Getting More by

Working Together

A Reference Manual

abcd

Opportunities for Linking

Planning and Operations
Guidance Team:

Mike Demetsky, University of Virginia

Ann Flemer, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Oakland,

California)

Steve Gayle, Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study

(Binghamton, New York)

Ken Leonard, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Steve Lockwood, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas

Michael Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology

Michael Morris, North Central Texas Council of

Governments (Dallas, Texas)

Toby Rickman, Washington State Department of

Transportation

Rick Stevens, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Peer Review Panel:

Andrea d’Amato, City of Boston

Janet D’Ignazio, North Carolina State University, Center for

Transportation and the Environment

Matt Edelman, TRANSCOM (New York, New York)

Sarath Joshua, Maricopa Association of Governments (Phoenix,

Arizona)

Larry King, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Bill Kloos, City of Portland, Oregon

Elizabeth Ramirez, City of Dallas, Texas

Eileen Singleton, Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Alex Taft, Association of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (retired)

Emil Wolanin, Montgomery County, Maryland

David Zavattero, Illinois Department of Transportation

US DOT Staff:

Wayne Berman, Office of Operations, FHWA

Brian Betlyon, Resource Center, FHWA

Brian Cronin, Advance Public Transportation Systems Division,

FTA

Patrick Decorla-Souza, Office of Transportation Policy Studies,

FHWA

Tere Francheschi, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, FHWA

Eloise Freeman-Powell, Office of Planning, FHWA

Mike Freitas, ITS Joint Program Office

David Geiger, Office of Operations, FHWA

Dave Helman, Office of Operations, FHWA

Scott Johnson, Office of Operations, FHWA

Martin Knopp, Resource Center, FHWA

Pam Kordenbrock, Office of Operations, FHWA

Mac Lister, Resource Center, FHWA

Robin Mayhew, Office of Planning, FHWA

Harlan Miller, Office of Planning, FHWA

Jon Obenberger, Office of Operations, FHWA

Kenny Petty, Office of Planning, FHWA

Roger Petzold, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, FHWA

James Pol, Office of Operations, FHWA

Rolf Schmitt, Office of Operations, FHWA

Fred Skaer, Office of Project Development and

Environmental Review, FHWA

Neil Spiller, Office of Operations, FHWA

David Winters, Office of Operations, FHWA

Practitioners:

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

Missouri)

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

Utah)

Natalie Bettger, North Central Texas Council of Governments

Brian Burk, Texas Department of Transportation

Chuck Chappell, Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City,

Utah)

Rachel Everidge-Clampffer, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning

Organization (Austin, Texas)

Rex Fleming, Kansas Department of Transportation

Karen Gilbertson, Kansas Department of Transportation

Eric Graye, Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

Commission

Mark Hallenbeck, University of Washington Transportation Center

Stephany Hanshaw, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission

(Hampton Roads, Virginia)

Doug Hattery, Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City,

Utah)

Rick Hawthorne, Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

Commission

Sarath Joshua, Maricopa County Council of Governments (Phoenix,

Arizona)

Lee Ann Kell, Missouri Department of Transportation

Dave Kinnecom, Utah Department of Transportation

Michael Morris, North Central Texas Council of

Governments (Dallas, Texas)

Bubba Needham, Texas Department of Transportation

Keith Nichols, Hampton Roads Planning District

Commission (Hampton Roads, Virginia)

John Poorman, Capital District Planning Commission (Albany,

New York)

Camelia Ravanbahkt, Hampton Roads Planning District

Commission

Toby Rickman, Washington State DOT

Dan Rocha, North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas,

Texas)

Richard Roisman, Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

Commission

Eileen Singleton, Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Emil Wolanin, Montgomery County, Maryland

Project Consulting Team:

Jeffrey Ang-Olson, ICF Consulting

Jocelyn Bauer, SAIC

Michael Grant, ICF Consulting

Jonathon Kass, ICF Consulting

John Mason, SAIC

Sergio Ostria, ICF Consulting

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
November 30, 2004

Dear Colleague,

The Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Operations and Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty are pleased

to present this document entitled “Getting More By Working Together - Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations.” This represents an early accomplishment of the continuing joint program between our offices to accomplish three

key goals:

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

operations.

2. Enhance regional transportation decisionmaking and planning to consider investments in operations in balance with

investments for major capacity expansion.

3. Build stronger linkages between planning and operations

The information contained in this resource document was derived from an extensive review of the literature and discussions with nearly 30 transportation professionals who represent planning and operations at all levels of government.

Based upon the collective, practical experiences of these professionals, the reference material identifies the following nine

areas that provide opportunities to better link the planning and operations functions:

z The Transportation Planning Process;

z Data Sharing;

z Performance Measures;

z Congestion Management Systems;

z Funding and Resource Sharing;

z Institutional Arrangements;

z Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture;

z Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations Projects; and

z A Regional Concept for Transportation Operations.

This document also offers a self-assessment tool to assist transportation planning and operations professionals. The tool

can be very useful in identifying opportunities to enhance coordination between transportation planning and operations.

We believe that the material contained in the Reference document will help to support current transportation planning law.

Specifically, the material will provide direction to local, regional, and State agencies on how to address the planning factor

in Title 23 U.S.C. Sections 134 and 135 that provides for the consideration of projects and strategies that will “promote

efficient management and operations.”

Improved planning, management, and operations in the Nation’s transportation systems are vitally important to achieving

the high expectations for safety, security, and mobility in the 21st century. We look forward to working with your organizations, agencies, and interest groups to advance the ideas presented in this reference document..

Jeffrey F. Paniati

Associate Administrator

 Office of Operations

Cynthia J. Burbank

Associate Administrator

 Office of Planning,

 Environment, and Realty

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NOTE FROM THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS

1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

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

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

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

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

2: OPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING AND OPERATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3: SELF-ASSESSMENT

4: RESOURCES

CONTENTS

Background and Purpose | 1 - 1

1.1 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY

LINKING PLANNING AND

OPERATIONS?

safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system

requires more than just infrastructure. It demands

coordinated management and operations. Management and operations1

 (M&O) is an integrated approach to

optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through

the implementation of multimodal, intermodal, and often

cross-jurisdictional systems, services, and projects.

M&O refers to a broad range of strategies. Examples of

M&O strategies include traffic detection and surveillance,

work zone management, electronic toll collection, traffic

incident management, road weather management, emergency management, and traveler information services. Such

strategies enhance service efficiency and improve public

safety and security; reduce traveler delays associated with

incidents and other events; and improve information for

businesses and for the traveling public.

Traditionally, planning the transportation system and

operating the transportation system have been two

relatively detached sets of activities with different requirements and different cultures. In the traditional model,

transportation planning focuses on infrastructure projects,

relying on an analysis of long-range travel demands,

transportation system goals, and funding constraints, but

often with limited consideration of short-term and ongoing

operational issues. Management and operation of the

transportation system typically involves a different set of

practitioners with a short-term or real-time focus, often with

limited consideration of how activities relate to regional

transportation system goals and objectives.

Transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other stakeholders are increasingly

recognizing the value of coordination and collaboration

among transportation planners and operators. Although

they come from differing perspectives, transportation

planning and operating agencies generally share the goal

of enhancing system performance, and they can mutually

benefit from stronger linkages.

Regional transportation planning and investment

decisionmaking requires a great deal of coordination and

collaboration among State and local governments, MPOs,

highway and transit agencies, other stakeholder organizations, and the general public.2

 Similarly, effective regional

management and operations requires collaboration and

coordination among operating agencies across jurisdictions and between transportation and public safety

agencies in order to improve the security, safety, and

reliability of the transportation system. Strengthening the

connections between these two processes and activities –

planning and operations – can enhance both activities.

1.2 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF

THIS RESOURCE GUIDE?

This resource guide is designed to help planning and

operations managers understand the value of working

together and realize the benefits of pursuing management

and operations strategies at the regional scale. As shown

in Exhibit 1 (next page), this goes a step beyond jurisdiction and agency coordination on planning and investment.

It also goes beyond regional collaboration and coordination on management and operations activities.3

 The guide

highlights how existing relationships can be strengthened

and new ones developed, and how opportunities for

greater coordination and collaboration can be exploited. It

emphasizes the important role that both planners and

operators have to play in building stronger connections

and the benefits of these relationships.

1

 Management and operations (M&O) is also referred to as transportation

systems management and operations (TSM&O). M&O is distinct from

operations and maintenance (O&M), which focuses on internal agency

operations and recurring maintenance and preservation.

2

 Transportation planning takes place at the State, regional, and local

levels. The scope and nature of the process differs based on the area

being covered and requirements set out in laws and regulations. Federal

regulatory requirements for transportation planning are codified in 23 CFR

450, with Metropolitan Transportation Planning addressed in Subpart C, and

Statewide Transportation Planning addressed in Subpart B. Although this

guide focuses on metropolitan planning, the concepts of linking planning

and operations are also applicable at the statewide and local levels.

3 Collaboration and coordination on management and operations activities

is the topic of a related publication, Regional Transportation Operations

Collaboration and Coordination, available at http://

www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13686.html.

1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A
1 - 2 | Getting More by Working Together

This resource guide describes a number of specific

opportunities for improving connections between planning

and operations. These opportunities are derived from an

extensive review of the literature and interviews with nearly

30 transportation professionals who represent planning

and operations at all levels of government. Based on the

collective, practical experiences of these professionals, this

guide is organized around the following linkage opportunities:

z The Transportation Planning Process,

z Data Sharing,

z Performance Measures,

z Congestion Management Systems,

z Funding and Resource Sharing,

z Institutional Arrangements,

z Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Architecture,

z Regional Management and Operations Projects, and

z Regional Concept for Transportation Operations.

Each of these linkage opportunities is discussed in detail in

section 2.

1.3 WHY LINK PLANNING AND

OPERATIONS?

Linking planning and operations is important to improve

transportation decisionmaking and the overall effectiveness of transportation systems. Coordination between

planners and operators helps ensure that regional transportation investment decisions reflect full consideration of all

available strategies and approaches to meet regional goals

and objectives.

