•	 Integrate filtered CAD information into regional traveler information 

system.

•	 Improve quantity and quality of work zone information that is input 

into the ADOT HCRS.

•	 Implement real-time bus arrival capability into traveler information 

system.

Work zone management •	 Develop practices to facilitate inter-agency and inter-jurisdiction 

coordination of construction work zones:

» Establish and support a region-wide construction planning and 

programming coordination working group.

» Improve quantity and quality of work zone information that is 

input into the ADOT HCRS. 

» Provide current and accurate work zone/closure/restriction 

information to Tucson metropolitan area emergency service 

providers, transit agencies and the public via traveler information 

services.

•	 Implement regular training and certification for Work Zone Safety 

and Mobility Rule (23 CFR 630 Subpart J). Attendees should 

include both jurisdiction staff and contractors.

Table 4. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives18

18 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).
14 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

•	 Multi-jurisdictional coordination of work zones 

began through meetings between construction 

representatives from multiple agencies, although 

this effort slowed down approximately a year 

after the RCTO due to challenges implementing 

a common system for tracking construction 

activities.

•	 PAG has been identified as an effective regional

table for operations collaboration and is used 

to help coordinate and improve traffic incident

management for major projects such as the I-10 

reconstruction project.

•	 ADOT and local agencies in Tucson have worked 

through road blocks to sharing and coordinating 

traveler information. Real-time bus information 

and computer aided dispatch (CAD) data from 

the Pima County Sheriff’s Office and the City

of Tucson Police Department is now fed into 

TransView.org, an online traveler information 

system operated by the City of Tucson. 

In the 31⁄2 years since PAG and its operations partners 

developed the RCTO, they are still working together to 

implement the approach set out in the RCTO. There have 

been several successes, as noted above, and regional 

coordination for operations continues through the PAG 

Transportation Systems Subcommittee. Additionally, a 

smaller multi-agency traffic signal program group and

traveler information group work specifically on those

RCTO focus areas. The PAG RCTO leader reports that 

the RCTO has led to other collaborative efforts between 

planners and operators because the RCTO effort “got 

operators to think like planners.” One follow-on success 

has been acquiring the resources needed to bring all of 

the operators onto the same wireless network for signal 

communications resulting in significant cost savings. 

2.3 Southeast Michigan19

With numerous jurisdictions, agencies, and service 

providers responsible for safely and efficiently

operating various aspects of the transportation 

system, the agencies in Southeast Michigan must cross 

agency and jurisdictional boundaries to be successful. 

Development of an RCTO allowed the agencies in the 

Metropolitan Detroit area to continue, formalize, and 

expand their collaborative efforts.

Table 5 presents an overview of the Southeast Michigan 

demonstration site.

Organization and Process for

Developing the RCTO

The kick-off meeting for the Metro Detroit initiative 

was held by SEMCOG and included stakeholders, both 

administrative and technical, from State, regional, 

county, local, and private sector transportation operating 

agencies. The major outcome of the meeting were that 

the direction, scope, and elements of the RCTO program 

introduced to region-wide stakeholders. 

Following the meeting, extensive stakeholder interviews 

were conducted. Over 70 delegates from approximately 

40 agencies in traffic management, operations, law

enforcement, communications, and transit in the Metro 

19 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) for Southeast Michigan, June 

2007 (Unpublished) and Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO) Final Report: Southeast Michigan Experience, July 

2007 (Unpublished).

Figure 7. Map of Southeast Michigan

Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

City of Detriot

Livingston

Oakland

Washtenaw Wayne

Monroe

St. Clair

Macomb

City of Detriot
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 15

Detroit tri-county area were interviewed regarding 

their agencies’ operations needs and priorities. The 

RCTO objectives were developed using the results of 

these interviews. The objectives were refined and the

approach for the RCTO was developed through a series 

of meetings between an RCTO development team made 

up of approximately 10 representatives from SEMCOG, 

Michigan DOT, and Michigan State Police. Additionally, 

two workshops were held on the RCTO development 

with a larger group of stakeholders in the region.

Regional characteristics •	 The Southeast Michigan region has a population of 4.7 million.20

•	 Located in southeast Michigan on the Detroit River.

•	 Encompasses 7 counties, 2 MDOT regions, 233 local units of 

government.

Leadership team •	 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.

•	 Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

•	 Michigan State Police (MSP).

History of collaboration •	 Regional collaborative efforts on incident management date back 

to 1991, and include incident management conferences, incident 

management committees, and the development of a “Blueprint for 

Action.”

•	 MDOT, several counties, and SMART transit have been 

collaborating on managing snow and ice removal since 1998.

•	 Collaboration on ITS has been ongoing since 1999.

•	 MDOT, several counties, and several cities began working to 

improve traffic signal timing and progression over 10 years ago.

RCTO Focus area •	 Priority corridors for future investments.

•	 Traffic signal management.

•	 Traffic incident management.

•	 Operations information sharing.

Table 5. Overview of Southeast Michigan Demonstration Site

20 SEMCOG and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Data for Southeast Michigan, March 25, 2011. Available at: http://library.semcog.

org/InmagicGenie/DocumentFolder/QuickFacts2010Census.pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011.
16 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Operations Focus Areas and Objectives

The Southeast Michigan RCTO focus areas are shown in Table 6 along with the operations objectives.

RCTO Focus Area Operations Objectives

Priority corridors for future 

investments

Identifying priority corridors:

•	 Establish and maintain a region-wide list of priority corridors for 

operations improvements.

Traffic signal management Retiming traffic signals regularly:

•	 Facilitate a region-wide traffic signal retiming program:

» Priority corridors would be the top candidates for signal retiming.

» Signals along corridors that cross multiple jurisdictions will be 

coordinated. 

Traffic incident management Clearing incidents quickly and safely:

•	 Significantly reduce incident clearance times by establishing quick 

clearance legislation and enhancing the Freeway Courtesy Patrol 

(FCP) program.

Operations information 

sharing

Disseminating operations information:

•	 Continue to promote freeway camera video sharing among 

agencies.

•	 Standardize, expand and improve communications between 

agencies.

•	 Assist the development of the Michigan Advanced Transportation 

Management System (ATMS).

•	 Disseminate operations information via a unified website.

Note: Performance measures for the objectives were not identified.

21 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) for Southeast Michigan, June 

2007 (Unpublished).

Table 6. The Southeast Michigan Team’s RCTO Focus Areas and Objectives21
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 17

RCTO Focus Area Approach

Priority corridors for future 

investments

Supported by the Regional Operations Committee, the Arterial Traffic 

Management Committee will take the lead and act as the champion to: 

•	 Develop a consensus for operations improvements.

•	 Prioritize corridors specifically for the traffic signal retiming 

program.

•	 Establish additional criteria for setting priorities.

Traffic signal management A traffic signal retiming program will be facilitated by the Arterial Traffic 

Management Committee in two phases: 

•	 Phase I, Analysis—Conduct fundamental analysis work and 

prepare the initial proposal, which will lay out the entire plan 

describing the overall scope, specify the projects for each year, 

outline the implementation plan, and develop a financial plan.

•	 Phase II, Implementation—Collect data, optimize signal timing 

plans, and install new signal timing plans.

Traffic incident management The Incident Management Committee will act as champion to: 

•	 Promote the development of vehicle removal legislation.

•	 Promote the development of obstruction removal legislation.

•	 Facilitate the enhancement of the Freeway Courtesy Patrol (FCP) 

program.

Operations information 

sharing

The Communications Committee will be champion to: 

Communications enhancement:

•	 Facilitate the establishment of “Talk Groups” to share information/

resources.

•	 Promote the adoption of 800 MHz radio that is currently used by all 

City of Detroit departments.

•	 Promote better coverage of communication systems.

•	 Promote better communication and coordination between MSP 

and local law enforcement.

Michigan ATMS:

•	 Review Control Software Replacement Project.

•	 Meet with stakeholders from across the state to assess the needs 

of a wide range of users.

•	 Provide one-stop shopping for information.

•	 Disseminate operations information.

•	 Significantly facilitate data and resource sharing among agencies.

Unified Web Site:

•	 Continue to improve web site.

•	 Periodically distribute newsletter among agencies with news of 

RCTO development and operations information.

Table 7. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives22

Approach for Meeting Objectives

During the RCTO development process, stakeholders began to identify the approach for each of the operations focus 

areas. These approaches are described in Table 7.

22 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) for Southeast Michigan, June 

2007 (Unpublished).
18 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Three and a half years after the Southeast Michigan 

operations stakeholders developed the RCTO, the 

operations objectives from the RCTO still help to guide 

collaborative operations activities. The objectives 

and action items have been revised over time and 

incorporated into the second generation of the region’s 

operations “Blueprint for Action.” Objectives and 

associated initiatives/actions and champions are linked 

to the five RCTO focus areas on the SEMCOG Regional

Operations website.23 The “Blueprint for Action” 

provides direction for the activities of the Regional 

Transportation Operations Steering Committee 

(includes the former Incident Management Committee 

as of 2009), Freeway Operation Subcommittee, and the 

Arterial Traffic Management Subcommittee.

2.4 Hampton Roads, Virginia24

The agencies in Hampton Roads viewed the RCTO 

as a mechanism to enhance the existing spirit of 

collaboration in the face of new challenges faced by the 

region in terms of continued growth and constrained 

capacity. 

Table 8 presents an overview of the Hampton Roads 

demonstration site.

Chesapeake Bay

James River

York River

Southampton

Franklin

Isle of Wight

Surry

Suffolk

Chesapeake

Virginia Beach

Norfolk

Po rtsmouth

Hampton

York

Gloucester

James City

Newport News

Williamsburg

64

664

64

464

264

58

17

17

Poquoson

0 3 6

mi

Created by the

Hampton Roads Planning

District Commission

Figure 8. Map of Hampton Roads, Virginia

Source: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Link To Planning

In Southeast Michigan, the RCTO provided a 

significant link to the planning process in at least three

ways. Through its RCTO, SEMCOG has incorporated 

a traffic signal retiming program into its 2030 and

2035 metropolitan transportation plans and recent TIPs 

to optimize traffic signals. Secondly, as part of the

RCTO development, a region-wide ranking of priority 

corridors was performed with operating agencies. The 

ranking will be used to inform decisions on future 

operations projects. Finally, the RCTO provided 

SEMCOG planners the opportunity to expand their 

understanding of operations needs in the region and 

grow the network of operations stakeholders. 

Outcomes or 

Successes 

A major success 

resulting from the 

development of the 

RCTO in Southeast 

Michigan is that 

effective procedures 

and relationships 

have been established 

to discover the high 

priority needs of the 

region for operations improvements, and these needs 

have been translated into specific actions and projects.

Other outcomes and successes include:

•	 Development of a Southeast Michigan 

transportation operations website featuring RCTO 

work.

•	 A ranking of the region-wide corridors based on 

the selected criteria.

•	 A change of the law regarding abandoned 

vehicles, reducing the time limit from 48 hours to 

18 hours.

•	 Establishment of an internet-based utility to 

permit public safety, transportation, and other 

government agency representatives access to a 

subset of the 164 closed-circuit cameras owned 

and operated by MDOT for real-time freeway 

traffic surveillance across the Detroit metropolitan

area.

•	 Identification of funding for signal retiming

projects in the region.

23 See: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Operations. Available at: http://www.semcog.org/RegionalOperations.

aspx.

24 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/

Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management 

(HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/

Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011.

Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 19

Organization and Process for

Developing the RCTO

A core group of representatives from participating 

agencies formed an RCTO working group to guide the 

development of the RCTO through regular meetings 

and other activities. In order to gain a clear picture of 

the current state of TIM in Hampton Roads, the RCTO 

working group conducted in-person interviews with six 

different stakeholder groups, including freight, bridge 

tunnel, towing, hazmat, transit, and medical examiners. 

Regional characteristics •	 Encompasses 10 cities and 6 counties in southeastern Virginia, 

including: Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Williamsburg.

•	 Metropolitan area population of over 1.6 million.25

•	 Natural harbor and home to large ports such as Newport News 

Marine Terminal and Norfolk International Terminals.

•	 Home to many military facilities including the Norfolk Naval Base.

Leadership team •	 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), 

the MPO for the region.

•	 Virginia Department of Transportation.

History of collaboration •	 For more than a decade, the Hampton Roads Highway Incident 

Management (HRHIM) Committee, which consists of a cross 

section of the responding agencies within the region, has been a 

forum for cooperation and coordination. 

•	 The Hampton Roads ITS Committee formed in the early 1990s, 

under the guidance of HRTPO to coordinate and guide crossjurisdictional ITS initiatives. Champions on this committee wanted 

to strengthen the ties between planning and operations with 

regard to ITS and to coordinate ITS between agencies and modes. 

It is now titled the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations 

Subcommittee. 

Other participants •	 Virginia State Police (VSP).

•	 Local fire and rescue.

•	 Local traffic engineers and public works staff.

•	 Local law enforcement.

•	 Environmental and hazardous materials (hazmat) staff.

•	 Local emergency medical services.

•	 Members of the towing and recovery community.

RCTO Focus area •	 Traffic incident management.