Factors Motivating the Linkage

Federal Requirements: Federal requirements emphasize

this linkage. One of the seven planning factors that must

be considered in the planning process at both the metropolitan and statewide levels is to “promote efficient system

management and operation.”4 The planning requirements,

therefore, emphasize the important role that system

management and operation should take in regional

planning. Through the MPO certification process, the

United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)

considers whether these factors have been adequately

assessed.

Environmental, Community, and Funding Constraints: At

a practical level, increasing transportation needs and

constraints faced by transportation agencies are requiring

new solutions. At the same time communities are facing the

need for mobility improvements, transportation agencies

4

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

Exhibit 1: Scope of Linking Planning and Operations
Background and Purpose | 1 - 3

are faced with environmental, community, and funding

constraints that limit their ability to build new capacity to

address these needs. Moreover, the length of time it takes

to complete large-scale transportation infrastructure

projects emphasizes the need for transportation solutions

that can respond quickly to congestion, safety, and

economic concerns. Given budget and other constraints,

the public expects transportation agencies to operate the

system at peak efficiency before providing funding to

expand physical capacity.

New Technologies: New technologies and intelligent

transportation systems (ITS) provide the potential for

operational improvements that substantially improve

system performance and for better data to pinpoint and

prioritize transportation needs. These technologies also

offer opportunities to improve reliability, safety, and

security, which are difficult to address with traditional

highway and transit capacity increases.

Benefits for Planners and Operators

Greater coordination and collaboration among planners and

operators can help to focus attention on investments that

more effectively and efficiently address short-term and

long-term needs. Stronger linkages, therefore, help both

planners and operators to do their jobs better.

For planners, collaboration with operators can:

z Help planners better understand how operational

strategies can meet regional transportation goals.

z Provide access to system-wide, 24-hour travel data

that can be used to better characterize existing system

performance and travel conditions, to identify the most

critical transportation problems, and to prioritize

funding.

z Provide operations data and expertise to improve

forecasts of future conditions, broaden the

understanding of existing conditions, and analyze the

effectiveness of alternative investments.

z Foster greater consideration of the day-to-day

functioning of the transportation network and the real

conditions facing travelers that can help frame

transportation goals, objectives, and priorities.

z Reveal how transportation plans can address issues

such as reliability, security, and safety—issues that are

difficult to address solely with traditional

infrastructure investments.

For operators, collaboration and coordination with

planners can:

z Help operators have a greater understanding of how

the long-range planning process can support M&O

activities and how M&O activities fit into the context

of regional goals and objectives.

z Provide increased opportunities and incentives for

getting involved in the planning process, thereby

helping to shape system goals and objectives.

z Provide regional leadership and greater participation

by stakeholders in regional M&O efforts.

z Clarify the role of operations in meeting the region’s

transportation vision and goals.

z Direct attention to the value of M&O strategies.

z Increase resources assigned to operations projects

and programs.

Benefits for System Users

Ultimately, greater coordination and collaboration among

planners and operators improves transportation

decisionmaking and benefits the traveling public, businesses, and communities.

z Improved ability to address short- and long-term

needs—Improved traffic operations information and

understanding can help planners better predict future

conditions and system improvements. It can also bring

attention to operational improvements that can be

implemented in a shorter time frame than traditional

infrastructure investments. This will lead to a more

effective mix of operational, capital, safety,

maintenance, and preservation investments.

z Improved reliability—Travelers and freight shippers

are increasingly sensitive to unanticipated disruptions

to tightly scheduled personal activities and

manufacturing supply-chain processes. Yet trip times

have become increasingly unpredictable due to the

growth in non-recurring congestion—unexpected or

unusual congestion caused by accidents, inclement

weather, special events, or construction. Growth in

overall traffic volumes often means that even small

disruptions can have a significant ripple effect on

transportation system performance over a broad

geographic area. Today, non-recurring congestion

accounts for about half of all travel delay. The

planning process typically deals with ongoing or

predictable congestion issues, and traditional

infrastructure investments that do not address the
1 - 4 | Getting More by Working Together

disruptions that are the source of non-recurrent

congestion. Stronger connections between planners

and operators help planners consider programs and

strategies to improve reliability, such as deployment of

technologies to rapidly detect incidents; variable

message signs and other approaches for providing

quick, reliable traffic information to the public and

media outlets; and use of roving incident response

teams to quickly clear accidents to open up a

roadways for full operation.

z Improved emergency preparedness—Coordination

between planning and operations reinforces efforts to

ensure emergency preparedness and transportation

security. Regional operations planning and flexibility is

a critical element of a secure transportation system.

States and regions that advance operational flexibility

in their planning and investment prioritization are

building their capacity to address the myriad of

emergency and security situations that could arise. In

addition, sources of funding may be available

specifically for activities that support transportation

security and emergency preparedness, which can be

used to support transportation M&O objectives.

1.4 CAN IT BE DONE?

Challenges

Although there are many reasons for improving the linkage

between planning and operations, there are also serious

challenges. The challenges of linking planning and

operations vary depending on factors such as the experience, size, institutional arrangements, and institutional

culture within each region. Some challenges that are

common to many regions include:

z Difficulty demonstrating the benefits of management

and operations investments. Analysis tools to

evaluate the benefits resulting from operational

strategies and ITS projects are limited. Most analysis

tools are oriented toward calculating the benefits of

major infrastructure investments. These tools do not

consider non-recurring congestion caused by

incidents, construction, or special events. Moreover,

travel demand models have been the subject of legal

challenges particularly in air quality nonattainment

areas. Tools that model the effects of M&O strategies

must have demonstrated the credibility to withstand

such challenges.

z An initial unwillingness of local officials to discuss

management and operations costs at a regional level.

Often, there is a perception that management and

operations are local, not regional, issues.

z A lack of training among planning staffs about

operations activities. MPO staffs tend to be primarily

focused on planning and programming of capital

programs.

z A lack of training and experience among operations

staff about planning activities. Operations

practitioners tend to emphasize a short-term outlook,

with limited consideration of how their activities fit

into broader regional goals.

z Limited funding to pay for capital needs of the

roadway and transit network that may have been in

plans for years. This can push any consideration of

funding for operational programs and strategies off the

radar screen.

z Limited funding to pay for ongoing operations.

While the capital costs of ITS technologies and traffic

management centers are often paid for with Federal funds,

ongoing operational costs typically fall to State, regional,

and local agencies.

Can These Challenges Be Overcome?

Yes, they can! That is what the remainder of this guide is

about. Coordination between planning and operations is

happening today and is being enhanced through a diverse

range of strategies. This resource guide discusses the

lessons from those who have had success at building this

linkage and highlights opportunities to further regional

coordination.

Historically, operational considerations have been integrated into planning for transit projects, but much less so

for highway projects. However, that is changing. Today,

highway agencies are evolving to focus greater attention

on maintaining existing infrastructure and recognizing the

critical role of operations in achieving regional mobility

goals. Both transit and highway agencies are recognizing

new opportunities to improve reliability, security and

safety, and public information through their investment

programs. MPOs are increasingly seeing their role as not

only facilitating regional transportation planning, but also

facilitating regional management and operation.
Background and Purpose | 1 - 5

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDE

This resource guide discusses opportunities to strengthen

linkages between planning and operations.

Section 2 is the main body of this report and is organized

around the linkage opportunities discussed above. Section

2 includes a number of brief case examples and exhibits to

illustrate the concepts being discussed. The case examples

describe planning/operations linkages from specific

regions and States. These generally include contact

information should the reader wish to gather more details

about the example. Purple exhibit boxes provide more

general illustrative concepts that are not specific to any

location.

Section 3 is a self-assessment tool that can be used by

both planners and operators to think about current levels

of coordination and opportunities for strengthening

planning and operations connections. Some practitioners

may wish to begin with this self-assessment tool as a way

to prioritize which of the linkage opportunities in Section

2 should receive the most immediate attention.

Section 4 provides resources for further information,

including links to useful Web sites, online tools, and online

forums.
1 - 6 | Getting More by Working Together
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 1

his section provides a roadmap to linking planning

and operations by focusing on specific linkage

opportunities. First, the section discusses general

strategies for integrating operations considerations into

the core regional transportation planning process. The

purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate how the

current planning process can serve as the foundation for a

more integrative approach. Second, nine specific linkage

opportunities are discussed:5

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

2) Data Sharing (page 2-6),

3) Performance Measures (page 2-12),

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

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

6) Institutional Arrangements (page 2-31),

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

8) Regional Management and Operations Projects

(page 2-46), and

9) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

(page 2-52).

The discussion of each of these linkage opportunities is

organized as follows.

z Background—This subsection provides an overview

of the linkage opportunity, with a general description

of how it brings together planners and operators. As

appropriate, this subsection also identifies intended

outcomes of successful linkages and describes when

the linkage is most applicable.

z Taking Advantage of Linkage Opportunities—This

subsection illustrates specific linkages along with

illustrative examples. These examples are intended to

give the reader a concrete sense of how each

described activity can enhance communication or

coordination among practitioners.6

z Lessons Learned—This subsection identifies common

challenges, obstacles, and unanticipated benefits.

Lessons learned include points that practitioners

commonly raised during MPO and State DOT

interviews as well as points that appear frequently in

the planning and operations literature. This section

also includes tips on how to implement specific linkage

opportunities.

5

 These nine linkage opportunities were identified through literature review

and practitioner interviews.

6

 The examples that are used throughout Section 2 focus disproportionately

on the regions that were interviewed for this guidebook. There are

2 OPPORTUNITIES FOR LINKING PLANNING AND

OPERATIONS

T

undoubtedly many more illustrations of the opportunities discussed in this

section. Readers are encouraged to share successes and lessons learned

so that others may continue to learn from each other’s efforts. Some easy

ways to share such examples are listed in the Resource Section at the end

of this guide.
2 - 2 | Getting More by Working Together

2.1

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) identifies seven planning factors that must be considered in the transportation planning process.7

 One of these

factors requires that transportation plans “promote

efficient system management and operation,” establishing

a formal role for M&O activities in the transportation

planning process.8 In support of this requirement, the

structure of the transportation planning process provides

numerous opportunities to address transportation management and operations. This section briefly highlights these

opportunities in general terms. This discussion also points

out several current trends within transportation planning

that complement efforts to link planning and operations.

Subsequent sections go into more detail about specific

linkage opportunities.

BACKGROUND

The transportation planning process has traditionally

focused on long-range travel trends and large-scale

infrastructure projects. Management and operations

strategies such as incident response, special event

planning, and work zone management have received

relatively little attention. However, over the past 20 years or

so, a number of constraints have highlighted the need for

coordination of regional operations strategies within the

planning process. Following are several factors that are

making it increasingly difficult to construct new highway

and transit capacity.

z Environmental, Community, and Space Constraints—

In many metropolitan areas, there are fewer

opportunities for highway or transit capacity

expansion along congested corridors. Often the

environmental and community impacts that would

result from new or widened roadways go beyond what

is acceptable to the public. In some cases, there is little

or no additional space within public right-of-ways.

These constraints on traditional infrastructure

construction have placed increased pressures on

public officials and transportation agencies to find

new ways of enhancing the effective capacity and

reliability of the existing transportation network.

z Funding Constraints—As transportation construction

costs have increased, State and local budgets have

become more strained. Some transportation capacity

projects move forward despite community,

environmental, and space constraints, but overcoming

these constraints requires longer construction periods,

frequent project mitigations, and more complex

construction techniques. This means that each project

consumes a bigger share of available funds. At the

time that project costs are increasing, many States and

localities are facing infrastructure deterioration from

years of deferred maintenance. These funding

challenges mean that few agencies can build all of the

facilities that might be desired.

z Inability to Respond to Short-term Problems—Major

construction projects rarely deliver new capacity in the

short term. In fact, some large-scale projects take well

over a decade to complete. At the same time,

transportation patterns are more diverse and less

predictable than ever. New transportation challenges

emerge unexpectedly as a result of economic shifts or

short-term trends. Thus, there is a need for

transportation solutions that can respond quickly to

congestion, safety, and economic concerns.

The statutes and regulations that govern the transportation planning process have the flexibility to accommodate

and, in fact, encourage management and operations

solutions. It has become clear that MPOs, State DOTs, and

other agencies that lead transportation planning efforts can

use the planning process as an important forum and tool

for collaboration between planners and operators.

7

 The metropolitan and statewide planning factors are referenced under 23

U.S.C. 134(f) and 23 U.S.C. 135(c), respectively.

8

 Other planning factors focus on increasing safety and security,

enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,

and preservation of the existing system. These additional factors further

support the importance of addressing management and operations within

the planning process.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 3

OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PLANNING

PROCESS

Various stages in the transportation planning process

afford opportunities to ensure collaboration between

planners and operators and to incorporate management

and operations strategies into the decisionmaking process.

These stages are summarized in Exhibit 2, along with

examples of opportunities for operations coordination. This

section summarizes opportunities in each of these stages.

Identify and Engage Stakeholders

The MPO serves as the regional agency coordinating

transportation planning and programming among the State

and local agencies and individual jurisdictions. The

regional transportation planning process is designed to

foster involvement by all interested parties, such as the

business community, environmental organizations,

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

community groups, and the general public. This is accomplished through a proactive public participation process

conducted by the MPO in coordination with the State DOT,

transit operators, and local jurisdictions. Because of the

resources and the emphasis typically placed on getting all

stakeholders to the table, outreach oriented toward public

safety and transportation operations stakeholders can be

particularly effective at this stage.

The interagency and inter-jurisdictional collaboration that

is part of the regional planning process is critical for

effective regional transportation management, and makes

the process an important forum for addressing regional

operations concerns. Through specific committees and

task forces, the MPO can facilitate discussions between

planners and operators, including public safety managers,

freight stakeholders, and other operations stakeholders.
2 - 4 | Getting More by Working Together

Develop Goals and Objectives

The development of regional transportation vision and

goals affords an opportunity to involve operations

agencies in the process that shape future transportation

systems. First, visions and goals need not be confined to

the distant future. Near-term goals and visions are important for engaging businesses and members of the public in

setting priorities. These shorter term goals often demand a

greater role for management and operations practitioners.

Second, setting goals and objectives provides an opportunity to engage with M&O practitioners (see Case 1). The

region’s vision should emphasize efficient operations, as

well as needed physical infrastructure investments.

Optimally, as regions strive to improve the efficiency,

reliability, and safety of transportation systems, strategies

that transcend the spectrum of options should be developed and evaluated early in the planning process (see Case

2). In this manner, “solutions packages” that combine

operations, info-structure, infrastructure, and land use

strategies and projects can be formulated. Such a “transportation-as-a-system” perspective can help to improve the

quality and timeliness of transportation decisions, and

inherently integrates operations into the planning process.

Define Performance Criteria and Data Needs

Performance measures help to determine whether resources

are being prioritized properly to meet goals and objectives.

The approach to performance measurement can dramatically influence what regional needs are highlighted within

the planning process and which are downplayed or

ignored. Transportation professionals with a management

and operations focus contribute a unique perspective on

how to measure performance, and therefore can add a great

deal to the regional discussion about performance measurement at the system, corridor, or facility level.

The availability of data also has a great deal to do with the

types of performance measures that can be implemented.

Operations data address real time performance of the

transportation system, allowing for the development of

measures that can better capture the experiences of users

(e.g., travel time and travel time reliability). However, to

access and properly apply real-time data, the resources and

expertise of operations practitioners is needed in the

planning process.

Assessment of Deficiencies

An important component of regional planning processes

involves determining where transportation improvements

are most needed. Needs assessment traditionally has

focused on additional roadway or transit capacity to

improve mobility in particular corridors. As the focus of

planning efforts expands beyond mobility to also address

travel time reliability and accessibility, management and

operations strategies grow in importance, especially given

environmental, community, and funding constraints to new

physical infrastructure projects. Consequently, the needs

Case 1: Examples of Goals and Objectives that

Acknowledge the Role of Management & Operations

Following are examples of goals taken from regional

transportation plans that set out to achieve system

performance based improvements through

management and operations:

Wilmington, DE (MPO)

“To efficiently move people and goods... improve

system performance...promote mobility, and

accessibility.”

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX (MPO)

“Support management strategies that optimize

transportation system performance through

technology and innovation.”

New Orleans, LA (MPO)

“We recognize today that resources are limited and

improved management of existing systems can

effectively add capacity to transportation networks.”

Case 2: Transportation Management in the Chicago

Region Transportation Plan

Regional transportation plans for the Chicago

metropolitan area have placed increasing emphasis

on management and operations strategies. The 2020

Plan listed M&O projects that were considered a

priority. The current 2025 plan establishes a regional

policy that all major capital projects are to include

management and operations components in order to

enhance system efficiency. The current updated

version of the plan anticipates an expanded

emphasis on M&O, linking to specific capital

initiatives.

Contact Thomas Vick: vickte@dot.il.gov
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 5

assessment phase provides an important opportunity to

engage more effectively management and operations in the

decisionmaking process. The need to better integrate

management and operations into regional needs assessment is heightened further by the increased focus on

transportation security, which will rely on effective

operations planning and response to prepare for and

respond to terrorist incidents.

Develop Alternative Scenarios

Many plans define two or more alternative scenarios, often

relating to particular themes. For example, a region may

define a scenario with all the desired capital investments,

as well as a less costly scenario that seeks primarily to

maintain the existing system. M&O strategies can form the

basis for an alternative scenario (see Case 3). Developing

an integrated M&O-focused alternative is an excellent

opportunity for involving operations practitioners in the

planning process. This is a chance to see how regional or

State coordination of management and operations efforts

can address short- and mid-term needs. Moreover, incorporating M&O strategies into all types of capacity enhancement projects is important to ensure that the effective

capacity of the system is maximized.

Evaluate Alternatives and Select

Superior Options

Many planning agencies have developed advanced

procedures for applying modeling techniques and economic assessments in order to choose between various

capital investment options. This already challenging

process becomes even more complex when transportation

management projects and programs are included within

competing investment scenarios. For example, evaluation

techniques can rarely weigh the benefit from a coordinated

set of corridor management strategies.

Involvement from operations practitioners is critical to

ensure that the full range of benefits of these programs is

considered. Involvement at this stage can help operations

staff to see the importance of their expertise within the

transportation decisionmaking process. Ultimately,

interaction in this evaluation process can lead to improved

mutual understanding and often raises new coordination

steps for subsequent updates to the transportation plan.

Taking Advantage of These Opportunities

Implementing the broad opportunities discussed above

requires specific consideration of the planning and

operations activities that best afford new linkages. This is

detailed in the subsequent parts of this section, most of

which follow directly from the themes raised in this

section.9

Case 3: MTC 2001 Regional Transportation Plan

System Management Alternative

In its 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, the San

Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation

Commission (MTC) included a system management

alternative. This alternative sought to address corridor

mobility issues through a set of projects that were

primarily operational in nature. Examples included

expanded express bus service, reversible carpool

lanes, and a better-connected HOV and transit

system. The alternative also included more funding

for streets and roads pavement shortfalls. Freeway

ramp metering was assumed to be implemented for

the most congested corridors, while congestion

pricing was assumed for the region’s major bridges

in order to generate additional revenues, including

transit operating revenues. In this alternative, some

highway projects were deferred to provide additional

funding for these management programs.

Contact Doug Kimsey: dkimsey@mtc.ca.gov

9

A Note of Caution on Timeframes in Planning and Operations: This

discussion and the remainder of this guide point out opportunities within the

planning process to coordinate with, and incorporate, shorter term

operations-oriented solutions. However, a shorter term focus must be

approached with caution. In cases where short-term and long-term

responsibilities are assigned to the same organization, there is a danger

that the immediate and tangible issues of the short term will overwhelm the

time and resources available for long-term planning responsibilities. One of

the strengths of MPOs is that their primary mandated responsibility has

been to take the long view of the community’s transportation needs; thus it

is vital that a strong long-term perspective be maintained. A melding of

the long-term focus of planning and the short-term focus of operations

means that MPOs should take a more active role in forums for regional

operations coordination and in coordination between short- and long-term

planning. It does not mean that planning practitioners should prioritize shortterm planning over long-term planning.
2 - 6 | Getting More by Working Together

2.2

BACKGROUND

Using advanced technologies, it is now possible to collect

and store vast amounts of data to support the planning

and operation of transportation systems (see Exhibit 3).