Table 8. Overview of Hampton Roads, Virginia Demonstration Site

25 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, last accessed June 

14, 2011.

The purpose of the interview sessions was to gather 

information about the concerns, problems, and possible 

solutions regarding traffic incident management.

Following the interviews, an RCTO workshop was 

held that brought together first responders, secondary

responders, traffic operators, and representatives of

several special functions related to incident management. 

The key stakeholders in the RCTO process also played 

an important role in discussions that took place within 

the framework of the workshop.
20 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Operations Objectives Performance Measures

Increase responder safety by 

eliminating struck-by incidents and 

fatalities.

•	 Ratio of crashes per 100,000 miles driven for VSP.

•	 Incidents involving vehicle fires.

Decrease incident clearance time. •	 Incident duration.

•	 Average number of incidents lasting longer than 30, 60, 

and 90 minutes.

Decrease secondary incident 

occurrences.

•	 Number of secondary accidents.

Improve inter-agency communication 

during incidents.

•	 Input (e.g., what improvements have been most beneficial, 

where deficiencies remain, what improvements they 

would like to see) from survey of stakeholder agencies.

Identify existing regional incident 

management resources and 

establish plans for inter-agency 

utilization and acquisition.

•	 Identification of resource arrangements, mutual training 

agreements, and information sharing.

Establish a regional incident 

management pro-active and postincident review consortium.

•	 Scheduling all post-incident review meetings.

•	 Posting meeting minutes to RCTO web site in a timely 

fashion.

•	 Creating and updating the Hampton Roads Incident 

Responders Contact, Jurisdiction, and Resource Guide.

Table 9. The Hampton Roads Team’s RCTO Objectives and Performance Measures for the TIM Focus Area26

Operations Focus Areas

The Hampton Roads team chose TIM as their 

operations focus area. Interest in TIM came from highprofile incidents at tunnels and bridges that caused

major delays. The MPO board subsequently requested 

improvements be made to incident management. The 

RCTO objectives, performance measures, and targets 

for the TIM focus area are shown in Table 9.

Approach for Meeting Objectives

During the RCTO process, stakeholders developed 

action items for each of the operations objectives. 

These approaches are described in Table 10.

Link To Planning

In Hampton Roads, the link between the RCTO and 

planning was established early on. The champions 

for the RCTO in Hampton Roads applied for and 

received CMAQ/STP funding to assist in developing an 

RCTO in that area through the region’s TIP. HRTPO 

served as one of the two hosts for the development 

of the RCTO. This facilitated a flow of information

between operators and metropolitan planners regarding 

operations needs and funding opportunities. Through 

the development of the RCTO, performance measures 

were identified for traffic incident management and the

Virginia DOT began collecting and analyzing traffic

incident management performance data. Performance 

information was shared regularly with the MPO board 

and planners. 

Outcomes or Successes 

As a result of the RCTO effort in Hampton Roads, 

the planners and operators have had a number of 

achievementsin advancing traffic incident management

including:

•	 Began a practice of collecting and analyzing 

traffic incident management performance

measurement data.

•	 Produce quarterly and annual performance 

measure reports to track progress toward the 

RCTO’s operations objectives.

•	 Regularly hold post-incident review meetings 

guided by a detailed post-incident analysis 

worksheet with key participants. 

26 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/

Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management 

(HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/

Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 21

Operations Objective Approach

Increase responder safety •	 Start a regional public awareness campaign concerning 

the “Slow Down, Move Over” law and the “Move It” law.

•	 Encourage optimal lighting and traffic control equipment 

for secondary responder vehicles.

Decrease incident clearance times •	 Implement the use of intermediate reference location 

signs.

•	 Pursue the use of incentive based towing contracts or 

other innovative towing initiatives.

Decrease secondary incident 

occurrences

•	 Provide Virginia Port Authority (VPA) and other regional 

entities information regarding major incidents in Hampton 

Roads.

•	 Enhance the dissemination of incident-specific information 

to the motoring public.

Improve inter-agency communication 

during incidents

•	 Improve external and internal communication related to 

traffic incident management.

•	 Explore the possibility of multiple agencies being colocated at the Hampton Roads Traffic Management 

Center (HRTMC).

Identify existing regional incident 

management resources and 

establish plan for inter-agency 

utilization and acquisition

•	 Conduct cross-agency training.

•	 Provide more total station equipment to be utilized in 

investigations.

Establish a regional incident 

management pro-active and postincident review consortium

•	 Hold meetings of the post-incident review consortium 

following any problematic incidents.

Table 10. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives27

•	 Developed a standard hazmat reporting document.

•	 Held a workshop with senior management in State 

police, fire/rescue, local law enforcement, VDOT,

and MPO.

•	 Planned joint outreach for “Slow Down, Move 

Over” law.

•	 Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management 

RCTO approved by MPO board.

•	 Developed a Hampton Roads RCTO website to 

disseminate RCTO information to the public 

and facilitate communication between RCTO 

members.28

•	 Worked to obtain three more total stations to be 

utilized by Virginia State Police in fatal incident 

investigations in order to reduce clearance times. 

•	 Consolidates and distributes real-time traffic

incident information gathered from different 

27 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/

Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management 

(HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/

Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011.

28 See the Hampton Roads Regional Concept for Transportation Operations website at http://www.hrrcto.org/.

agencies and jurisdictions to local traffic

management centers and VDOT’s Hampton Roads 

Transportation Operations Center (TOC). The 

information distributed includes Virginia State 

Police CAD.

In the 21⁄2 years following the development of the 

RCTO, Hampton Roads RCTO participants from 

local and State DOTs, local and State public safety 

agencies, and HRTPO continue to meet on a quarterly 

basis as the Hampton Roads RCTO subcommittee. 

Despite fluctuations in participation level and staff

changes, the group continues to make progress on 

the actions identified in the RCTO. As of early 2011,

a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was being 

developed to formalize the commitment of the agencies 

participating in the RCTO to collaboratively advance 

TIM in the region.
22 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

The demonstration site leaders embarked on developing 

an RCTO in collaboration with others in their region 

with little guidance on the process. They were forced 

to experiment with techniques to maintain participation 

among their partners and reach consensus. Throughout 

the demonstration initiative, development activities 

such as meetings and workshops were observed for 

lessons on what worked effectively and what did not. 

In addition, the RCTO leaders participated in regular 

conversations on their efforts and reported on their 

experiences, including both challenges and successes. 

This chapter contains several insights conveyed by 

the RCTO demonstration site leaders or drawn from 

observations. It is intended to provide assistance to 

regions looking to develop an RCTO in the form of 

ideas or approaches to consider. The insights are not 

meant to be prescriptive. The insights discussed and 

examples offered in the sections relate to the topics 

listed in the table below:

3 Developing an RCTO – Key Insights for Success

Section in Chapter RCTO Development Topic

3.1 The Motivation Leading to 

an RCTO

Need for Improved Regional Operations at the Core of Motivation

Need to Work Collaboratively - A Necessary Element of RCTO Motivation

Need for a Strategic Approach – A Necessary Element of RCTO Motivation

3.2 Collaborative Forum for 

Developing an RCTO

Organizing a Collaborative Forum

Establishing Champions and Leaders

Engaging Participants

Maintaining Participant Involvement

Gathering Support From Elected or Appointed Officials and Agency Leadership

Establishing a Process for Gathering Ideas and Making Decisions

3.3 Linking the RCTO and the 

Planning Process

Linking the RCTO and the Planning Process

3.4 The “What” and “How” of 

the RCTO

Establishing Clear Operations Objectives

Creating an Approach

Defining Supporting Elements of the Approach – Relationships and 

Procedures, Resource Arrangements, and Physical Improvements

Table 11. Guide to Topics Covered in Chapter 3
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 23

3.1 The Motivation Leading

to an RCTO

The path to an RCTO begins with a recognized need 

to improve regional transportation operations through 

collaboration using a formal, strategic approach. This 

recognized need referred to as the motivation for 

an RCTO has three crucial components: the need to 

improve regional transportation operations, the need 

to accomplish the improvements through regional 

collaboration, and the need to make these improvements 

in a sustained, formalized, and strategic manner. All 

three of these needs must be present for the RCTO to be 

considered as a tool for the region.

Need for Improved Regional Operations

at the Core of Motivation

At the core of the motivation for developing an 

RCTO is the need to improve regional transportation 

operations or some aspect of operations such as arterial 

delay, traffic incident management, or transit system

management. This need determines the functional 

scope of the RCTO. As mentioned previously, the 

functional scope of an RCTO can be a single operations 

area such as traffic signal management, a collection of

related areas, or a capability that cuts across multiple 

areas such as coordinated communications. The need 

to improve regional operations can come to the forefront 

in the region in several ways.

Frequently, the need is elevated from the “grass roots” 

through operating and planning agency staff or set as 

a priority from the “grass tops” through local elected 

officials or other high-level decisionmakers.

Motivation to Improve Regional Operations May 

Come from High-Level Decisionmakers

In both Hampton Roads and Portland, the development 

of the RCTO was set in motion by local elected officials

who demanded improvements in the delay caused by 

traffic incidents. In Portland, a high-ranking elected

official called for improvements in traffic incident

management after witnessing extensive delay caused by 

a minor incident. The elected official brought together

transportation executives in the City of Portland and 

other stakeholders to make changes to the way traffic

incidents are handled. Based on this strong need 

to improve incident management, the RCTO was 

selected as the tool to make strategic and coordinated 

improvements in traffic incident management.

In Hampton Roads, traffic incident management is a hot

button issue because of the bottlenecks created by the 

numerous bridges and tunnels that give the Hampton 

Roads region its unique transportation system. When 

an accident occurs near a bridge or tunnel, it is easy 

for traffic to become backed up quickly. The Hampton

Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s board 

of elected leaders called for regional planners and 

VDOT to organize and improve incident management 

throughout the region following a major traffic incident

on a bridge in the region. The MPO board told them to 

come back and give regular updates on their progress. 

This provided the motivation to improve operations that 

led Hampton Roads to develop an RCTO for guiding 

their work towards better traffic incident management

in the region.

Motivation May Arise from the Grassroots

In contrast, the motivation for operations improvements 

in the Tucson metropolitan region and Southeast 

Michigan were established through a grassroots effort 

where the needs for operations improvements for the 

region were identified through meetings between

engineers and other senior staff from operating 

agencies in the region and interviews with key staff 

members conducted by RCTO development leaders. 

In the Tucson region, the lack of staff time and/or staff 

expertise to retime, coordinate, and manage traffic

signals regularly within each individual agency’s 

jurisdiction was a common issue that arose out of 

discussions with operating agencies in the region. Given 

that arterial roads in the Tucson region were becoming 

even more vital due to the major reconstruction effort 

just beginning on Interstate 10 through Tucson, the 

Tucson RCTO working group decided to use arterial 

management as one of their focus areas in their RCTO. 

Figure 9. The Three Crucial Components to the Motivation for an RCTO

Need for 

Improved 

Operations

= Motivation for RCTO

Need for 

Collaboration

Need for a 

Strategic, 

Formal 

Approach
24 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

The Tucson RCTO working group was motivated 

to focus on work zone coordination as well in their 

RCTO because of a combination of needs expressed 

by operating agency staff in the RCTO meetings and 

interviews as well as a new policy by the area’s Regional 

Transportation Authority Board: 

to (1) encourage construction planning and phasing 

which limits the impacts of construction on parallel 

routes, and (2) encourage planning and phasing 

of safety, intersection, ITS and other program 

improvements so that they may be in place in 

advance of major construction on a nearby parallel 

corridor so as to facilitate traffic flow that may be 

impacted by construction of the corridor.29

The motivation for a third focus area of the Tucson area 

RCTO came out of the previous development of the Pima 

Association of Governments Intelligent Transportation 

System Strategic Deployment Plan. During the ITS 

Plan development, PAG’s Transportation Systems 

Subcommittee developed a vision for the ideal traveler 

information system in the Tucson metropolitan region. 

The RCTO working group used that vision to set the 

direction for the RCTO element on improving traveler 

information. 

In Southeast Michigan, the specific motivation to

improve regional transportation operations that 

motivated the development of the RCTO also grew 

out of common needs and priorities identified by

operating agency staff. The Southeast Michigan RCTO 

Planning Group with the support of its consultants 

facilitated meetings with groups of operations 

practitioners from at least nine agencies in the region 

to elicit the operations needs and priorities of the staff. 

The planning group found several common themes 

emerging for improvements such as establishing a 

common communications system among operating 

agencies, improving safety and efficiency of incident

clearance, retiming traffic signals, and identifying

priority corridors for operations investments.

Need to Work Collaboratively - A

Necessary Element of RCTO Motivation

The motivation for an RCTO also includes the 

recognition that the desired improvements to operations 

in the region require a collaborative approach involving 

multiple agencies, jurisdictions, or modes. The 

interconnected nature of the regional transportation 

system requires collaboration between the operators of 

each element in order to get the best performance from 

the system. Operators who work with the public on a 

regular basis know that travelers do not care about the 

jurisdictional divides among the roads and rails they use. 