Roadway loop detectors, for example, can provide real-time

information about traffic volumes and speeds. Global

positioning systems and radio/cellular phone triangulation

can determine vehicle location and speed. Electronic fare

collection and automatic vehicle location systems can

record detailed information on transit service and use.

These rich data sources not only replace many more

expensive traditional data collection methods such as

manual traffic counts, surveys, and floating car studies,

they also allow data to be combined across modes and

operational environments in new ways. In doing so, these

data can create a more complete picture of how policy,

infrastructure, and service changes affect the performance

of transportation systems.

What Is Data Sharing?

Data sharing refers to a broad range of activities that

support the full use of readily available transportation

information. Many government and private organizations

collect data that can inform the design and operation of

transportation facilities and systems. First and foremost,

data sharing implies awareness about such data sources

and a fresh perspective in considering their potential value

in new uses. Data sharing typically requires that organizations store data and make it available in a useable format. It

may also involve a forum to coordinate with other organizations about potential data exchange opportunities.

How Can Data Sharing Create Stronger

Linkages Between Planning and Operations?

The collection, storage, and sharing of transportation data

provides numerous opportunities to solidify the link

between planning and operations. Real time data from

system operators allows agencies to measure and track the

characteristics of the transportation system that are closest

to what users experience. This, in turn, allows planners to

develop better performance measures and other analytical

tools. As planners come to value the data available from

management and operations programs, they build a broader

awareness of such programs and their importance. When

operations agencies share their data, they often increase

their focus on data quality and transferability, and they

may develop new relationships with other agencies,

universities, and other institutions in the process.

Why Is Data Sharing So Important?

Interest in data sharing is prompted in part by growing

concern about the performance of transportation systems

in addition to the performance of individual facilities, and

by the increased focus on system management and

operations as a tool to enhance transportation systems

performance. Efforts to improve travel time reliability and

predictability require more detailed data than has traditionally been analyzed by planners. The system focus means

that data on conditions are needed virtually everywhere on

the transportation system, across jurisdictions and modes.

This contrasts with the typical “hotspot” approach that

has governed data collection and transportation management in the past (see Exhibit 4).

As data collection and storage have become more cost

effective, the capacity for transportation practitioners to

make use of vast amounts of data for policy analysis has

also increased. For example, desktop geographic informaExhibit 3: Typical Operations Systems and

Associated Data

z Traffic monitoring and detection systems:

vehicle volume, speed, travel time, classification,

weight, and position trajectories

z Traveler information systems: current traffic

conditions (e.g., travel time, speed, level of

congestion), traffic incidents, work zone, and/or

lane closures

z Traffic control systems: time and location of

traffic control actions (e.g., ramp metering, traffic

signal control, lane control signals, message

board content)

z Incident and emergency management

systems: location, cause, extent, and time

history of roadway incident/emergency detection

and clearance

z Advanced public transit systems: transit vehicle

passenger boardings by time and location,

vehicle trajectories, passenger origins, and

destinations
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 7

tion systems (GIS) applications have continued to become

more advanced and more pervasive. GIS is a valuable tool

for organizing spatial data from multiple sources. Other

powerful software tools allow simulation of complex traffic

conditions on individual computers. For years, many

groups within State transportation agencies have operated

independently, collecting their own information using

different reference systems, databases, and analysis

packages. Many States are now using relational databases,

GIS, and other tools to assist them in bringing together

these dissimilar datasets.

The ITS architecture also encourages the identification of

new data sharing opportunities. One element of the

National Architecture (and regional architectures) is the

information flow analysis. This is typically diagramed in a

way that illustrates the appropriate information flows

between each major component of the transportation

system, thereby highlighting potential data sharing

options. A related element of the National ITS Architecture,

the Archive Data User Service, was designed to facilitate

alternative uses of ITS data, including use of data for

transportation planning. The Archive Data User Service

helps promote a regional data sharing approach that is

consistent with current and anticipated technological

capacity.

Exhibit 4: Typical Differences in Survey and ITS Data

Organizations that receive data benefit from valuable

information on transportation system demand and performance, often at little or no cost. Sharing data can benefit

the organization providing data by building awareness

about the agency’s programs and creating a check on data

accuracy. Data sharing may necessitate changes within the

agencies receiving data, including a willingness to evaluate

planning practices and operations strategies in light of

more complete information.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Data sharing is often a first step toward broader coordination between planning and operations. Sharing data will

require establishing new relationships with other agencies

and building mechanisms to support sustained data

exchange and storage. Issues such as data formats,

accuracy, consistency, and appropriate use can complicate

the process of establishing inter- and intra-agency data

sharing programs, but these challenges can be overcome. A

number of small steps can help to initiate the process. As

agencies learn about resources available in their region,

they are likely to be more interested in exploring the

benefits of data exchange. This section discusses several

specific opportunities to use data sharing as a mechanism

to link planning and operations.

Develop a Regional Data Clearinghouse

A central data clearinghouse can help facilitate access to a

region’s full range of transportation data for both planning

and operating agencies. This requires that a regional

agency take stock of all transportation data that are

available and develop partnership agreements to make data

retrievable from a central access point. There will be

barriers for certain sensitive data sources, but the effort

should include all planning and operating agencies, public

safety agencies, as well as private sector sources such as

freight companies. An initial effort to compile a list of all

electronically available data sources is an excellent place to

begin a discussion about regional data sharing mechanisms.

The regional ITS architecture is likely to include a detailed

description of the types of data that are available from

various transportation, emergency management, and public

safety agencies. In this way, the ITS architecture can be

used to guide data sharing and the development of a

central clearinghouse. (Regional ITS architecture opportunities are discussed in Section 2.7.)
2 - 8 | Getting More by Working Together

Coordinate Data Resources With Transit

Agencies

As a result of ITS deployments, transit agencies are

becoming more valuable data sharing partners enabling

them to participate in regional planning activities in new

ways (see Case 4). With numerous vehicles throughout

their service area traveling on regularly scheduled routes,

transit agencies are in an excellent position to provide

roadway system data using automatic vehicle location

technology. This includes information on current speeds

throughout the roadway network and changes in speeds

on a particular route throughout the day and over longer

time periods. When such information is collected and

stored, it can be useful for evaluating the impacts of

system improvements. For example, by comparing express

bus travel times during the specified time periods on a

particular day, such data could allow evaluation of the

deployment of a traffic control feature during special

events.

When they share data with other agencies, transit providers assist with improving regional system operations by

enhancing roadway network monitoring, and they assist

with improving regional planning by facilitating the

development of performance measures. Transit agencies

themselves benefit from vehicle location data when it

Case 5: Salt Lake City’s Olympics Games Lead to

Continued Data Sharing

Commuter Link is a Web-based traveler information

system for the Salt Lake City region. The system

components include closed-circuit television

cameras, electronic roadway signs, a 511 travel

information line, coordinated traffic signals, ramp

meters, traffic speed and volume sensors, pavement

sensors, and weather sensors. Transportation

officials demonstrated a new willingness to devote

attention to this coordinated data service in

preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympics. During the

Olympics, the system worked extremely well. Since

the Olympics, this data sharing has continued and

has proven to be useful in coordinating traffic

management centers across jurisdictions.

Contact Dave Kinnecom: dkinnecom@utah.gov

provides information on real-time system conditions, such

as incident information. And communicating real-time

vehicle location and arrival information to transit customers

improves transit service and can boost ridership.

Use Special Events to Initiate New Data

Partnerships

Amidst the day-to-day duties of transportation agencies,

taking time to discuss data collaboration is often viewed as

a low priority. The need to reach out to new agencies can

be heightened when preparing for special events. Special

events create an opportunity to develop awareness of data

that are available from other organizations (see Case 5).

When participating in transportation planning for a special

event, consider how the agencies involved might share

data on a long-term basis.

Use Universities to Help Develop Integrated

Databases

Universities are natural partners for developing data

sharing resources (see Case 6). Their technological

capabilities, their positions outside of the established

institutional framework, and their role in developing a new

generation of practitioners all contribute to their value as

data sharing partners.

Most major universities can be expected to have the

technology and expertise required to develop large data

collection, storage, and distribution systems. Moreover,

Case 4: Puget Sound Region Uses Transit Vehicles

as Speed Probes

The roadway infrastructure that is used to obtain travel

time and speed data is expensive. The University of

Washington Transportation Center (TRAC) funded the

University of Washington Electrical Engineering

Department (UWEE) to use transit vehicles equipped

with automatic vehicle location (AVL) devices as

speed and travel time probes in an effort to gather

such data more efficiently. UWEE’s analysis found

that transit vehicles could be used to successfully

estimate acceleration, speed, and position for specific

locations and times. The ITS research program at UW

is creating a server to place data from the transit

probe virtual sensors into the Washington State DOT

Northwest Region’s operational Traffic Management

System. This work will increase WSDOT traffic

management sensing capabilities without installation

and maintenance costs of roadway loops and

cabinets. Seattle region travelers will benefit from

better arterial traveler information.

For more information: http://www.its.washington.edu/

transit-probes/
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 9

universities that are involved with transportation policy,

engineering, or planning may have already taken steps to

develop regional transportation databases that link existing

data sources in innovative ways.

Universities are typically perceived to be somewhat

independent of local and regional transportation agencies.

This means they may have a unique capacity to build

bridges between agencies. And because universities are

usually removed from day-to-day collection and use of

transportation data, they may be able to offer creative ideas

for new uses of existing data.

Finally, when local universities are focused on developing

integrated transportation data management systems,

students involved with this work will leave the university

with an understanding of the data sources and how they

can be related. This helps train a generation of professionals who see transportation planning and operations across

modal and jurisdictional boundaries in a more integrated

fashion, helping to build a foundation for longer-term

linking of planning and operations.

As a first step toward developing these partnerships,

identify universities in the region that have transportation

research programs. Contact key faculty to discuss what

they are currently doing with regional transportation data

and what capacity they may have to play a more significant

role in developing regional data management products.

Use Operations Data to Develop More Effective

Performance Measures

Operational data is also essential for the development of

many performance measures (see Case 7). For example,

measuring and monitoring travel time reliability has

historically been difficult due to the lack of detailed data.

Reliability can now be developed measured by collecting

loop detector or traffic camera data at frequent intervals

(two minutes or less), processing the data to determine

instantaneous speeds, aggregating speed information to

specified time intervals (20 seconds to 15 minutes), then

storing the data for later analysis. MPOs and DOTs can use

these measures to identify segments with poor travel time

reliability, improve performance measurement, and better

target public investments.

Use Operations Data to Improve Planning

Analysis Tools

Data gathered through transportation systems management activities can be valuable to transportation planners

Case 6: ARTIMIS: The Kentucky-Ohio Planning Data

Partnership

The Advance Regional Traffic Interactive Management

and Information System (ARTIMIS) covers the Greater

Cincinnati area with ITS equipment deployed over 88

miles of highway. ARTIMIS has brought together the

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments (Cincinnati area MPO), the Ohio DOT,

the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, FHWA, the City of

Cincinnati, and the Northern Kentucky Area Planning

Commission. The partnership was forged in order to

create a framework for standardizing and applying

data made available through ITS, choose appropriate

technology, collaborate on archiving decisions, and

control data quality.

Developing the partnership proved challenging,

however. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet noted,

“The cultural barrier is the marriage between planning

and operations necessary to obtain planning data

from a system mostly run by operations personnel.”

Over time and through several meetings, planning and

operations personnel have made significant progress

towards coordination with respect to archiving data. In

pursuit of better data processing techniques, the

University of Kentucky initiated an archived data

management system (ADMS) study with the intent of

establishing a permanent ADMS in Kentucky. One of

the advantages of the University’s involvement is that,

as an outside party, it assists in overcoming barriers

between the planning and operations functional areas.

Contacts:

Robert Bostrom: rob.bostrom@mail.state.ky.us,

Mei Chen: mchen@engruky.edu,

David Gardner: dgardner@dot.state.oh.us

Case 7: Washington State DOT Uses Archived Data

for Improved Performance Measurement

In the late 1990s, Washington State DOT engaged the

University of Washington to use years of archived

traffic data to explore benefits of operational

improvements such as ramp metering and incident

response programs. Based on these historic

performance data, the University built analytical tools

to demonstrate benefits from the proposed operations

investments. The University now provides ongoing

support for operations investments.

Contact Toby Rickman: Rickman@wsdot.wa.gov
2 - 10 | Getting More by Working Together

for improving travel demand models and developing other

analytical tools. While planners have traditionally relied on

average values and national standards for many analytical

tasks (such as volume-delay relationships in the Highway

Capacity Manual), planners may now have access to data

such as the variation in traffic volumes and travel times

throughout the day, crash frequency and location, vehicle

classification counts, and transit rider origin-destination

data (see Case 8). The availability of more detailed operations data can lead to better travel demand forecasting

models, including models that are more sensitive to the

effects of operations strategies.

Use Archived Data to Inform Management and

Operations Planning

While archived data can be useful to transportation

planning agencies, it can also help those responsible for

management and operations to plan internally and coordinate their activities for the most effective results. For

example, by archiving and processing existing data, traffic

management center staff can observe network performance

characteristics on a weekly or monthly basis. This provides

Case 9: Data Sharing Between Agencies in the

Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan Region

In the Portland Metropolitan Area, several agencies

have collected transportation operations data for many

years. The Oregon Department of Transportation

(ODOT) uses loop detectors at ramp meters and

along freeways to measure freeway volumes. The City

of Portland determines traffic volumes from loop

detectors placed within the City. Portland’s transit

agency, Tri-Met, collects extensive transit data using

automatic vehicle location (AVL), global positioning

systems (GPS), and other advanced technologies.

Technological advances have increased data sharing

and planning for future collaboration. For example, a

fiber optic cable connecting Metro (Portland region’s

MPO), ODOT, City of Portland, and Tri-Met facilities has

enabled Metro to receive data from each agency. TriMet’s bus movement data is being used by ODOT, the

City of Portland, and Metro to detect corridor

congestion. In the future, ODOT hopes to use the data

to evaluate the efficiency of traffic signal timing. Metro

has used the operations data in planning and

programming processes to quantify the benefits of ITS

and compare operations projects with traditional

roadway expansion projects.

Contact Dick Walker: walkerd@metro.dst.or.us

a tool to assess how TMC activities are affecting system

performance and also helps operations managers frame

their role within the broader transportation planning

process.

LESSONS LEARNED

Some regions have developed advanced data sharing

arrangements (see Case 9), while other regions are just

beginning to consider opportunities for to share data. Yet,

certain common challenges have emerged regardless of a

region’s data sharing sophistication. This section highlights some of the lessons regions have learned in increasing their capacity to share data across organizational and

jurisdictional boundaries.

Sharing Data Will Focus Attention on Data

Quality Concerns

Sharing data often brings to light inaccuracies. Significant

errors are common in electronically collected data due to

systematic bias or simply from basic equipment malfuncCase 8: Operations Data for Transportation Planning

in Montgomery County, Maryland

In the past, the Maryland-National Capital Park &

Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) maintained an

extensive traffic count program. These traffic counts

provided the foundation for identifying congestion

problems and calibrating the area’s travel demand

models. With reductions in funding, the traffic count

program was scaled back and then eliminated. At the

same time, M-NCPPC was being asked to provide

better information on congestion locations so that

system improvements can be targeted to the most

cost-effective locations.

As a result of this situation, M-NCPPC staff members

determined that they needed to depend on the

county’s advanced travel management system (ATMS)

as their principal source of planning data. The agency

is currently developing systems to make the best

possible use of this operations data. The process has

generated great interest from the planning staff in how

the ATMS functions and has led to more sustained

communication between planning and operations

practitioners in the region.

Contact Rick Hawthorne: Rick.hawthorne@mncppcmc.org
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 11

tion. Errors may be difficult to identify within large isolated

data sets, but often become apparent when the data

overlaps with data from another source or when they are

used for a new purpose. For example, data collected by

induction loops may normally be used to time a signal or

measure service at particular intersections. When these

data are put to use in an effort to develop an integrated

corridor signalization plan or to calculate vehicle speeds, it

may become apparent that equipment has been operating

improperly. Ultimately, these discoveries are valuable

because they lead to more accurate information for

decisionmaking, or at least a better understanding of the

quality of the data that exist. Nonetheless, the discovery of

data quality and consistency problems can cause frustration, and agencies may be deterred from sharing data by

these prospects.

The malfunction of transportation data collection equipment is common, in part because many agencies cannot

allocate resources to properly test and maintain the

equipment. In regions that have experience implementing

ITS solutions, stakeholders are learning the importance of

incorporating rigorous equipment maintenance systems

into their ITS deployment plans. Ensuring reliable transportation data sets has benefits beyond the agencies that rely

on the data for analysis. Public agencies that have tried to

encourage private sector use and distribution of ITS data

are finding that high quality data are important for getting

private sector stakeholders involved.

Privacy and Security Concerns Require

Attention

Some useful data may not be appropriate to share for

reasons related to security, personal privacy, or business

confidentiality. For example, security concerns may require

limited distribution of a strategic emergency response route

or details of the transport of certain dangerous materials.

Freight shippers and carriers may not want to reveal to

their competitors data on their transportation activity.

Personal information about individual travelers must also

be kept private in most cases. Data privacy issues can

become disruptive during the process of establishing data

sharing agreements unless these issues are addressed

forthrightly and early on in the process. Modern database

tools can facilitate specific data accessibility for each user

and prevent access to confidential information. But

significant planning still is needed to organize data

appropriately and to educate data partners about measures

to protect confidentiality.

Begin With the End in Mind

Data sharing can save staff time and resources, but it also

requires staff time and funding to establish procedures and

to maintain data collection devices and networks. For any

given data sharing proposal, it is important to begin with a

list of customer-oriented outcomes that can follow from

data sharing. This will ensure that the effort remains

focused and build support among potential partner

agencies and funding bodies. Benefits may include

reduced resources devoted to surveys and traffic studies,

ability to make use of new tools for faster and more

accurate forecasting procedures, and ability to provide

stronger State, Federal, and public support for transportation investments.

Increase Data Integration and Access Rather

Than Changing Data Ownership

Some transportation management officials have the

perception that sharing data means losing control of data

or that it will lead to loss of decisionmaking authority. This

common perception can prevent a full exploration of data

sharing options, such as pooling data in a central location

versus simply establishing better connections between

existing data sources. Past experience suggests that

agencies should emphasize changing database coordination and access, not changing database ownership.

Key Resources on Data Sharing

z Data Partnerships, Making Connections for

Effective Transportation Planning, TRB

Transportation Research Circular E-C061. http://

trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?ID=2990

z Sharing Information between Public Safety and

Transportation Agencies for Traffic Incident

Management, NCHRP Report 250, 2004. http://

trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=3748

z The Roadway INFOstructure: What? Why? How?,

Transportation Research Circular, November 2003.

http://gulliver.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?

id=2066

z Archived Data User Service (ADUS): An

Addendum to the ITS Program Plan, Version 3,

September 1998. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/

jpodocs/repts_pr/41401!.htm
2 - 12 | Getting More by Working Together

 2.3

BACKGROUND

“What gets measured gets managed.” This often-repeated

maxim recognizes that performance measurement can focus

the attention of decisionmakers, practitioners, and the

public. By focusing attention on the operating performance

of the transportation system, performance measures serve

as an important mechanism for increasing awareness of

management and operations approaches within the

planning process. Performance measures provide a means

to link a transportation agency’s perspective with the

experience of those who use the transportation system.

The act of defining performance measures and tracking

performance often requires communication and coordination between those who manage operations for the

transportation system and those involved with planning

and policy development. Those who manage operations

often have data and expertise on real-time system performance. Planners and policymakers can use this information

in order to set goals, track progress, and make investment

decisions.

What Is Performance Measurement?