Travelers expect a seamless experience and operators 

must work together to provide that. The primary 

purpose of an RCTO is to focus the efforts of multiple 

agencies in the region so that travelers can access a 

safe and efficient transportation system regardless of

jurisdiction or mode. An RCTO helps guide operators 

and planners toward a common objective through an 

agreed-upon approach. 

Each of the RCTO demonstration sites viewed 

collaboration as necessary to improve regional 

transportation operations. The sites each had a history of 

successful collaboration and through these collaborative 

efforts came to recognize the value of working together 

as a region to address operations issues. In the Portland 

area, the Transportation Portland Technical Advisory 

Committee (TransPort TAC) is the primary forum for 

collaboration on regional transportation operations. 

Members of this group served as advisors for the RCTO 

demonstration initiative. 

In Tucson, the primary forum for regional operations 

collaboration is the Pima Association of Governments 

Transportation Systems Subcommittee, first known as

the ITS Working Group. This group formed the basis 

of the PAG RCTO working group. 

Much of the regional operations collaborative work 

in the Southeast Michigan region centers on incident 

management. The region’s incident management 

committee has evolved over the past decade into a 

forum for discussion concerning many aspects of 

regional operations. 

In Hampton Roads, regional collaboration on 

transportation operations dates back to the formation 

of the Hampton Roads ITS Committee in the early 

1990s under the guidance of HRTPO. The committee 

has expanded in scope and membership over the 

years, now includes public safety participants, and is 

named the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations 

Subcommittee.

Source: Stephanie Sneary

29 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 25

Need for a Strategic Approach – A 

Necessary Element of RCTO Motivation

The third crucial component in the motivation to use 

an RCTO is the need for a strategic, formal approach 

to improving operations through collaboration. 

Through developing an RCTO, the participants define

an operations objective and an approach for achieving 

that objective including relationships and procedures, 

resource arrangements, and physical improvements. 

While this model could be used for developing a 

strategic plan for a variety of transportation needs, the 

issue addressed by an RCTO should be complex enough 

to justify the effort needed to develop the elements of 

an RCTO. For example, retiming one signal near a 

jurisdictional boundary may not require a formal, 

strategic approach. An operations need that required 

developing an ongoing traffic signal retiming program

for several jurisdictions, however, would be a prime 

candidate for an RCTO. 

The RCTO leaders in Portland saw the RCTO as a way 

to harness the energy and momentum begun by the 

elected official to make improvementsin traffic incident

management. The motivation to develop an RCTO for 

traffic incident management in Portland arose from

the need to collaboratively make strategic, deliberate 

decisions regarding a complex operations area: traffic

incident management. Without a formal approach, 

Portland risked a piecemeal approach that would not 

fully resolve the issue.

RCTO Developers Motivated to Provide

Continuity in the Event of Staff Changes

At the outset of the RCTO demonstration initiative, 

the Portland RCTO leaders were motivated in part 

to develop an RCTO to provide continuity to their 

collaborative efforts despite staff changes. Much of 

the operations collaboration in Portland is based on 

personal relationships among the various agencies’ 

staff, and the operations leaders in the area wanted to 

provide for their successors an idea of how they work 

together, what their priorities are, and what they want 

to accomplish.

RCTO Developers Motivated to Raise

Visibility of Operations in Planning Community

Additionally, Portland was motivated to develop an 

RCTO in order to raise the visibility of operations at 

the metropolitan planning table. The RCTO initiative 

in Portland was very much an effort to give operations 

more of a formal role in the planning and project review 

process at the metropolitan level. The Portland area 

succeeded in this effort on several accounts that will be 

described in later sections of this guide.

3.2 Collaborative Forum for 

Developing an RCTO

The foundation for developing an RCTO is the people 

working together within a collaborative structure that 

offers a forum to share ideas, make decisions, and 

commit to improving operations on a regional level. 

Because of the inherent differences among contexts for 

regional operations across the United States, there is 

no single collaborative structure that is recommended 

for developing an RCTO. The individuals and agencies 

that need to be involved differ depending on the focus 

of the operations improvement in both functional 

and geographic scope. The host or convener for the 

collaborative forum may be the MPO, the State DOT, 

or another entity within the region. Even though a 

one-size-fits-all solution cannot be proposed, there are

approaches to organizing to build an RCTO that worked 

for the demonstration sites because of their individual 

circumstances and visions for the RCTO. Those 

approaches are detailed below to provide possible 

models for other regions.

Organizing a Collaborative Forum

Build on an Existing Collaborative Group

Each demonstration site 

had a strong history of 

regional collaboration 

for operations and 

each site built off 

the foundation of 

existing relationships 

to advance an RCTO. 

Tucson and Hampton 

Roads used their 

existing collaborative forums for regional operations 

for developing their RCTOs.

In the Tucson region, the regional operations 

stakeholders found it unnecessary and undesirable to 

add another layer of organization to their efforts. The 

individuals participating in the existing Transportation 

Systems Subcommittee at the Pima Association of 

Governments were often the same individuals who 

were needed to support the development of the RCTO. 

Therefore, the RCTO leaders essentially extended 

the meeting of that group by another hour during the 

RCTO development phase and handled the RCTO 

work during that hour. Most of the TSS members 

participated in both the Transportation Systems 

Subcommittee meeting and the RCTO development 

meeting afterwards. The leader of the RCTO was also 

the convener and host of the Transportation Systems 

Subcommittee. Although Tucson struggled for 

© iStockphoto.com/gehringj
26 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

participation in the RCTO meetings during the early 

phases of the RCTO development process, the technique 

of piggy-backing onto an existing group that had the 

desired members worked well for the development as 

well as implementation. During the implementation 

of the RCTO, the operations initiatives begun with the 

RCTO were successfully integrated into the agenda of 

the Transportation Systems Subcommittee. 

In the Hampton Roads region, the RCTO leaders 

developed a working group by drawing from an existing 

subcommittee of the Hampton Roads Transportation 

Technical Advisory Committee (Hampton Roads 

Transportation Operations Subcommittee) and one 

external committee established by local incident 

management leaders (Hampton Roads Highway Incident 

Management (HRHIM) Committee). Historically, the 

membership of the Hampton Roads Transportation 

Operations Subcommittee had been traffic engineers

and planners, whereas the HRHIM Committee 

consisted primarily of public safety representatives. 

In recent years, both committees experienced “crosspollination” of participants as each saw the need to work 

with the other field. The call to improve traffic incident

management strategically using an RCTO provided the 

impetus to form a common forum where both public 

safety and transportation engineers and planners were 

committed to meeting regularly and working together.

Form a Tiered Collaborative Structure

with a Strong Mandate

The Portland region 

received a strong 

mandate from an 

elected official, the

city transportation 

commissioner, to 

improve traffic incident

management. The 

commissioner brought 

together City of Portland 

agency leaders to form 

the Portland Operations 

Steering Team (POST). Members in turn charged their 

respective staffs to work together to come up with a 

menu of solutions that the POST would select from to 

address traffic incident management. The staff-level

working group used the RCTO as the tool to guide them 

in developing a collaborative strategy containing the 

needed menu of actions. 

In many ways, the two-tiered organizational structure 

for making transportation improvements on a regional 

basis was highly efficient and effective. Both the POST

and the staff-level working group were directed by 

someone with authority over them to work together and 

develop a solution. The commitment of those involved 

was clear: operations efforts had become part of these 

staff members’ jobs. The structure used by Portland 

was also effective because it relied on individuals 

within participating agencies to perform the functions 

that they were best suited for: agency leaders provided 

guidance and made high-level decisions while senior 

technical staff shaped the technical approaches needed 

to deliver on the leaders’ vision. This combination 

was effective in making strides towards operations 

improvements in Portland.

Establishing Champions and Leaders

Ensure at Least One Committed Champion

As common sense would dictate, when multiple players 

are working together, the effort needs at least one 

person to serve as the champion for the group, someone 

who feels strongly that the effort is deeply needed 

and is willing to make sure it is successful. Often the 

champion has a clear vision of the desired outcome, 

brings together the needed parties, ensures that they 

are engaged, and works to get the support needed for 

achieving the desired outcomes.

Prior to the RCTO effort focused on TIM in Portland, 

the demonstration project staff attempted to initiate 

an RCTO around traveler information. This was a 

need identified by members of the TransPort TAC, the

inter-agency ITS staff committee, but the RCTO never 

came to fruition, in part due to the lack of a committed 

champion. 

Engaging Participants

The progress that can be made on improving regional 

operations through an RCTO is limited by the 

participants that can be brought into the collaboration. 

For example, a group cannot coordinate its traffic

signals with a neighboring jurisdiction if the signal 

owners for that jurisdiction are not at the table. This 

also applies to operations function. If transit agencies 

are not participating in a collaborative effort to provide 

a comprehensive traveler information service to the 

public, the service will only be able to include the travel 

modes at the table.

All of the demonstration sites had to make concerted 

efforts to reach out and engage the participating 

agencies, stakeholder groups, and individuals within 

those agencies or groups that were deemed necessary 

for reaching the desired outcomes of the RCTO. In 

Hampton Roads, the RCTO leaders at the MPO and State 

DOT were able to get the participation and commitment 

of public safety groups in the region for the RCTO on 

traffic incident management because they had done

the work of reaching out to police, fire/EMS, and other

first responders approximately 5 years prior during the

Lesson Learned

The two-tiered organizational 

structure for making transportation 

improvements on a regional basis 

was highly efficient and effective

in Portland. The combination 

of agency leaders and technical 

staff proved important to making 

major strides towards operations 

improvements on a regional level.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 27

update of the region’s ITS strategic plan. One of the 

six working group sessions during the update process 

was devoted to issues of emergency management, and 

one of the six program areas in the ITS strategic plan 

focused on incident and emergency management. 

The Tucson RCTO participants did not have an existing 

regular collaborative forum with first responders, so

during an initial phase of the RCTO work in Tucson, the 

RCTO leader from PAG and the supporting consultants 

went to the Pima County Sheriff’s Office and the City

of Tucson’s Police Department to determine the existing 

conditions for regional transportation operations in terms 

of who performs what function, where collaboration 

currently exists, and where improvements are desired 

from a regional operations standpoint. Because of the 

broad distribution of fire departments across the region,

the Tucson RCTO leaders struggled to determine how 

best to reach out to them for their input. RCTO leaders 

found that the best way to reach the fire community was

to access the regional structure for fire departments in

the area, the Pima Fire Chief’s Association. Although 

the participation of public safety stakeholders during 

the RCTO development in Tucson was not substantial 

enough to make traffic incident management one of

the focus areas for the RCTO, the outreach created the 

foundation for a collaborative effort to improve incident 

management during major freeway construction 2 

years later.

Educate Potential Participants on the RCTO

with Simple, Clear Communication

A common challenge for the RCTO demonstration 

site leaders was presenting the RCTO tool in a way 

that potential RCTO development participants in their 

regions could understand and buy into. In Southeast 

Michigan, a mission statement, RCTO vision, and 

overall goals for the RCTO were enunciated so that as 

RCTO leaders reached out to stakeholder agencies in the 

region, those stakeholders had a better understanding of 

what the RCTO covered and what it did not. This is 

important in helping potential participants understand 

how the RCTO relates to their work and whether this is 

something they want to participate in.

In Tucson, the RCTO leaders developed a two-page 

handout on the vision for the Tucson area RCTO. The 

handout answered questions such as “What do we mean 

by a Regional Concept for Transportation Operations?” 

and “How will the RCTO affect the way my agency is 

operating?” 

In Portland, the RCTO 

leader used the term RCTO 

as sparingly as possible 

because he felt that the title 

could be an impediment 

to understanding the very 

basic nature of what the 

RCTO developers were 

doing: specifying what 

they wanted to accomplish 

and how it would be accomplished. To audiences 

concerned with Federal and State policy, he explained 

that the RCTO is a way to “ride a wave of mandates” to 

plan for operations and better operate and manage the 

system. He observed that although the RCTO may be 

a difficult concept to convey, everyone can understand

getting “more bang for your buck” by operating better 

and it is easy to demonstrate the need to talk about how 

to do this. This is where the RCTO can come into the 

discussion.

While reaching out to stakeholder agencies, the 

Southeast Michigan RCTO Planning Group found 

that it needed to reassure operating agencies in local 

jurisdictions that the RCTO would not take over their 

operations. The group also found it important to clarify 

the term “operations” in the context of the RCTO.

Ensure that the Individuals Necessary for

Taking Action on the RCTO are at the Table

One of the greatest challenges faced by the RCTO 

demonstration sites was establishing a sense of 

ownership for the RCTO among the individuals or 

organizations that were required for implementation. 

This was particularly an issue when staff members 

from the MPO who were not operators served as 

the champions and facilitators of the RCTO. In the 

situations where those individuals with implementation 

authority were involved in making decisions on 

the objectives and approach for the RCTO, more 

progress was made initially in implementing the 

RCTO. In Tucson, engineers responsible for traffic

signal operations participated in making decisions 

on how to approach a collaborative venture in signal 

improvements. Subsequently, there has been significant

progress made on implementing a joint signal program 

for the area under the guidance of these individuals. 