Performance measurement is a process of assessing

progress toward achieving predetermined goals, including

information on the efficiency with which resources are

transformed into goods and services, the quality of those

outputs (how well they are delivered to clients and the

extent to which clients are satisfied) and outcomes (the

results of a program activity compared to its intended

purpose), and the effectiveness of government operations

in terms of their specific contributions to program objectives.10

Exhibit 5: Classes of Performance Measures

Performance measures have many functions. They can be

used to:

z Frame what attributes of the transportation system are

most important;

z Provide information on current conditions and trends;

z Evaluate the success of implemented and ongoing

projects;

z Provide a metric for communicating with

decisionmakers and the public about past, current, and

expected future conditions; and

z Serve as criteria for investment decisions in the

transportation planning process.

Performance measures can be grouped into three categories (See Exhibit 5 for examples):

z Input measures – which generally address the supply

of resources;

z Output measures – which address the delivery of

transportation programs, projects, and services; and

z Outcome measures – which address the degree to

which the transportation system meets policy goals

and objectives.

While input and output measures are the easiest to

implement, outcome measures focus on the effects that the

traveling public most cares about – issues such as travel

time and delay, safety, and reliability. Increasingly, MPOs,

transit operators, and DOTs are becoming customerfocused, which increases attention to the development of

10 Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for Highway

Segments and Systems – A Synthesis of Highway Practice, NCHRP

Synthesis 311, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 13

Performance Measures Bring Focus to

Customer-Oriented Outcomes

Performance measurement has traditionally been in the

realm of planners and policy analysts as part of the

planning and investment prioritization process. Metrics

tended to be those that can be modeled and used for longterm investment decisionmaking, such as average travel

times and miles of congested roadways.

Increasingly, transportation agencies are moving toward a

customer-oriented focus and want to develop performance

measures that reflect what is most important to transportation system users (see Case 10). Examples of performance

measures that focus on management and operations

include:

z Total or average hours of incident-related delay

z Consistency of peak and off-peak travel times

z Extent of real-time information provision (e.g., lanemiles or intersections for which information is

available; number of ways to access such information)

z Transit on-time performance

11 Survey of MPOs on Linking Planning and Operations, Association of

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, January 2004.

outcome measures. Still, outcome-oriented performance

measurement is minimally practiced in many regions. A

survey of MPOs asked, “Does your planning process

reflect measurements of actual system performance, like

travel time, reliability, and incidence of non-recurring

congestion?” Of those that responded, 45 percent

answered no.11

How Can Performance Measurement Create

Stronger Linkages Between Planning and

Operations?

Performance measures can help link planning and operations by focusing attention on customer-oriented outcomes and elevating attention to M&O strategies within

the transportation planning process. Increased coordination and collaboration among operations and planning staff

can also help instill operations thinking into policy and

planning decisions.

Outcomes are beneficial for both planners and operators,

as shown in Exhibit 6.

 Key ways in which performance measures strengthen such

collaboration are described below.

Exhibit 6: Benefits of Collaboration for Performance Measures
2 - 14 | Getting More by Working Together

By addressing issues that are important to transportation

system users, performance measures can focus help

attention on management and operations where the

experience of transportation system users is considered in

a more immediate sense.

Case 10: Focusing on the Customer: Washington

State DOT

As part of Washington State DOT’s efforts to define

performance measures for traffic congestion, the

agency moved beyond traditional measures of

average travel speeds to define measures focused on

travel reliability (e.g., though use of a “buffer index”* to

account for non-recurring delay). These measures

were developed through coordination between

planners and operators, and involve ongoing

coordination in tracking performance. Prior to this

effort, non-recurring delay did not receive this

systematic consideration.

WSDOT publishes a quarterly report on the State’s

transportation system titled Measures, Markers, and

Mileposts. Also referred to as the Gray Notebook, the

report highlights the status of current projects, details

where transportation funds are being used, and

updates progress on management and operations

measures such as incident clearance time and travel

information provision. Washington State DOT has

found the customer-oriented performance measures

to be very effective in drawing attention to the benefits

associated with its transportation investments and in

building credibility for the agency.

According to a Washington State DOT staff person:

“The Secretary felt that by building the State DOT’s

accountability, the agency could attract more funding.

The Secretary focused on making the case that

WSDOT is on top of things. The best way to do that was

through operations data because it gets at aspects of

the system that the public cares about.”

Contact Toby Rickman: Rickman@wsdot.wa.gov

* The Buffer Index expresses the amount of extra time

a traveler must allot for each trip in order to be on time

95 percent of the time. As an index, this measure is

useful for comparisons regardless of travel time and

trip distance. The measure can also be presented in

actual minutes of extra time required in cases where

one wishes to evaluate reliability for a particular trip.

Typically, the index is calculated for each road

segment, and a weighted average is calculated using

vehicle-miles of travel as the weighting factor.

Thus, the process of developing and implementing

effective performance measures can motivate collaboration

between transportation operations and planning staffs.

Moreover, advances in ITS and real-time monitoring of

traffic mean that operators have access to an incredible

depth of traffic data that can be used to measure more

accurately the real traffic conditions experienced by users.

This information brings to light a range of issues, such as

incident-related delay and reliability, which are important

customer issues but have not traditionally been included

as performance measures.

Performance Measures Elevate the Status of

M&O Approaches

Efforts to focus on system performance often result in

better recognition of the value associated with M&O

approaches. Data on system performance can highlight the

value of investments in programs that minimize incidentrelated delays, provide information on real-time travel

conditions, and improve emergency response times by

showing how they can improve transportation system

reliability and reduce travel times for customers. The limited

number of tools to quantify the benefits of operational

strategies is often noted as a constraint in bringing greater

attention to M&O strategies. However, there is a growing

number of tools on the market today to predict the effects

of operational strategies on system performance. (See

Exhibit 7 for examples of several tools.) Some agencies also

have found success in measuring performance before and

after implementation of operations-oriented projects.

Given increased traffic congestion, limited road space, and

funding constraints, public decisionmakers in many areas

recognize the limitations associated with constructing new

transportation infrastructure to meet regional transportation goals. Use of performance measures and measurement

of the benefits of M&O strategies, can help these

decisionmakers to appreciate the value of M&O approaches toward meeting both short-term and long-term

goals (see Case 11).

Performance Measures Help Inform Policy

Decisions

By focusing attention on system characteristics that are

important to the traveling public, performance measures

can help planners focus on the day-to-day experience of

transportation system users. This provides important

balance in settings where planners have been exclusively

focused on very long-term development of the network.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 15

With greater focus on the day-to-day characteristics of the

system, the issues faced by operators such as incident

response, work zone management, and provision of traveler

information take on greater importance. As a consequence,

mid- and long-term planning will reflect greater consideration of management and operations planning and investCase 11: Elevating M&O Strategies: North Central

Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

At NCTCOG, the MPO for the Dallas-Fort Worth region,

data on system performance were used in developing

an annual performance report to the MPO board (e.g.,

region-wide lane-miles of congested roadway, transit

on-time performance). The performance report

presented a forthright statement to local officials

about the significant transportation, air quality, and

funding constraints facing the region. The

performance report helped local officials appreciate

the important place of M&O strategies in the regional

transportation vision.

Measurement of performance in terms of incidentbased delay also yielded positive impacts in the

planning process in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.

When estimating vehicle emissions many regions

that struggle with air quality issues do not consider

the delay (and associated pollution) caused by

incidents. As a result, incident response programs

are undervalued. In response to this situation,

NCTCOG estimates the contribution of incident delay

to regional emissions. As a result, the MPO is able to

take credit in its air quality conformity analysis for

emissions reductions resulting from a successful

incident response program.

Contact Natalie Bettger: nbettger@nctcog.org

Exhibit 7: Sample Tools for Measuring Performance

of M&O Strategies

IDAS (ITS Deployment Analysis System) – a sketch

planning approach focused on helping practitioners

with specific ITS investment choices. IDAS draws on

a database of a diverse set of ITS project evaluations

in order to provide comparative costs and benefits

over a range of possible ITS alternatives.

Comparisons may be less precise than other

methods because they do not account for specific

local conditions, but the tool is relatively simple to

operate and has low data requirements. More

information on IDAS can be found at: http://

www.camsys.com/idas03.htm

PRUEVIIN (Process for Regional Understanding and

Evaluation of Integrated ITS Networks) – an analysis

methodology containing techniques, programs, and

data sources designed to assess the benefits of

several integrated ITS services at the corridor level.

Once set up, PRUEVIIN can be used repeatedly by

both planners and operations personnel to explore

optimal system arrangements, accounting for daily

variability in travel demand, weather, and incidents.

PRUEVIIN has modest data requirements but

requires significant effort to operate. An application of

PRUEVIIN can be found at: http://

www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//

13605.html

DYNASMART-P – a software tool developed for traffic

operations planning applications under Federal

Highway Administration’s Dynamic Traffic Assignment

(DTA) research program. DYNASMART-P combines

(1) dynamic network assignment models, used

primarily in conjunction with demand forecasting

procedures for planning applications, and (2) traffic

simulation models, used primarily for traffic

operations studies. DYNASMART-P overcomes the

limitations of traditional static assignment and

simulation models by using advanced traffic

modeling techniques to capture the dynamics of

congestion formation and dissipation associated with

time-varying demands and network conditions.

Potential applications include:

z Providing dynamic traffic assignment methods for

traditional transportation planning analyses.

z Assessing impacts of ITS and non-ITS

technologies on the transportation network in the

planning process.

z Assessing impacts of different traffic operation

and control strategies.

z Supporting decisionmaking for work zone

planning and traffic management.

z Evaluating incident management strategies.

z Evaluating congestion pricing schemes that

vary with location, time, and prevailing roadway

conditions.

DYNASMART-P is available from McTrans Software

Center: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/. For further

information contact Henry Lieu at FHWA,

Henry.Lieu@fhwa.dot.gov.
2 - 16 | Getting More by Working Together

ment needs. Greater understanding of operations issues by

planning staff can also help in setting transportation

policies.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

There are a number of opportunities to use performance

measurement to build stronger linkages between planning

and operations. Following are some ways to take advantage of performance measures in this way.

Involve Operations Managers in the Process of

Developing Performance Measures

Agencies responsible for major investment decisions often

take the lead in developing performance measures.