In Southeast Michigan, the RCTO development team 

Lesson Learned

Because of the broad dispersion of fire departments

across the region, the Tucson RCTO leaders 

struggled to determine how to best outreach to 

them and get their input. They found that the best 

way to reach the fire community was to access the

regional structure for fire departments in the area,

the Pima Fire Chief’s Association. 

Source: Pima Association of Governments (PAG)
28 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

faced challenges as they worked to designate current 

committees in the region as champions and leaders for 

the four RCTO objectives and approaches that they had 

developed. Those who had not participated in making 

decisions on what was going to be done seemed less 

inclined to adopt the RCTO as part of their agenda or 

upcoming activities. 

In Tucson, the RCTO participants had identified work

zone coordination as one of the top three areas that they 

wanted to make progress on in the region, but the RCTO 

leader recognized that the staff members currently in 

the RCTO working group were not the individuals with 

the authority or knowledge to make improvements to 

work zone and construction scheduling. The RCTO 

leader reached out to the participating agencies and was 

able to bring the right individuals together to form a 

new working group on work zone coordination. The 

members recognized the need to coordinate and have 

made progress toward that end.

Host a Regional Transportation

Operations Partnering Workshop

Early on in the RCTO development process, the 

operations stakeholders of the Metro Detroit area held 

the Detroit Area Operations Partnering Workshop, 

hosted by the Michigan DOT. The workshop 

highlighted the benefits of collaboration in the

region and provided an opportunity for individuals 

from different agencies across the region to develop 

or strengthen their connections. Speakers briefly

highlighted best practices for coordination and 

informed attendees of opportunities to collaborate and 

access regional resources. This workshop helped to 

raise the awareness of regional operations collaboration 

and provided the foundation for building a community 

that would support regional operations efforts. A year 

following the partnering workshop, the RCTO leaders 

in Southeast Michigan held a second workshop to give 

stakeholders a chance to provide input into the RCTO. 

Gain the Participation of the State Department of 

Transportation, a Critical Operations Stakeholder

Each of the four RCTO demonstration sites found that it 

was imperative to have the buy-in and commitment from 

the State DOT for the RCTO. The State DOT owns and 

operates a major portion of the regional transportation 

system and frequently has resources, expertise, and 

the authority to make it a significant partner in any

regional transportation operations effort. In Southeast 

Michigan, Michigan DOT was one of the leaders of the 

RCTO, and its contributions were critical in making 

progress, especially toward the RCTO objectives in 

information sharing and retiming traffic signals. Some

local traffic signal operating agencies lacked the time to

carry out traffic signal retiming, even if funding for the

retiming could be provided with CMAQ or other Federal 

funds. Michigan DOT stepped up to offer assistance in 

managing the contractors that the local agency could 

use to retime their signals. Without such assistance, 

the local agency would not have even applied for the 

CMAQ funding in the metropolitan planning process. 

In support of increased information sharing between 

transportation stakeholders in the region, Michigan 

DOT created a utility to share video from their freeway 

cameras with other agencies over the Internet. 

Maintaining Participant Involvement

Maintain Participation in the RCTO by 

Showing Participants the Near-Term Benefits

The key to establishing and maintaining the participation 

of operators in the RCTO development process is to 

clearly identify the benefits that the operators can gain

from the collaborative effort and work to deliver those 

benefits as soon as possible. Operating agencies are

traditionally under-staffed, leaving staff with many 

competing responsibilities. Additionally, operations 

personnel are accustomed to performing operationsrelated duties and typically do not focus on planning 

activities. This is why is it important to show shortterm benefits to operators and demonstrate that the

RCTO effort addresses operators’ issues and concerns. 

The RCTO leader in Tucson made this a high priority 

in the development process after finding trouble

engaging the operations staff in developing a vision and 

goals for the RCTO. 

To keep the RCTO 

participants engaged, 

the leader capitalized 

on objectives and 

actions that would help 

the operators handle 

their responsibilities 

more effectively and 

efficiently, such as

funding and staff 

assistance in signal timing. As an example, during one 

RCTO meeting the RCTO leader invited the Arizona 

DOT to highlight the opportunities for local operating 

agencies to participate in joint procurements with the 

Arizona DOT to save money on needed equipment 

and software. Tucson found it effective to show the 

collaborating operations participants that working 

together on an RCTO was not just a planning exercise, 

but a way to improve their ability to carry out their 

responsibilities successfully and efficiently. 

Lesson Learned

Tucson found it effective to show 

the collaborating operations staff 

that working together on an RCTO 

was not just a planning exercise, 

but a way to improve their ability 

to carry out their responsibilities 

successfully and efficiently.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 29

Gain the Attention of Operations Participants 

by Focusing on Actions and Resulting Projects

Both Southeast Michigan and Tucson have learned that 

it is easier to gain the attention of operations participants 

by focusing on actions and projects that could come out 

of the RCTO. When conducting stakeholder interviews, 

the Southeast Michigan team learned that operators 

were more interested in discussing action rather than 

abstract goals and visions. Going a step further and 

translating the RCTO actions into specific projects that

can be used to gain agency support and commitment 

and obtain the resources necessary for implementation 

helped to make the RCTO tangible and meaningful to 

operators in Tucson.

Bring Participants to the Table for

Only Pertinent Discussions

Tucson found it hard to get the attention and participation 

of the first responder stakeholders, transit stakeholders,

and the Native American tribal stakeholders. The 

Tucson RCTO leader found that the best way to involve 

participant groups not central to the focus of the RCTO 

is by only inviting them to the meetings that were 

pertinent to them. This demonstrates to the stakeholders 

that their input is necessary and that their time will not 

be wasted.

Formalize Agreements 

An RCTO is a “living document” in the sense that it is 

not intended to be a report, project, or program. It is 

an agreement—a commitment—among participating 

agencies and jurisdictions to one or more agreedupon objectives and a set of actions, institutional 

relationships, and resource allocation decisions that 

address regionally significant needs and opportunities. 

Regional value accrues when all of the participating 

agencies and jurisdictions work together to improve 

regional transportation system performance through 

operational objectives established in the RCTO. 

The institutional mechanisms for “acting together” can 

vary from informal arrangement between operating 

agencies in neighboring jurisdictions to formal 

memoranda of understanding (or “Memoranda of 

Regional Cooperation”—MORCs—as are used in 

some jurisdictions) to legal entities or authorities that 

receive funding from participating jurisdictions and are 

established to carry out many of the activities described 

in the RCTO. However participating entities choose to 

institutionalize their relationship, what is important is 

that they maintain their commitment to the operational 

objectives that were agreed to and that drive the RCTO. 

As an initial step for 

implementation of the Southeast 

Michigan RCTO, the leading 

organizations supporting the 

RCTO signed a memorandum 

for regional cooperation. The 

memorandum was signed by 

the Michigan DOT Metro 

Region Engineer, a Captain 

and District Headquarters 

Commander of the Department 

of Michigan State Police, 

and the Executive Director 

of SEMCOG. It affirms

that commitment of the 

participating agencies to supporting work in toward 

the objectives defined in the RCTO. Through the

memorandum, SEMCOG indicated its commitment 

to serve as the RCTO facilitator and to coordinate 

activities such as monitoring and updating the 

RCTO. Additionally, the RCTO development group 

for Southeast Michigan has established ongoing 

meetings on a quarterly basis to provide oversight and 

support to the existing committees that have taken on 

implementing the RCTO. 

Gathering Support from Elected or 

Appointed Officials and Agency Leadership

Gaining the support of elected or appointed officials,

agency leadership, and other senior decisionmakers 

within the region for the collaborative operations 

improvements in an RCTO is crucial to successful 

implementation. An RCTO requires resources to 

develop and to implement such as staff time, equipment, 

policy commitments, new operating procedures, or 

funding. Obtaining buy-in and commitment from those 

leaders that decide how resources are used is vital to an 

RCTO. RCTO demonstration site leaders observed that 

gathering that support early on in the development of 

the RCTO is highly important. 

Identify an Advocate for the Effort at 

the Executive Leadership Level

The operations area being addressed in an RCTO needs 

someone who can advocate for the effort at the executive 

leadership level. This is often best accomplished by 

someone at the executive level in the region since a peer 

can have more influence than someone at a less senior

level. Although having a champion in a high-level 

position—as in the case of Portland, where the city 

transportation commissioner served as the champion 

for the TIM effort—is a highly effective approach to 

making changes within a region, the improvements 

made at the other RCTO demonstration sites show that 

this does not always need to be the case. 

©iStockphoto.com/membername
30 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

In the Tucson region, a program manager within the 

MPO with a history of facilitating operations efforts 

served as the RCTO champion. He led the group, 

worked to motivate the necessary players, and took 

the ideas for transportation operations programs that 

came out of the group to his management and the MPO 

board to get support and resources. The Tucson RCTO 

champion also used regular meetings among the MPO 

Transportation Director and the local DOT directors to 

keep agency leaders informed regarding key issues and 

gain support for RCTO initiatives.

In Hampton Roads, the championship was shared 

between two senior staff at HRTPO and the Virginia 

DOT who had a long history of working together for 

coordinated operations. These senior staff members 

provided the vision and leadership to help give the 

group direction and maintain its trajectory and worked 

to get data and personnel resource commitments from 

the MPO and the State DOT.

Create Awareness of the RCTO Effort 

and its Benefits by Asking Participants 

to Educate their Management

The Portland and Tucson RCTO leaders recommended 

that the staff members participating in the development 

of the RCTO ensure that agency leadership is aware and 

supportive of the effort. The Portland RCTO leader 

noted that representatives of each primary stakeholder 

agency were involved in the oversight committee, but 

they were not the decisionmakers. From that experience, 

the Portland RCTO leader recommended that when 

forming the RCTO advisory or development committee, 

it is important to try and climb the institutional ladder to 

make sure that the senior level management has a solid 

awareness of what is going on. This is likely to pay 

off as representatives need resources and commitment 

from their agencies to implement the RCTO.

In Tucson, the staff members that participated in the 

RCTO working group were encouraged to take the 

options for operational improvements back to their 

agency management to get feedback. This was important 

because most of the agency personnel participating in 

the group were not authorized to make commitments or 

decisions for the agencies they represented. 

Develop a Monthly Regional Operations Newsletter

As part of the RCTO demonstration initiative in 

Portland, the RCTO leader hired to work at Metro 

developed a transportation operations program 

within the MPO to increase the coordination between 

planning and operations in the region. To raise the 

visibility of operations and gather support from MPO 

committee members, the RCTO leader in Portland 

produced and distributed monthly transportation 

operations program updates in the form of a quick, 

one-page newsletter. The newsletter was distributed 

to Metro’s technical committee. The newsletter grabs 

the attention of the reader with a snapshot of a mobility 

performance measure such as the change in percent of 

congested travel from July of 2005 to July of 2006. A 

description and the benefits of a newly implemented

operations strategy are given. This is followed by a list 

of operations program activities in the past month and 

upcoming opportunities for participation. 

Make Presentations on the RCTO Effort to 

the MPO Technical Committee or Board

Even in the cases of Portland and Hampton Roads, 

where elected leaders were directing planning and 

operations agencies to work together to make operational 

improvements, the outreach had been conducted by the 

staff to raise the visibility and relevance of operations 

solutions. In Hampton Roads, the leaders of the 

early ITS Working Group in the 1990s conducted an 

educational campaign on the need for ITS by giving 

presentations to boards and committees across the 

region. This helped to set the tone and support for ITS 

and operations among leaders in the region.

In Portland, staff members who had been working 

together across agency lines for operations realized that 

they did not have the attention from elected officials on

the use of ITS and operations so they began a concerted 

marketing effort during the start up of the RCTO. As 

one of the initial outreach steps, the RCTO leader in 

Portland made presentations to the technical committee 

of the MPO board to inform them of the objectives and 

strategies being proposed for improving operations. 

Develop a Region-Specific Brochure on the 

Tangible Benefits of Regional Operations

TransPort TAC, which coordinates ITS across the 

region, developed a report and companion brochure 

titled: Metropolitan Mobility The Smart Way in October 

of 2006. The goals of this report and brochure were twofold: 

•	 To increase awareness and understanding among 

the region’s decisionmakers regarding ITS and 

the ways in which it can help transportation 

agencies in the Portland metropolitan area manage 

congestion and improve safety in a cost-effective 

manner.

•	 To focus attention on the benefits of

collaboratively implementing system management 

strategies and intelligent transportation systems.30

30 Metro, Metropolitan Mobility The Smart Way, October 2006. Available at: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/its_mobility_report_.

pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 31

The report and brochure highlight the tangible benefits

that the Portland region has already gained from ITS 

and operations solutions. These materials helped to 

make the case to public officialsfor operationssolutions

that came out of the RCTO. 

Host an Executive-Level Panel Discussion on the 

Need for Improved Transportation Operations

The leader of the Portland RCTO helped to organize 

an executive-level panel discussion sponsored by ITS 

Oregon for the release of the Metropolitan Mobility Smart 

Way report. Nearly 100 elected officials, legislators, and

executive-level transportation professionals in Portland 

and throughout Oregon attended this breakfast meeting 

to hear the Oregon Transportation Commissioner, the 

Federal Highway Administrator, and other top officials

speak about the need for improved mobility through 

ITS and operations. The meeting was successful in 

gaining agreement among senior decisionmakers on the 

need for operations improvements.