However, it is critical that this process involve practitioners

who are concerned primarily with day-to-day operation of

the transportation system. The operator’s perspective

relates closely to near-term concerns of the traveling

public. Though operations practitioners have clear

expertise to contribute the performance measure development, a focused effort may be required to ensure that they

understand the importance of their involvement in the

process and the importance of performance measures being

supportive of regional goals.

Incorporate Operational Performance Measures

Into Strategic and Long-Range Transportation

Plan (LRTP)

Performance measures in the LRTP should be driven by the

goals and objectives of the plan, which in turn, should

reflect the region’s vision for its transportation system.

Customers (including the general public, freight shippers,

and others) are increasingly concerned about operational

performance of the transportation system, including the

reliability of the system and the availability of information

about travel conditions that can inform the best travel time,

mode, and route (see Case 12).

Incorporating operational performance measures into the

LRTP provides an avenue for operators and customers

(through public involvement) to get involved in the

planning process. It can provide better information to

customers and stakeholders on the progress being made

toward desired goals and objectives, and can, therefore,

serve to make long-range plans more real to the public.

Moreover, incorporating performance measures helps to

ensure that regional transportation system management

and operations programs receive adequate attention in

prioritization of projects for funding.

Use Operations Data for Tracking Performance

in Annual or Quarterly Reports

Periodic performance reports provide an excellent mechanism to make planning more relevant to everyday experience. A number of MPOs, transit operators, and State

DOTs use performance reports to inform decisionmakers

about the trends in system performance.

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

z First, they provide a realistic view of system

performance improvements achievable through

management and operations investments.

z Second, they provide operations managers with

guideposts and goals that provide some measure of

Case 12: Incorporation into Strategic Plans:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Caltrans developed performance measures into the

agency’s strategic plan. The agency links

transportation system performance measurement to

informed decisionmaking by focusing on measures

that reflect the role that the transportation system

plays in achieving broader State objectives. The

measures are focused on outcomes and address

system-level characteristics rather than specific

projects. Some of the measures oriented toward

systems management and operations include:

z Number of corridors with reasonable alternatives

during closures, and

z Hours of both recurring and non-recurring delay

by mode.

Caltrans seeks to use the measures to improve

partnerships with stakeholders and to improve

linkages with non-transportation issues (such as

economic development and shifting demographics).

The agency has developed an operations-oriented

strategy to provide a framework for coordinating

institutional linkages and partnerships that are

necessary for successful systems management.

Contact Joan Sollenberger:

joan_sollenberger@dot.ca.gov
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 17

how operations programs are contributing to the longterm goals of the system.

z Third, they support policy that is realistic about

system constraints and that supports the role of

management and operations in maintaining acceptable

transportation performance.

Agencies that report performance measures in a quarterly

or annual performance report encourage a sustained

communications link between planning and operations

staffs. Even a very simple report providing one or two

performance measures can have a positive effect in

broadening the discussion over investment priorities.

There are many cases where a particular activity or project

requires temporary coordination or exchange between

planners and operators, but sustaining such communication is critical for changing the everyday perspective of

these departments to routinely consider operations tools

within the planning process. Routine, sustained, performance reporting is, therefore, particularly valuable (see

Case 13).

Use Performance Measures to Motivate Data

and Tool Development

Given the rapid evolution of automated travel data collection technology, it is helpful to discuss performance

measures beyond those that are supported by current

capabilities. As one element of a performance measurement

effort, transportation agencies within a region may jointly

wish to define the most appropriate measures and associated data needs, without allowing current resources to limit

the discussion. This can be used to establish goals for

data collection and measurement and to provide some

focus in reviewing the stream of evolving transportation

information technologies.

LESSONS LEARNED

The very characteristics that make performance measurement a useful linkage between planning and operations can

also make performance measurement a complex challenge.

The process often demands new data and tools and may

require new levels of coordination between agencies or

departments. The following lessons have emerged from

agencies that have faced such challenges.

Begin With Simple Output Measures

Some regions focus on output measures, which are often

simpler than outcome measures. For example, the Maricopa

Association of Governments performance measures

include the number of signals coordinated and the percentage of cross-border signals coordinated between cities.

While not specifically related to the customer, such

measures can still succeed in increasing policy and

investment focus on the region’s M&O progress. Output

measures are particularly effective where there is already

some appreciation among local decisionmakers for the

value of M&O solutions. Using simpler output performance reporting can inspire the attention and collaboration

necessary to design measures that address the most

important aspects of the system performance.

Do Not Expect a Clean and Simple Process

Defining performance measures takes time and may not

yield immediate, refined outputs. This is particularly the

case when the process is working to attract a broader

audience. When new stakeholders and perspectives are

drawn to participate, the process becomes more complex;

Case 13: Annual Performance Reporting in the

Albuquerque Region

The Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG),

the MPO for the Albuquerque metropolitan area,

demonstrates the region’s transportation system

performance through an annual publication called

Local Motion. This performance information is

available to the public on MRCOG’s Web site and is

intended to educate the public, the staff of local

governments, and elected officials. Local Motion

summarizes continuously collected traffic count data

on freeways, arterials, and collector streets. Every

three years, Local Motion includes a report card for

the area’s transportation system to assist in

developing the long-range Metropolitan

Transportation Plan. The report card rates the system

based on criteria that relate to management and

operations such as emergency vehicle response

time, congestion levels, and miles of roadway with

ITS coverage. As a result of these performance

reports, transportation officials and the public are

able to evaluate the success of existing programs

and target future projects accordingly.

Contact Sheila ter Bruggen: sterbruggen@mrcognm.gov
2 - 18 | Getting More by Working Together

deciding on concrete characteristics to measure raises

difficult questions about the fundamental objectives

served by the transportation network. Agencies should

approach performance measurement with awareness that

the effort will be a challenge. Initial performance measures

may not be perfect, but initial steps are apt to attract

greater interest and advance the effort.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 19

2.4

BACKGROUND

First required in ISTEA, congestion management systems

(CMS) emphasize the role of management strategies to

address traffic congestion within the regional transportation planning process. Because the CMS is a Federal

metropolitan planning requirement with a specific policy

goal of emphasizing systems management and operations,

it can serve as a strong link between planning and operations.

What Is a Congestion Management System?

A CMS presents a systematic process for managing traffic

congestion and provides information on transportation

system performance. A CMS should include alternative

strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the

mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet State and

local needs.12 A CMS can take a variety of forms. At the

core, a CMS should include system for data collection and

performance monitoring, a range of strategies for addressing congestion, performance measures or criteria for

identifying when action is needed, and a system for

prioritizing which congestion management strategies would

be most effective (see Exhibit 8).

A CMS is required in metropolitan areas with population

exceeding 200,000, known as Transportation Management

Areas (TMAs). In TMAs designated as ozone or carbon

monoxide non-attainment areas, the CMS takes on a greater

significance. Federal guidelines prohibit projects that

increase capacity for single occupant vehicles unless the

project comes from a CMS.13 Federal requirements also

state that in all TMAs, the CMS shall be developed and

implemented as part of the metropolitan planning process.

How Can a CMS Create Stronger Linkages

Between Planning and Operations?

The CMS process is one of the few federally defined

components of the metropolitan planning process that

consistently involve transportation operations. A CMS can

create stronger linkages between planning and operations

by helping to raise awareness among the planning community of the efficiencies that operational strategies contribute and by exposing operations managers to regional

planning. A CMS can be an integral component of the

planning and programming process when CMS performance measures and strategy evaluations are fully utilized

in the development of the long-range plan and TIP. These

linkages are described below.

A CMS Can Expose MPOs to a Broader Range

of Strategies for Addressing Congestion

Federal regulations require that through the CMS, planners

give serious consideration to strategies that have a

demonstrable impact on congestion and that a CMS

include an assessment of the cost effectiveness of

strategies. A CMS must consider strategies that “improve

existing transportation system efficiency.” Thus, the CMS

development process highlights opportunities to address

congestion using cost-effective operations strategies that

might otherwise be overlooked.

In cases where the CMS considers a broad range of

strategies, the planning staff involved in CMS development is exposed to a diverse set of management and

operations solutions. For example, some CMSs include

operations strategies that address non-recurring congestion. These types of strategies are more likely to be

included in a transportation plan when they are put forth as

part of the CMS process.

Exhibit 8: A CMS Must Do the Following

z Measure multimodal transportation system

performance

z Identify the causes of congestion

z Assess alternative actions

z Implement cost-effective actions

z Evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions

12 Federal Register, Part III, FHWA, FTA, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Management and Monitoring Systems, Section 500.109.

13 Safety improvements and the elimination of bottlenecks are exceptions

to this restriction.
2 - 20 | Getting More by Working Together

A CMS Puts Performance Measures Into

Practice

A large part of the CMS process involves the development

and implementation of performance measures (see Case 14).

In fact, every CMS is required to use performance measures to evaluate congestion mitigation strategies.14 As

discussed in the performance measures subsection above

(Section 2.3), performance measures can help link planning

and operations by focusing attention on customer-oriented

outcomes and elevating attention to operations strategies

within the transportation planning process. Because the

development of a CMS entails a multi-agency, public

process, the CMS performance measures are regionally

endorsed, meaning that a broad range of stakeholders have

a say in them. When the process successfully engages a

diverse set of stakeholders, it can function as an educational tool, bringing attention to performance measurement

and to operations strategies that can efficiently address

regional mobility concerns.

14 In this regard, many of the opportunities to link planning and operations

described in Section 2.3 (Performance Measurement) exist within the CMS

process.

Case 14: Wilmington, Delaware, CMS Considers

System Impacts of Forecasted Growth

Representatives from a diverse group of Federal,

State, county, and city agencies developed the 2003

CMS for the Wilmington Area Planning Council

(WILMAPCO). WILMAPCO’s CMS takes a systems

approach to addressing congestion by carefully

considering the regional effects of local solutions

before making recommendations. As an integral

part of the WILMAPCO planning process, the CMS

begins by assessing the performance of the system

with the following metrics: volume/capacity,

intersection level of service, percent of posted

speed, and transit utilization. These metrics are

evaluated for four different land-use/growth

scenarios developed through the regional planning

process. The CMS evaluates strategies for

addressing congestion, with priority given to

demand management, then roadway operations,

and finally capacity additions. The system impacts

from projected economic, population, and

employment growth is also used to prioritize

mitigation strategies. Recommendations are then

evaluated and prioritized in the region’s long-range

transportation plan. The most recent WILMAPCO

CMS can be found at http://www.wilmapco.org/cms/

index.htm

Contact Dan Blevins: dblevins@wilmapco.org

A CMS Can Promote a System-level Approach

by Operations Managers

While the CMS can expose planners to new operations

strategies, it also can help operations managers view

problems at the regional, cross-jurisdictional systems level.