Publicize the Cost of Congestion 

and Other Mobility Issues

One of the reasons for the elected official’s support for

improved operations in the Portland region was the 

increased awareness of the true costs to congestion. In 

December 2005, the Portland Business Alliance, Metro, 

and the Port of Portland published a report entitled 

“Cost of Congestion.” This report brought to light the 

enormous price that is being paid by travelers and 

businesses for the time and fuel wasted by congestion. 

By putting a price on transportation performance 

issues, stakeholders can gain the attention and support 

of elected and appointed officials for operations

improvements recommended by an RCTO. 

Gather Traffic Reporters for a 

Briefing on Operations

Another technique used to bring awareness to the 

issue of congestion and operations improvements in 

Portland was gathering together traffic reporters for

a briefing on operations. The Portland RCTO leader

called together traffic reporters in the region for donuts

and a talk about ITS. From that meeting, the RCTO 

leader got editorials and front page stories on the ITS 

improvements being used in Portland and the need to 

make more improvements. From this experience, the 

RCTO leader found that reporters are interested in this 

subject and want to talk to transportation professionals, 

but it may require reaching out to them...and perhaps 

providing donuts. 

Establishing a Process 

for Gathering ideas and 

Making Decisions

At the heart of developing an 

RCTO is decisionmaking. An 

RCTO provides a framework to 

guide collaborating participants 

on what decisions will need 

to be made in order to move 

forward together to improve 

transportation operations. Those 

decisions are essentially about 

answering the questions “what 

do we want to accomplish” and 

“how are we going to get there.” 

A well thought-out process for 

generating ideas and making 

decisions is necessary for developing an RCTO that can 

be successfully implemented.

Each RCTO demonstration site had to invent its own 

process for gathering ideas and making decisions. In 

Tucson and Southeast Michigan, ideas for the RCTO 

objectives and approach came from the grassroots 

through interviews with managers and senior staff 

at stakeholder agencies and workshops. The RCTO 

leaders and consultants conducted these interviews and 

combined the results to identify themes for operations 

improvements common to multiple stakeholder 

agencies. In Tucson, the interviews also involved 

documenting the current operations policies, practices, 

procedures, and existing institutional relationships in 

the region. 

These interviews helped to identify potential new 

members for collaborative regional transportation 

operations efforts and identify opportunities for regional 

operations improvements. Through the interviews, the 

RCTO leader in Southeast Michigan, with the support of 

the consultants, identified the operations objectives for

the RCTO. While there was interest among operating 

agencies for the operations objectives identified in the

interviews in Southeast Michigan, one barrier that the 

RCTO team later encountered was a lack of a champion 

willing to lead the achievement of the objective. 

The RCTO leaders and consultants in Tucson and 

Southeast Michigan helped to shape the information 

gathered from the stakeholders and brainstorming 

meetings with the RCTO development group. This 

information was then presented to the development 

group to discuss, modify, and either accept or reject. 

Figure 10.

Metropolitan Mobility The Smart Way 

Executive Summary by Metro and ITS 

Oregon

Source: Metro
32 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Enable Senior Staff to Develop 

Options for Leadership to Select

During the development of the RCTO on traffic incident

management in Portland, ideas for potential approaches 

to bring about the objective set by the commissioner 

were generated by senior agency staff members 

who met regularly. They made decisions on which 

approaches were feasible and could bring about the 

desired objective. The agency leaders then decided by 

reaching consensus on which of the actions to improve 

TIM should be pursued. 

Conduct RCTO Meetings On-Site 

at Participating Agencies

Several of the RCTO demonstration sites conducted 

RCTO development group meetings on-site at 

participating agencies. They would rotate the location 

of the meeting so as to get a greater diversity of 

participation in the process. They recognized that 

where one or two stakeholders from a particular agency 

might attend a meeting at another location, more than a 

dozen might attend a meeting at their own agency. 

Use Smaller, Less Formal Meetings to Talk 

Over Recommendations in Detail

The RCTO leader in Tucson discovered that some of 

the most productive RCTO development meetings 

occurred when there were a small number of 

individuals in a less formal setting. This seemed to 

encourage the participants to talk more freely and delve 

into the details of the RCTO. While small meetings 

were more productive, participants from each primary 

collaborative agency had to be present. 

Ensure Consultants Support the

Forum Rather Than Lead It

In each demonstration site, additional support was 

brought in to assist in the development of the RCTO. 

Southeast Michigan, Tucson, and Hampton Roads 

hired consultants who were familiar with the agencies’ 

and regions’ institutional dynamics, and in Portland a 

temporary full-time employee was brought in to Metro, 

the MPO, and funded through the City of Portland. 

The consultants served as facilitators of the regular 

RCTO development meetings, documented decisions, 

organized workshops, and helped to draft the RCTO 

document. 

While outside support may be required to make 

developing an RCTO possible in some areas where 

agency staff has little available time or facilitation 

expertise, it is necessary to ensure that the outside 

support does not take the place of the leadership and 

decisionmaking that must come from those in the region. 

The danger faced by regions that have consultants lead 

instead of support the development of the RCTO is that 

the RCTO becomes a document that sits on a shelf once 

the consultants leave. The ownership of the RCTO 

must reside with the organizational representatives that 

have the enthusiasm and capability of putting the RCTO 

into action. 

3.3 Linking the RCTO and the 

Planning Process

Connecting the RCTO to the transportation planning 

process offers benefitsfor planners who are interested in

advancing cost-effective strategies to improve regional 

transportation system performance and operationsoriented partners who are seeking regional support for 

their joint efforts. An RCTO is one opportunity among 

several to link transportation planning and investment 

decisionmaking to management and operations.

By linking to the planning process, partners can 

gain recognition within the region for operations and 

increase credibility with elected leaders whose support 

may be crucial in advancing operations. RCTO partners 

can ground their work in formally established regional 

needs, goals, and objectives. Additionally, they can 

increase the stability of their partnership by selecting 

the MPO to be an impartial and long-term host for the 

collaborative development and implementation of their 

RCTOs. RCTO partners may also be able to influence

the selection of performance measures and data 

collection procedures used during regional planning to 

better track the progress toward the RCTO operations 

objective. 

Use an MPO to Provide a Neutral Table 

and Convene Agencies from the Region

One of the keys to a successful collaborative effort 

like the development and implementation of an 

RCTO is finding an appropriate host or convener

for the collaborative forum. Two qualities that were 

important to the demonstration site representatives 

were neutrality and coordination experience with the 

necessary participants. Although the MPO need not 

be the host for developing an RCTO, in three of the 

four RCTO demonstration sites, the MPO served as 

the host and convener. In the fourth site, HRTPO and 

the Virginia DOT shared the responsibilities. In some 

cases, operating agencies desired the MPO to take on 

an even greater role in facilitating the implementation 

of operations strategies than the MPO saw as part of its 

mission. The Tucson RCTO site leader noted that the 
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 33

MPO was able to be an effective host because it was 

viewed as having a regional perspective and being a 

“safe place” to develop the RCTO in that it does not 

have operating turf. The MPO, PAG, also had the 

most experience among the participating agencies of 

coordinating among each of the operators in the region. 

Demonstrating that the MPO was valued in the Tucson 

region as the host for regional operations forums, 

transportation operating agencies sought out PAG to 

coordinate a multi-agency effort to increase traffic

incident management following the development 

of the RCTO. As part of this effort, PAG held an 

incident management workshop and has hosted weekly 

meetings among transportation, police, fire, and others

to identify issues, resolve concerns, and conduct 

workshop planning. 

Similarly, HRTPO had been the organization frequently 

called on by operators in the region to connect them 

to other operators on a case by case basis in the early 

1990s. The MPO recognized the need for regional 

operators to coordinate with each other directly, and 

so it formed an ITS working group, an active group of 

transportation engineers, planners, and public safety 

representatives that meets regularly as a subcommittee 

of the MPO. 

As the host of the RCTO effort, MPO staff at the 

demonstration sites also helped to advocate for the 

operations projects identified during the RCTO

development within the plan and assist them in 

applying for funding through the TIP. At PAG and 

SEMCOG, the MPO work program funds were even 

used to support RCTO implementation activities such 

as improving the region’s traveler information website 

and conducting a study to measure the performance of 

signalized intersections to identify priorities for signal 

improvements. 

Revise Operations Objectives Requiring Regional 

Funds to Account for Programming Cycle 

The Tucson RCTO team chose to extend the timeframe 

for some of their objectives because they were unable to 

get the necessary funding to accomplish those objectives 

within the 3–5 year timeframe. Due to the timing of 

the 5-year TIP cycle at PAG, the time available to the 

RCTO team was not sufficient to apply for, receive,

and use the funding within the original timeframe. 

Instead of throwing out those objectives, however, the 

RCTO team compromised and extended the timeframe 

of the objectives to 5–10 years. The group applied for 

funding to support those objectives and the planners 

at PAG worked to establish an operations program that 

Portland RCTO Demonstration Grant Led to Permanent Linkages between Planning and Operations

The Portland, Oregon RCTO demonstration site participants viewed the demonstration grant as an 

opportunity to make great strides in linking planning and operations. They saw this as an opportunity to 

raise the visibility of operations throughout the region and with executive leadership and transportation 

planners in particular. The RCTO was also a way to encourage more strategic thinking about operations in 

the region. 

The demonstration site grant in Portland was used to fund a principal planner for 2 years at the area’s 

MPO, Metro. This staff person was to lead the development of the RCTO as well as build a transportation 

operations program at Metro. The RCTO development occurred concurrently with the update of the region’s 

metropolitan transportation plan. The RCTO process enhanced the attention given to operations during the 

plan update and led to policy language that set out a strong commitment to including operations solutions in 

the plan. 

Metro also revised the TIP project ranking and selection criteria to include ITS architecture consistency and 

travel time reliability and promoted the inclusion of ITS elements within conventional projects. Additionally, 

a programmatic allocation in the TIP for ITS projects was created because ITS projects traditionally 

struggled to compete against other projects. Metro approved $3 million in 2010–2011 for ITS projects. 

Metro, in collaboration with operations stakeholders, then developed an operations refinement plan to

determine which operations needs to address through the new ITS program. During the period of the RCTO 

demonstration grant, the temporary staff person at Metro brought on to lead the RCTO development was able 

to demonstrate the need for an operations program manager at Metro and the value of operations expertise 

in an MPO. A new permanent staff position at Metro was formed for a principal planner to head up the 

operations program. 

Contact: Deena Platman, Metro at deena.platman@oregonmetro.gov. 
34 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

would facilitate funding availability in future years. 

Alternatively, the Portland RCTO group faced a similar 

challenge and chose to focus on objectives that could 

be accomplished with fewer resources, such as TIM 

training, improved procedures, and legislative changes.

Establish a Regional Funding Program 

for an Operations Area

Opening funding avenues for operations from sources 

such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

(CMAQ) Improvement Program, Surface Transportation 

Program, and State, regional, or local tax programs is 

another compelling reason to link regional operations 

activities to the planning process. The ability of RCTO 

partners to apply and receive funding in the near term 

depends on the flexibility of the planning organization

to allocate funding for management and operations 

projects. All projects need to be part of the metropolitan 

transportation plan (MTP) in order to be eligible for 

funding through the metropolitan planning process. 

In many regions, obtaining funding within one to two 

years is very difficult because all available funding is

designated for specific projects many years in advance.

In those cases, partners may choose to work to establish 

funding options for future management and operations 

projects while implementing an RCTO in the near term 

that relies on available resources and technology.

In Southeast Michigan during workshops with 

stakeholder agencies, the RCTO development group 

found that while there were significant needs from local

agencies to retime traffic signals the agencies often did

not have the staff or budget to do so. Because of these 

needs, part of the Southeast Michigan RCTO focuses 

on improving signal operations. Through this RCTO, 

a traffic signal retiming program has been incorporated

into SEMCOG’s 2030 metropolitan transportation plan 

and local agencies have applied for CMAQ funding to 

retime traffic signals. 

Likewise the PAG RCTO included a regional traffic

signal optimization program and applied for funding 

from the TIP to cover the signal program. Because the 

RCTO participants were unable to receive any funding 

through the TIP within 5 years, the RCTO participants 

extended the timeline of their RCTO and also looked 

for low-cost activities to support their operations 

objectives. During the development of the PAG RCTO, 

a transportation sales tax was passed and the RCTO 

developers were able to incorporate some of their traffic

signal recommendations into the sales tax package.

3.4 The "What" and the

"How" of the RCTO

Establishing Clear Operations Objectives

The operations objective provides direction for the 

RCTO and the collaborative effort. Through developing 

one or more operations objectives, the RCTO 

participants answer the question “what will we work to 

achieve?” As mentioned previously, a highly effective 

operations objective is one that is specific, measurable,

agreed-upon, realistic, and time-bound. In developing 

their operations objectives, the RCTO demonstration 

site participants had to find the middle ground between

operations objectives that embodied the large impacts 

they wanted to make and selecting objectives that could 

realistically be accomplished within 3 to 5 years. 

Operations objectives typically fall into two categories: 

outcome-based and activity-based. Ideally, an RCTO 

is built around a desired system performance outcome 

as experienced by the system users or travelers. This 

is the difference that the RCTO participants would like 

to make in their transportation system. In situations 

where an outcome-based objective is not feasible, 

an activity-based objective may be developed to 

guide improvements in system manager and operator 

activities. The operations objectives developed by the 

RCTO demonstration sites included both outcome- and 

activity-based objectives. 

Identify Desired Objectives before 

Moving on to Solutions

One of the potential pitfalls in developing an RCTO is 

to begin developing solutions or projects before fully 

specifying and reaching agreement on an operations 

objective. This can lead to a collection of disparate 

activities and projects that are not strategically focused 

on reaching the outcome desired by the participants. 

Operators are typically more accustomed to taking 

action than to strategic planning and may have a 

tendency to jump to new technologies or operations 

strategies before reaching consensus on the desired 

outcome. Early on in the Portland demonstration 

initiative, the group struggled with creating an RCTO 

with a focus on traveler information. The RCTO leader 

in Portland realized that this was particularly difficult

because they were focusing on how best to use traveler 

information rather than identifying the desired outcome 

for the traveler and then selecting the best strategies to 

reach that outcome. 
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 35

Try Identifying an Operations Objective 

in Terms of Risk Management

The choice of whether to pursue an operations 

objective or not involves managing risk. Although this 

terminology is more common in fields such as asset

management, the leader of the Portland area RCTO 

strongly recommended thinking of operations objectives 

in these terms. When embarking on developing an 

RCTO, the Portland RCTO group worked to frame the 

outcomes in terms of “where we are going” and “why 

it is worth getting there.” It was helpful to examine 

the selection of objectives in terms of “how things turn 

out if we do not make this coordinated improvement to 

operations.” Additionally, the leader found it helpful 

for the RCTO group to consider what the difference 

is to the citizen if the group pursued this regionally or 

not. By getting a sense of the risk involved in deciding 

not to pursue a given operations objective, the RCTO 

participants are able to focus on the outcomes that will 

have the greatest impact. 

Identify Activity-Oriented Objectives to 

Support Outcome-Oriented Objectives

RCTO developers may find it effective to develop

activity-based objectives that define improvements in

operator performance that are believed to lead to the 

desired system outcomes. The Tucson region’s RCTO 

provided a combination of system outcome objectives 

such as “Reduce traveler delay...” and activity-based 

objectives such as “Improve multi-agency coordination 

for large-scale work zones.”31 Many of the objectives 

that described a desired system outcome had supporting 

activity-based objectives that helped to direct the 

participants in the specific activities that would help to

accomplish the outcome. An example from the PAG 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations is 

shown below: 

Outcome-Oriented Operations Objective: 

“Reduce traveler delay due to incidents on major 

arterials and freeways within Tucson metropolitan 

areas.”

Supporting Activity-Based Operations 

Objective: “Reduce incident response, duration 

and investigation times.”32

While the desired outcome 

experienced by the user is 

stated, the operator activities 

that they will focus on 

improving to reach this 

outcome are also specified.

This process of expanding an 

objective into a set of more 

specific objectives repeatedly

until reaching tangible action 

items is a common practice in 

systems engineering and can 

be an effective and logical 

way to translate desired 

outcomes into actions. In the 

case of the RCTO, developing 

activity-based operations objectives begins a process of 

developing the RCTO approach. 

Divide the Operations Area of Focus into 

Smaller Elements and Identify Any Needed 

Improvements in Each Element 

Several operations focus areas can be broken down 

into smaller components. For example, traffic incident

management can be divided into the detect, verify, 

response, clear, and recover phases. The RCTO 

participants in Portland looked at improvements that 

could be made in each phase to support the overall goal 

of reducing delay due to incidents. The ability to break 

the area down into its component parts was an effective 

method for facilitating a discussion of objectives and 

approaches to address a large and complex area. 

Keep Scope of Operations Objectives Manageable

A common recommendation coming from the RCTO 

demonstration site leaders was to develop operations 

objectives that had a manageable scope and did not 

overextend the capabilities of the participants. The 

Tucson RCTO participants began with a large scope 

incorporating a number of operations areas and then 

narrowed down the areas and objectives they would 

pursue initially as they began evaluating how realistic 

each objective was. The Tucson and Southeast Michigan 

RCTO leaders both expressed that the operations 

objectives selected for the initial RCTO should focus on 

low-hanging fruit. This would allow for an “early win” 

that could garner additional support and momentum for 

the RCTO effort. 

Source: Pima Association of Governments (PAG)

31 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).

32 Ibid.
36 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Create Performance Targets for 

Objectives using Baseline Data

Hampton Roads created a set of operations objectives 

that included both outcome-based objectives and 

activity-based objectives. The RCTO working group 

developed specific performance targets for many of the

objectives. For example, the Hampton Roads objective 

“Decrease Incident Clearance Time” has an associated 

target of “Annually Reduce Incident Clearance Time by 

5.5 Percent or 1.5 Minutes.” This required a significant

effort by VDOT to collect and analyze relevant data 

over time so that the RCTO development team could 

establish a reasonable target number for its traffic

incident management objectives. To continue tracking 

system performance, VDOT brought in a full-time 

analyst to support the effort. 

The operations objectives of the Portland RCTO 

were developed to support the overall goal that was 

articulated early on in the RCTO process: “Reduce 

unnecessary (excess) delay associated with minor (noninjury) incidents that occur on freeways within the City 

of Portland, Oregon.” The details in the goal helped the 

RCTO developers to clarify their objectives, given in 

Section 2.1 of this guide. The Portland objectives are 

primarily outcome-oriented, but include one activitybased objective: “Reduce tow truck arrival and on-scene 

times.” Due to a lack of baseline data and associated 

resources, the Portland RCTO objectives show the 

direction but not the magnitude of the improvements 

desired. 

Identify Performance Measures to Track 

Progress toward Operations Objectives

Tracking progress toward operations objectives through 

performance measures is vital to supporting the 

successful implementation of an 

RCTO. Regular performance 

measurement gives the 

RCTO participants important 

feedback on the effectiveness 

of their activities so that they 

can change their approach if 

they determine that progress is 

not being made. Performance 

measures also allow RCTO 

participants to publicize their 

successes in quantifiable terms

to garner additional support 

from decisionmakers and the 

public. 

In Tucson, performance measures were identified once

operations objectives were established. This provided 

them a check to make sure that their operations 

objectives were specific and measurable. Because

the performance measures the Tucson participants 

identified were so data intensive, the RCTO members

chose to simplify their measures in order to be practical 

given the data they could access. 

Do Not Limit Operations Objectives 

Because of Performance Measurement 

Capabilities – Find Surrogate Measures 

While Working to Improve Capabilities

The ability to measure aspects of transportation system 

performance is growing in many regions across the 

country as transportation professionals incorporate 

new sources of data from roadside instruments and 

new performance measures are defined. While

measurement capabilities are increasing, many regions 

are still limited in this area. 

The Hampton Roads RCTO group created performance 

targets and measures for several of their operations 

objectives, but they faced challenges with others. 

They were unable to produce a specific performance

target for their objective to “Improve Inter-Agency 

Communication During Incidents” because the region 

had not yet assessed the current state of communications 

through either qualitative or quantitative measures. To 

handle their lack of data regarding this objective, the 

RCTO team decided to develop a method of assessing 

communication by starting an annual survey of 

stakeholder agencies as part of their RCTO effort. 

This survey would ask responder agencies to identify 

progress made over the past year and steps for future 

improvement. 

Additionally, the Hampton Roads working group was 

challenged to integrate their concerns about secondary 

incidents into this RCTO so that such incidents can 

be measured and tracked over time. The difficulty

was due to the lack of a clear definition for secondary

incidents. The RCTO working group resolved the issue 

by agreeing to the following definition of a secondary

incident: “a visually confirmed incident within a queue

that is formed by an earlier incident, or an incident that 

occurs while traveling in the opposite direction of an 

incident derived queue.”33 The RCTO working group 

is also still refining the process of collecting data on

secondary incidents. Furthermore, the Hampton Roads 

RCTO work resulted in a research study on secondary 

incidents conducted by the Old Dominion University 

Transportation Program faculty. 

©iStockphoto.com/wragg

33 Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 

(Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 37

The inclusion of the objective on secondary incidents 

indicates an operations philosophy that the Hampton 

Roads RCTO developers had with regard to strategic 

improvements. The developers valued reducing 

secondary incident occurrences to such an extent that 

they believed it was necessary to begin to work toward 

this objective even though the performance data was 

not yet in place. This is typical of the difficult decisions

that the other RCTO demonstration site participants had 

to grapple with as well. 

Creating an Approach

Upon reaching agreement on the RCTO operations 

objectives, the demonstration site RCTO development 

teams began to define how the objectives would

be achieved. The approach and the elements of 

relationships/procedures, physical improvements, and 

resource arrangements specify how the collaborating 

participants will reach their desired operations 

objectives. The demonstration sites faced additional 

challenges as they worked to decide on the most effective 

operations strategies to employ, obtain commitment for 

specific actions, and identify available resources. Below

are recommendations stemming from the experiences 

of the demonstration sites in building their approaches 

to an RCTO.

Gather Expert Practitioners in the Operations 

Area to Discuss and Recommend Actions

After developing a draft set of operations objectives 

around traffic incident management within a defined

scope, the Hampton Roads RCTO development group 

hosted a one-day workshop to obtain a comprehensive 

picture of what actions were most needed by the 

traffic incident management practitioners to address

the objectives. The workshop drew approximately 80 

expert practitioners from police, fire, transportation,

EMS, medical examiner, environmental quality, 

department of motor vehicles, tunnel and bridge 

authorities, emergency dispatch, towing, and other 

fields. The operations objectives were presented along

with the idea of the RCTO, and then the practitioners 

were divided into breakout groups where they were led 

by facilitators to discuss where the deficiencies are in

TIM and what needs to improve to reach the objectives. 

The RCTO development group gathered a variety 

of perspectives and got input on the most important 

improvements from the TIM stakeholders. With so 

many TIM players at the table, the stakeholders had 

the opportunity to determine how they could be better 

coordinated in the field

and discuss this with their 

counterparts in the other 

agencies. The workshop 

resulted in a series of action 

items to be selected from for 

the RCTO. This included 

items such as “develop 

regional MOU template 

for communications 

between the TMC and fire

operations” and “research 

method of having cell phone 

calls from Interstates route 

to Virginia State Police 

dispatchers.”34

Provide a Menu of Options for Senior 

Decisionmakers to Select From

The approach for the Portland RCTO was formed using 

a menu of options that a team of agency leaders selected 

from. The staff-level RCTO development group 

members compiled a set of recommended options 

for their agency leaders to choose from to form the 

activities to be pursued for improved traffic incident

management. The Portland RCTO led the staff group in 

organizing ideas for reaching the operations objectives 

by the phases of traffic incident management (detect,

verify, respond, clear, recover) and a revised RCTO 

framework including procedures/protocol, policy/legal, 

and physical/capital improvements. The ideas were 

put into a table and the group engaged in a thorough 

discussion of which strategies would be most effective 

in the short, medium, and long term. During these 

discussions, the group worked to decide what aspects 

of the complex incident management issue should be 

tackled first. The menu was then given to the seniorlevel, multi-agency operations steering team to select 

from and direct their staff to pursue.

Do Not Develop a Wish List – Make 

Your Approach Realistic Based on 

Likely Commitment and Resources

With all of the ideas that practitioners may have for 

reaching the operations objectives, it is tempting to 

include more to be done in the RCTO approach than can 

be realistically accomplished given the commitment 

and resources available. For example, during the 

Hampton Roads RCTO one-day workshop with expert 

practitioners, multiple actions such as “keep oversized 

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation

34 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/

pdf/Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011.
38 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

loads off of the roadways during rush hours” were 

proposed. While this was thought likely to help relieve 

traffic delays given the experience of the individuals in

the group, it was not included in the RCTO because they 

did not have a commitment from the necessary parties 

to make those changes. 

In Portland, the RCTO team developed an RCTO with 

an early emphasis on improving towing to work toward 

the incident management objectives. Towing held a 

prominent role because it was seen as an element of 

incident management where improvements could have 

a significant impact on the ability to reach the overall

goal of reducing unnecessary delay associated with 

minor incidents. Portland also had political support 

to focus on this topic, the ability to collect data and 

measure performance related to towing, and it appeared 

to be an area ripe for early success. Additionally, the 

team had the participation of area towing officials and

industry representatives. 

Develop an Approach Sensitive to 

Participating Agencies’ Needs to Maintain 

Control over their Operations

One of the most common challenges among regional 

transportation operations efforts is balancing agency 

control with a collaborative effort. The approach 

developed for reaching the operations objectives should 

reflect the participating agencies’ desires to maintain

control over their operations. In regions where a 

strong sense of trust has developed over time between 

agencies, the participating agencies may choose to 

allow consolidated operations, equipment sharing, and 

other joint management of transportation systems by 

establishing the necessary agreements. 

The Tucson RCTO 

development group worked 

to develop an approach for 

improving regional traffic

signal operations that 

would take advantage of the 

cooperative spirit among 

signal operators in the region 

while still maintaining 

the control desired by the 

individual agencies. The 

RCTO development group 

formulated two options to 

select from for a new regional 

traffic signal operations

program. One option created 

a jointly funded regional traffic signal operations

consortium with an oversight committee comprising 

representatives from the participating signal operations 

agencies. The consortium would have staff members 

dedicated to controlling, monitoring, and optimizing the 

traffic signalsin the region, although signalmaintenance

would still be covered by the signal owning agency. 

The second alternative developed by the RCTO group 

proposed to retain consultant services to support the 

local jurisdictions in actively operating and managing 

their respective traffic signal systems. The second

option for the regional traffic signal operations program

was selected to reflect the preference of local agencies

to have a greater degree of control over their systems. 

Creating options that incorporated the preferences and 

needs of local agencies for more jurisdictional control 

helped to advance a program with regional operations 

benefits. 

Defining the Supporting Elements of the 

Approach – Relationships and Procedures, 

Resource Arrangement, and Physical 

Improvements

Build a Structure of Champions

Within each of Tucson’s action plans, where feasible, 

a structure of champions was identified to guide the

implementation of the plan. As an example, the PAG 

Transportation Systems Subcommittee was identified

to champion the Regional Traffic Signal Operations

Program with oversight on the program’s focus areas, 

implementation, and funding. The subcommittee will 

be guided by PAG staff and will seek to establish a 

working group to guide program activities and make 

recommendations on the direction for consultant 

services and project selection. The existing PAG 

Transportation Planning Committee, comprising 

agency department heads in the region, would approve 

policies for the signal program and facilitate any 

necessary intergovernmental agreements. While actual 

signal timing plans will not be developed by PAG staff 

nor the subcommittee, staff and the working group will 

be responsible for overseeing the administration of the 

program and working both to elevate the issue within 

the regional transportation community and to facilitate 

the allocation of resources to develop and update signal 

timing plans. PAG staff or an identified individual

from the working group will update the Transportation 

Systems Subcommittee, perhaps on a bi-monthly basis, 

concerning recent activities relating to the action plan. 

Source: Pima Association of Governments
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 39

Gain Commitment from Participants for Actions 

and Specify Roles and Responsibilities

The successful implementation of an RCTO depends on 

the commitment of participants to fill specific roles and

takeonwell-definedresponsibilities. Throughdeveloping

an RCTO, the roles and responsibilities are documented 

as part of the RCTO. This represented a significant

challenge for many of the RCTO demonstration 

sites. In an area where the political will for making 

improvements was high, such as Portland, agencies 

took on additional responsibilities, such as helping 

to draft new policies and develop multi-disciplinary 

training videos. Tucson was particularly effective in 

defining roles and responsibilities among collaborative

partners and the existing PAG Transportation Systems 

Subcommittee. The RCTO from Tucson shows a table 

with specific action items to reach their operations

objectives and an associated agency or organization 

responsible for championing that item.

Estimate Resource Needs and Identify 

Realistic Options for Meeting those Needs

Most of the activities identified in an RCTO will

require some kind of resource to accomplish whether 

it is staff time, equipment, or funding. Estimating the 

resource needs for the RCTO approach and identifying 

likely sources is a crucial element for building an 

RCTO that can be successfully implemented. During 

the development of the PAG RCTO, the developers 

Action Item Comments Responsibility Status

Update Tucson 

region maps on 

AZ511.com

Improve the Tucson area maps 

within HCRS to be commensurate 

with the 1⁄2 mile grid system.

ADOT

Display Tucson 

region data on 

AZ511.com

Completion of this task is 

contingent upon import of 

TransView events into AZ511 (in 

IEEE1512 format).

ADOT in cooperation 

with TransView

Import TransView 

events into 

AZ511. 

TransView has the Tucson Police 

Department (TPD) and Pima County 

Sheriff’s Department (PCSD) incident 

dataset available in XML but not in 

IEEE 1512 format. 

Convert XML data set into IEEE 1512 

format (portion of the standard) for 

import to AZ511. 

TransView

Table 12. Action Plan from the PAG RCTO showing Organizational Responsibilities in Integrating Area Traveler Information with Arizona 511.35

35 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).
40 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

identified the required resources and estimated costs

for each of their RCTO actions. The example below 

shows the projects, capital improvements, and human 

resources/staff needed for putting in place a regional 

arterial dynamic message sign program. The PAG 

RCTO developers use the term “capital improvements” 

to indicate the physical improvements needed for the 

RCTO.

Resource arrangements identified by the RCTO

demonstration sites included CMAQ and regional sales 

tax funds, particularly for traffic signal management

improvements. Participating agencies also contributed 

staff time and technology for actions such as managing 

work zone coordination information, developing 

training materials, and conducting analysis work to 

prepare for signal system funding applications. 

Resources Required and Estimated Costs

The required resources for operating the regional arterial DMS program include a physical facility, staff, and 

communications system to operate the DMS. It is proposed that support staff be jointly funded by participating 

agencies and jurisdictions.

TOC [traffic operations center] Operator Cost

Two TOC Operators are needed to provide monitoring of DMS operations at the ADOT ITOC [Interim Traffic

Operations Center]. These staff could also be used for other TOC activities other than DMS operations. The

required number of maintenance staff would depend on the number of DMS. Maintenance can be provided 

through a maintenance contract with a private contractor. It is anticipated that maintenance requirements may 

not require a full-time staff person.

Projects Capital Improvements Human Resources/Staff

Arterial dynamic message sign 

deployment projects. Could be 

funded by individual agencies, or 

alternatively through a regional 

project.

Improved communications to 

support DMS Operations (by local 

jurisdictions).

Funding to make the ITOC 

permanent upon conclusion of the 

I-10 reconstruction project. 

TOC Operator (2)

2 @ $40,000........................$80,000

Overhead (50%)..................$40,000

Total....................$120,000 / year

Table 13. Example of a Resource Estimate for Activities Identified in the PAG RCTO.36

36 Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished).
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 41

The experiences of RCTO developers and implementers 

in Tucson, Portland, Southeast Michigan, and Hampton 

Roads show that the RCTO does indeed fill a need

within regions where there is the motivation to make 

improvements to transportation operations through 

a collaborative and strategic process. Through the 

demonstration sites, the RCTO has successfully gone 

from concept to reality. 

The ideas underlying the RCTO and how to develop it 

have been advanced as a result of collaborative teams 

in four regions willing to take the initial framework 

of an RCTO, experiment with it, and apply it to the 

operations needs in their region. The pathway was not 

always clear for the demonstration teams, but along 

the way several significant shifts took place among

the organizations and collaborative groups. The result 

was a closer linkage between planning and operations 

for all sites. In Tucson, participants are working to 

transform single-agency projects into projects that are 

regional in nature, and this has helped infuse operations 

into some of the smaller jurisdictions. In Southeast 

Michigan, operating agencies have gained a greater 

understanding of the planning process and potential 

resources: funding, data, and support. In Portland, 

the demonstration initiative has led to a much greater 

consideration of operations needs and performance 

measures in the planning process. Operators working 

in collaboration across agencies no longer need to work 

under the radar as they have increased support from 

the public, elected officials, and the MPO. According

to the Portland RCTO leader, “Ultimately, the project 

has produced stronger relationships and a stronger 

commitment across agencies to collaborating in this 

field.” In Hampton Roads, a tool to closely monitor and

adjust operations based on performance measurement 

has been established. The effort has further expanded 

communication and cooperation between public safety 

4 Looking Ahead

and transportation in Hampton Roads as they work 

as a team to improve incident management for their 

customers and each other. 

At the end of the demonstration site initiative, the RCTO 

leaders were asked to give an honest evaluation of the 

usefulness of the RCTO tool. All site leaders agreed that 

theRCTO is beneficial and serves an important purpose.

It helps to keep the process of planning for operations 

on track and focused on achieving desired outcomes. 

The Tucson leader remarked that stakeholders in Tucson 

benefited from the development of the RCTO because it

provided them a way to make needed improvements in 

operations that no single agency was willing or able to 

do alone. In Portland, the participants saw the RCTO 

as an effective way to harness political energy for 

operations improvements that led to a strategic, well 

thought-out approach for bringing about the desired 

changes. Without such a tool, there is “a risk that the 

benefits of a transportation strategy will not be fully

realized and/or implementation will not occur in the 

most efficient manner possible.”37

As the demonstration sites continue implementing 

their RCTOs, the concept has begun to take hold in 

a few other regions in the United States. The Puget 

Sound Regional Council and the Niagara International 

Transportation Technology Coalition among others 

have recently spearheaded the development of RCTOs 

or similar collaborative strategies (see text box).

With transportation funding and environmental 

concerns on the rise, agencies are looking to maximize 

the performance of their transportation infrastructure. 

The RCTO is a tool that transportation stakeholders are 

increasingly using to improve strategic and collaborative 

operations and to connect to the metropolitan planning 

process. 

37 City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, November 2007 (Unpublished).
42 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Puget Sound Regional Transportation Operations Committee RCTO

In 2007, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and its member organizations began the joint 

development of an RCTO and a Regional ITS Implementation Plan (RITSIP). The RCTO was 

intended to define a coordinated approach for regional signal operations whereas the RITSIP

was to identify 25 key arterial multi-jurisdictional corridors and the recommended ITS physical 

improvements for each corridor including signal improvements.38 The motivation for developing 

an RCTO on signal operations arose when signal operations were evaluated for the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Signal Report Card and weaknesses were identified. In

response to the assessment, the PSRC Regional Transportation Operations Committee formed as a 

coalition of city, county, and State agencies to promote a coordinated approach to traffic operations

and it continues to meet regularly.

The operations stakeholders first established the mission, vision, goals, objectives, and associated

performance measures for coordinated operations in the region to guide the operations committee, 

and by extension, the RCTO and RITSIP.

Signal-related objectives include:

•	 “Maximize throughput on regional arterials by improving signal timing, coordination, and 

management across jurisdictional boundaries.” 

•	 “Improve reliability of traffic flow on regional arterials through improved incident/event

management.”

•	 “Promote implementation of ITS measures (equipment and/or operational) that will provide 

arterial operational improvements to mitigate the impact of mega-project construction on the 

freeways in the region.”39

Early in the process of developing the RCTO and RITSIP, PSRC surveyed the operations committee 

agencies to gather information on signal systems and other ITS and to gauge interest and perceived 

barriers in increased levels of collaboration and coordination. One of the barriers identified for centerto-center data sharing and operations was the variety of different types of central control system 

software and traffic signal controllers being used across the region. Another finding that proved

important for the RCTO was that a significant number of agencies were planning to replace their

central software and signal controllers in the near future. 

38 Personal interview, Stephanie Rossi, Puget Sound Regional Council, and Jill McKay, IBI Group, November 18, 2009.

39 Puget Sound Regional Traffic Operators Committee, Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Implementation Plan: Volume 

1: Regional ITS Approach and Strategy, August 17, 2009. Available at: http://psrc.org/assets/2790/ritsip-Volume1.pdf, last accessed 

June 14, 2011.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 43

PSRC also looked across the country and gathered best practices for regional signal operations 

to inform the selection of a strategy for the RCTO. Through a workshop and several committee 

meetings, the region’s operators agreed upon a common strategy for implementing coordinated signal 

operations. The operations committee developed a flexible, scalable framework for implementation

that allows for both time-based coordination on corridors where center-to-center operation costs 

outweigh benefits and strategic application of center-to-center operation on other corridors.40 The 

RCTO was created at a higher level than the RCTOs developed as part of the FHWA demonstration 

initiative. The PSRC RCTO provides steps such as “Define Program,” “Define Performance

Measures,” “Develop and Sign Agreement,” and detailed instructions for implementing the common 

signal operations strategy. It is a plan for action that would be implemented once one or more multijurisdictional corridor projects defined in the RITSIP are funded. PSRC also provided a template for a

regional signal operations agreement based on a review of multiple signal agreements in the U.S.41

The PSRC RCTO and RITSIP were created during the update of the 2040 Regional Transportation 

Plan and could therefore be easily integrated into the plan. The ITS corridor projects were included in 

the plan, but were generally not selected for funding during the 2008 call for projects for inclusion in 

the 2010-2013 TIP. PSRC suggests that the initial difficulty in getting project funding was likely due

to a lack of champions among decisionmakers and selection criteria that benefitted centers rather than

corridors. 

In reflecting on lessons learned through the RCTO development, PSRC remarked that they would have

benefitted from a senior-level champion. It may have also helped to develop the RCTO before the

start of the regional transportation plan update for additional time to educate decisionmakers on the 

projects well before funding was programmed. 

One of the RCTO benefits noted by PSRC was that it helps to keep operators engaged and

collaborating as part of the operations committee. The process has engaged engineers in the planning 

process and better equipped them to champion the selection of operations/ITS projects. The planners 

involved have benefited by having an ITS/operations strategy to incorporate into the regional plan. 

Contact:

Stephanie Rossi, Puget Sound Regional Council at srossi@psrc.org.

40 Puget Sound Regional Council, Regional Signal Operations Strategy, March 29, 2010. Available at: http://psrc.org/assets/4034/

TTM_SignalOpsStrategy_2010-03-29.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. 

41 Puget Sound Regional Council, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations Signal Operations Agreement Template, May 2010. 

Available at: http://www.psrc.org/assets/4032/TTM_Final_AgreementTemplate_20100527.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011.
44 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition’s RCTO

The Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC) completed the 

development of an RCTO in 2010 to define specific, tangible operations activities for the Coalition

over the next 10 years.42 With recent turnover of leaders in the region, the Coalition wanted to 

provide a record of how it currently operated, what the participating members had agreed upon for 

the future, and the rationale for its collaborative activities. The RCTO would serve as a legacy for 

future operations leaders, planners, and Coalition staff. The development of the RCTO was an action 

item in the NITTEC Strategic Plan 2007, a higher level document. In conjunction with the RCTO, 

NITTEC also began an integrated corridor management (ICM) initiative. The ICM initiative focused 

on priority corridors in contrast to the RCTO which covered the entire region. Additionally, the ICM 

initiative had more aggressive performance targets (referred to as goals in the NITTEC and ICM 

literature) because it was more narrowly focused. 

The RCTO was developed through bi-national workshops with NITTEC management and stakeholder 

groups. The workshops focused on U.S. and Canadian policy, operations, incident management, and 

border crossings. Already involved in the Coalition activities, the region’s operating and planning 

agencies’ leadership participated in the workshops and RCTO development. A regional operations 

engineer at the New York State DOT and the executive director of NITTEC led the development of the 

RCTO.

NITTEC’s RCTO defined 19 operations objectives, associated performance measures, and shortterm and long-term performance targets. The RCTO discussed how the operations objectives related 

to current regional operations activities and identified actions to support the objectives. The RCTO

was developed along five operational categories: agency coordination, traveler information, mobility

(arterial, border, freeway, and transit), incident management, and policies and procedures. 

A challenge encountered by NITTEC in the development of the RCTO was a decrease in interest and 

participation from stakeholders as the process continued.43 The development approach requested 

several reviews of content developed from the workshops and meetings and it was difficult for

participants to see the benefit of this work. A related challenge for the group continues to be keeping

up levels of participation as member agencies become increasingly strained for financial and human

resources. 

As a final step in the RCTO development, NITTEC blended the activities identified in the RCTO into

its work plan and assigned each activity to one or more of the Coalition’s committees or councils.

The RCTO was heavily used in updating the congestion management process (CMP) by the MPO 

serving much of the region, the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council. The CMP 

adopted a subset of the RCTO’s operations objectives and performance measures. The RCTO is also 

one of the primary sources for congestion management strategies for the CMP. 

Contact:

Athena Hutchins, NITTEC at ahutchins@nittec.org. 

42 Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition, NITTEC Transportation Operations – Regional Concept for 

Transportation Operations: Final Report, January 6, 2010. Available at: http://www.nittec.org/RCTO/RCTO%20Final%20Report.pdf, 

last accessed June 14, 2011.

43 Personal interview, Thomas George, Executive Director, NITTEC on January 13, 2010.
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 45

This checklist offers RCTO developers the opportunity to assess their process for developing and maintaining 

an RCTO according to several factors that contribute to the success of an RCTO. The questions cover important 

actions to consider as practitioners progress through the development and implementation of an RCTO. 

Motivation – the “Why”

F Is there a compelling need to improve one or more elements of transportation operations that 

crosses jurisdictional and/or functional boundaries?

F Is there a recognized need for a strategic, formal approach to improving regional transportation 

operations through inter-agency collaboration?

F Are there potential benefits associated with this topic or area that justify significant multijurisdictional and inter-agency collaboration?

Organizing for Action

F Is there a host or convener that can provide a table for the regional collaboration? 

F Is there at least one committed champion who has a clear vision of the desired outcome and 

will work to get support among decisionmakers for the RCTO? 

F Have all of the necessary stakeholders for accomplishing the operations objective(s) been 

engaged (both those needed to implement the RCTO and those who might oppose it)? 

F Are there adequate resources (staff time and support services) allocated to support the 

collaborative activities needed to develop an RCTO?

F Is there a plan for maintaining participant involvement during the development and 

implementation of the RCTO?

Identifying the Operations Objectives

F Have the operations needs been accepted and endorsed by the participating jurisdictions and 

agencies?

F Has a specific, measurable, and realistic operations objective(s) been established to guide

further development of the RCTO?

F Have the collaborating agencies defined the operations objective(s) in sufficient detail to make

it actionable?

Knowing What Success Looks Like

F Have appropriate performance measures been developed to judge how well the RCTO 

operations objective(s) have been met?

F Are the data needed to assess performance generally available and, if not, have provisions been 

made for collecting the data needed to monitor performance?

F Are the performance measures expressed in terms that are meaningful to both operating 

agencies and system users?

Appendix A: A Practitioner's Checklist for

Developing and Maintaining an RCTO
46 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Getting Specific

F Have the collaborating agencies identified the strategies and actions that must be accomplished to

achieve the operations objective(s) and the schedule for completing these strategies and actions?

F Do the strategies and actions include both those needed to implement the RCTO and those needed to 

sustain the level of performance associated with the objectives?

F Have all of the physical elements (technology, facilities, equipment) needed to achieve the objective 

been identified?

F Have the collaborators developed a joint strategy for acquiring the facilities, technology, and 

equipment needed for achieving the objectives?

F Have the collaborators agreed on primary roles and responsibilities associated with the strategies and 

actions needed to achieve the objectives?

F Have the means for holding collaborators accountable for their responsibilities been developed so 

that each of the partners can proceed with “good faith” that all will perform as agreed?

F Have the collaborators agreed on information sharing protocols (content, form, communication 

methods, archiving, protection, liability) associated with implementing the RCTO and measuring 

performance?

F Have all of the resources (funds, staff time, materials) needed to implement the RCTO been 

identified and have collaborating agencies agreed on how those resources will be acquired and

allocated? 

Measuring What Matters

F As the RCTO is implemented, is performance measured as planned using the best data available?

F Are trends being tracked over time so that problems can be detected and the RCTO can be adjusted?

F Is performance routinely reported to key decision makers and system users so that participating 

agencies are held accountable for their activities and the consequences (positive and negative) of 

those actions (or lack thereof)?

Keeping It Going

F Do participating agencies convene regularly to discuss progress toward achieving objectives and 

addressing obstacles to success?

F Do participating agencies look for ways to expand and extend the RCTO to address additional 

functions, expand the number of jurisdictions covered, and engage agencies whose participation 

would contribute to sustaining the RCTO?

F Do participating agencies regularly report the status of the RCTO to key decisionmakers so that they 

understand the progress made in regional transportation system performance?
The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 47

B.1 Foundations in Systems 

Thinking

The RCTO promotes a more 

systemic and sustained approach to 

collaboration. Consistent with well 

established systems engineering 

principles, the RCTO elevates the 

focus from agencies’ individual 

responsibilities to a global view 

of the region’s transportation 

system. By considering the 

interconnections within the region’s transportation 

system, partners develop higher level operations 

objectives that address those systemic issues that cut 

across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. The RCTO 

is a living guide that partners update and amend as 

circumstances and priorities evolve in the region and 

among partners. While it may require some initial 

investment in operations infrastructure, an RCTO is 

more than a “project” because it effects lasting changes 

in how partners work together to improve system 

performance. 

In this sense, the RCTO encourages sustained 

collaboration: 

•	 An RCTO requires developing and sustaining 

working relationships between agencies that 

transcend particular individuals. 

•	 An RCTO defines a new way of “doing business”

for the participants that is stimulated through the 

development of the RCTO.

•	 The result of developing an RCTO is not a 

collection of projects stapled together, but a 

coherent collaborative strategy that sets the future 

direction for operations in the region. 

•	 Although the time horizon for an RCTO is only 

3 to 5 years, the RCTO establishes collaborative 

activities that typically must continue beyond that 

timeframe in order to maintain the operations 

objective. 

Appendix B: RCTO Fundamentals

•	 An RCTO creates a precedent in the region for 

how to organize multiple participants interested 

in working together to improve transportation 

management and operations. 

•	 Once developed, an RCTO can serve as a template 

for further collaboration on other aspects of 

transportation operations. 

B.2 RCTO Scope

The scope of an RCTO is defined in terms of three major

dimensions: functional, institutional, and geographic. 

The functional dimension defines

the operations areas addressed 

within the RCTO, the institutional 

dimension defines the partnering

entities engaged in the developing 

and carrying out the RCTO, 

and the geographic dimension 

defines the region (i.e., political

boundaries) for which the RCTO is developed. Each 

dimension is shaped by the collaborative activity among 

transportation operators from multiple jurisdictions. 

Operations functions that tend to be of regional 

significance and could benefit from an RCTO include:

•	 Congestion management.

•	 Traffic incident management.

•	 Traveler information.

•	 Electronic payment services (e.g., transit, parking, 

tolls).

•	 Emergency response and homeland security.

•	 Traffic signal coordination.

•	 Road weather management.

•	 Freight management.

•	 Work zone traffic management.

•	 Freeway management. 

•	 Bus rapid transit.

The RCTO is a living 

guide that partners 

update and amend 

as circumstances 

and priorities evolve 

in the region and 

among partners.

The RCTO elevates the 

focus from agencies’ 

individual responsibilities 

to a holistic view of the 

region’s transportation 

system. 
48 | The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Functional Scope

An RCTO can address a single management and 

operations area (e.g., traffic incident management,

traveler information services, or electronic fare 

payment), a collection of related areas (e.g., congestion 

management for arterials and freeways), or capabilities 

that cut across several functions (e.g., area-wide 

communications, surveillance and control, or vehicle 

detection and location). The functional scope of an 

RCTO may change over time in response to changes in 

the collaboration between participants. For example, 

an RCTO can help expand collaboration on incident 

management to include emergency management. 

Geographic Scope

The geographic and institutional scope of the RCTO 

may coincide with the jurisdictions and agencies 

represented in an MPO. However, an RCTO may 

be developed for a multi-State corridor, adjoining 

transportation management areas, neighboring local 

jurisdictions within an MPO area, or any other selfdefined multi-jurisdictional area. Many non-urban or

rural areas may find significant benefit in creating an

RCTO as they often do not have a regional planning 

process or metropolitan planning organization to bring 

focus to the region.

Institutional Scope

An RCTO’s institutional scope may range from 

corresponding agencies in neighboring jurisdictions 

that collaborate around a function that falls within their 

individual responsibilities, to all of the transportation 

and public safety agencies within an MPO area that 

collaborate on multiple functions throughout the 

metropolitan region, to a collection of agencies that 

span several States along a major interstate corridor.

B.3 RCTO Initiatives

The idea for the RCTO evolved from a series of activities 

and programs involving Federal, State, regional, and 

local entities working together to find ways to improve

transportation system performance on a regional basis. 

The National Dialogue on Transportation Operations, 

initiated in 1999, greatly accelerated the evolution 

of transportation agencies from that of building and 

maintaining roads to that of managing the transportation 

system. The National Dialogue, and especially the 

National Summit on Transportation Operations, held 

in Columbia, Maryland, in October 2001, made clear 

the need for deliberate and sustained collaboration and 

coordination in regional operations to achieve safe, 

reliable, integrated, and secure transportation. The 

Summit brought together over 240 professionals from 

academia, operating agencies, interest groups (e.g., 

safety and pedestrians), and elected and appointed 

officials from local and regional governments. A

consensus on key issues to move forward an operations 

agenda was achieved.

In 2001, the working group, “Linking Planning and 

Operations,” sponsored by the Federal Highway 

Administration and the Federal Transit Administration 

identified ways in which transportation planning and

transportation operations can be more effectively linked. 

During its December 2001 meeting, the working group 

developed a self-assessment tool for linking planning 

and operations which identified the need for a “regional

concept of operations that informs a regional operations 

action plan,” which eventually became known as the 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations or 

RCTO. 

The RCTO was described further in the FHWA 

publication “Regional Transportation Operations 

Collaboration and Coordination – A Primer for Working 

Together to Improve Transportation Safety, Reliability 

and Security,”44 published in 2003, encouraging more 

effective collaboration and coordination of operations 

within a region by transportation managers and public 

safety officials from cities, counties, and States and was

listed as a key linkage between planners and operators 

in the FHWA “Getting More by Working Together 

– Opportunities for Linking Planning Operations,” 

published in November 2004. 45

44 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://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13686.html, last accessed June 14, 2011.

45 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Getting More by Working Together – Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operation, 

FHWA-HOP-05-016 (Washington, DC, 2005). Available at:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/lpo_ref_guide/index.htm, last accessed June 14, 2011.



Federal Highway 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-11-032