When a CMS is explicitly driven by regional goals and

objectives, and when operations managers are involved in

the CMS development and implementation, it affords an

opportunity for operations managers to recognize how

their transportation strategies support the underlying

objectives of the region’s transportation planning and

programming. In addition, the CMS allows operation

managers to see their congestion mitigation strategies on

the table along with a diverse range of alternative strategies. This presents an opportunity for interjurisdictional

discussions about which strategies work in coordination.

In some cases, a planning agency will specifically prioritize

coordination between different congestion mitigation

strategies, thus providing an incentive within the CMS for

operations staffs to work together.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Regions have a number of opportunities to use the CMS to

advance planning and operations coordination. Following

are several opportunities.

Involve Operations Managers in CMS

Development

Although the CMS is the responsibility of the MPO, the

expertise of transportation operations managers is vital to

developing and evaluating congestion mitigation strategies. Because the CMS typically considers a diverse set of

strategies, it has the potential to attract a wide range of

stakeholders. A concerted effort to engage operations

managers in CMS development and implementation is likely

to be rewarded, not only by a more effective CMS, but also

by the information sharing that occurs during CMS

development.

Some actions may help draw additional stakeholders to the

CMS process:

z Define clear roles for operating agencies. Examples of

roles for operations practitioners include

brainstorming operations oriented congestion

mitigation strategies, identifying congestion data

sources and measurement techniques, developing
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 21

Case 15: Approaches to Integrating CMS into

Planning

MetroPlan (Orlando, FL) CMS Process Mapped into

the Regional Planning Process

Contact David Grovdahl:

dgrovdahl@metroplanorlando.com

Salt Lake City Region - Using the CMS to Promote a

Balanced Transportation Program

The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), the

MPO for the Salt Lake City area, uses its CMS as a

tool to assist in the development of the Long-Range

Transportation Plan and the TIP. First, it determines

levels and locations of congestion using modeled

peak-period delay, GPS speed data, and archived

field data. Second, specific locations prone to

congestion are addressed directly with proposals of

transportation system management (TSM) and travel

demand management (TDM) solutions that compete

for funds. Third, sponsors of capacity-increasing

projects receive guidance from WFRC on which TDM

and TSM strategies would be effective for their

projects. Finally, the CMS effects the project selection

process by using models to identify areas most likely

to experience future congestion. Results are given to

the Long Range Planning Team for consideration in

the plan. As part of its ongoing CMS analysis, WFRC

evaluates the effectiveness of congestion relief

strategies by collecting “before and after” data on

implemented projects.

Contact Kip Billings: kbillings@wfrc.org

balanced performance measures, and identifying

approaches to strategy implementation.

z Summarize CMS actions that have been implemented

to date. This can help stakeholders to see that the

prioritization of projects and strategies through the

CMS process actually influences funding and

implementation priorities. To improve this

understanding, consider identifying specific strategies

that have been implemented because of their

identification and performance within the CMS

process.

z Propose CMS strategies for non-recurring delay. A

CMS should include a full range of operations

strategies, including strategies that seek to reduce

recurring and non-recurring delay. Raise the issue of

non-recurring delay with the CMS team and identify

currently listed and new strategies to reduce this

source of congestion. Some examples of strategies to

reduce non-recurring delay include incident response

programs, work zone management strategies, and

event coordination.

Integrate the CMS Into the Planning Process

The CMS can best link planning and operations when it is

explicitly integrated into the development of regional

planning and programming documents, including the longrange plan, the TIP, and the unified planning work program

(see Case 15). Making this integration transparent and

consistent will help to ensure that the CMS process

attracts a range of stakeholders and serves as a focus for

planning and operations collaboration. One way to link the

long-range plan with the CMS is to require that the

performance measures used in the CMS evaluation also be

used to evaluate the performance of the long-range plan.

The CMS can be linked to the TIP by prioritizing projects,

in part, based on their performance in the CMS evaluation

process.

Ideally, a CMS involves transparent performance measures

that have been developed through regional consensus and

that reflect regional objectives. If the CMS applies these

performance measures accurately and consistently, it

would be appropriate to use the CMS directly in determining regional funding priorities.

Including CMS strategies within the MPO’s annual Unified

Planning Work Program (UPWP) can be an effective way to

promote planning and operations collaboration. The UPWP

defines the MPO’s short-term (1–2 year) planning priorities

within a metropolitan planning area, and involves a time
2 - 22 | Getting More by Working Together

frame that is more familiar to those involved in management

and operations activities. Many of the strategies discussed

in a typical CMS are well suited to short-term MPO

programmatic reporting. Similarly, strategies commonly

addressed within the UPWP, such as TDM programs and

ongoing regional management and operations programs,

are appropriate for inclusion in a CMS.

Use the CMS to Build a System for Rapid

Response to Congestion Issues

In addition to linking with longer term planning goals and

forecasts, a CMS can be designed to swiftly address smallscale congestion problems that threaten the efficiency of

the regional transportation network (see Case 16).

Prioritization criteria and funding set–asides can be

established to support small-scale projects and programs

that do not justify a larger corridor analysis. By building

the capacity of the regional planning agency to deliver

immediate solutions, the planning agency can become more

responsive to the needs of the traveling public and more

relevant to the transportation management and operations

community.

LESSONS LEARNED

Since the passage of ISTEA in 1991, regions have been

involved with the CMS process, and have learned a great

deal about the benefits and the challenges of building and

maintaining a comprehensive CMS. This section highlights

a few of the lessons that most closely relate to planning

and operations coordination.

CMSs Can Play a Larger Role in Integrating

Planning and Operations

In some regions, the CMS functions primarily as a routine

analysis and data collection process, isolated from most

planning and programming and from ongoing management

and operations efforts. Such regions could be capitalizing

on an opportunity to highlight and coordinate operations

strategies. The CMS can play a more active role in the

regional planning and programming process if it is used to

analyze and prioritize regional projects. This will also help

to attract stakeholders to the CMS process.

For several reasons, the CMS process has been

marginalized in some regions. However, many of these

challenges can be overcome. For example, while intensive

data collection activities have turned some stakeholders

away from the CMS process, the effort required to collect

data relating to congestion has become easier with

ongoing implementation of ITS technologies, and in some

cases, data are actively collected to support advanced

traveler information systems. In reality, the CMS is a

particularly useful tool to engage diverse practitioners

because it considers multiple modes with congestion

mitigation in mind. The CMS should be promoted as a

process to encourage focused, performance-based

multimodalism.

If policy weight is given to the CMS project prioritization

process, other challenges may arise due to resistance from

stakeholders who see the possibility of losing current

levels of support. While this is a significant challenge, the

debate that it inspires is an opportunity to engage stakeholders in a conversation about regional performance

measures and how they fit into congestion management

strategy investments.

Comparison of Operations Strategies With

Other Strategies Presents Challenges

The quest for rigorous evaluation criteria is a significant

challenge to the CMS process. Some CMS projects do not

lend themselves to quantitative analysis of their effectiveness. Other CMS projects can be quantified, but not in a

way that facilitates comparison with other types of

strategies. For example, comparing the effectiveness of

demand management strategies with system management

strategies may present problems because they differ in

their immediate objectives.

A diverse set of analysis tools is an important component

of a successful CMS (see Case 17). In some cases, specific

Case 16: The Miami Region CMS Can Respond to

Short-Term Transportation Needs

Miami’s RUSH (Resourceful Use of Streets and

Highways) addresses congestion bottlenecks that do

not justify a full corridor study. Projects that cost less

than $500,000 and that are determined to have

insignificant environmental impacts are prioritized by

member agencies. A lump sum of TIP money is set

aside for projects that will be selected through the

RUSH process, allowing for swift implementation of

the designated improvements.

Contact Jesus Guerra: guerraj@miamidade.gov
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 23

tools and methods will be needed to evaluate strategies.

Many regions are seeking tools that can capture the effects

of regional management and operations strategies. Regions

that have invested in the development of such tools and

methods have found benefits through a more versatile

CMS process.

Case 17: New York City Region’s Tools for

Management and Operations in the CMS

The New York City Region MPO uses the Post

Processor for Congestion Management Systems

(PPCMS) as a methodology for predicting the impacts

of incidents on freeways. PPCMS uses the estimation

of delay as a result of freeway incidents in

combination with analysis of incident data obtained

from eight U.S. metropolitan areas as the basis for its

calculations. This tool is focused exclusively on

accounting for non-recurring delay.

Contact Aizaz Ahmed: aahmed@dot.state.ny.us

Key Resources on Congestion Management

Systems

z FHWA Resource Center CMS Course: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/

courses_mp.htm#scms

z FHWA Peer Exchange on the CMS for the Albany,

NY, region: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Peer/

Albany/albany_peer.htm

z CMS for the Wilmington, DE, region: http://

www.wilmapco.org/cms/

z CMS for the Salt Lake City, UT, region: http://

www.wfrc.org/programs/cm.htm
2 - 24 | Getting More by Working Together

2.5

BACKGROUND

In developing strategies to fund M&O activities, regions

have an opportunity to promote new relationships and

arrangements that support broad regional systems

management perspective and better link operations with

regional planning. For example, a planning and programming process that places a high priority on interjurisdictional coordination can encourage normally independent practitioners to collaborate and identify opportunities

for shared equipment and facilities. Funding strategies can

also be used to help ensure implementation of M&O

objectives developed through the planning process or to

attract new operations stakeholders to planning forums.

This section discusses strategies that use funding and

resource sharing to improve coordination between

planning and operations.

What Is Funding and Resource Sharing?

Funding and resource sharing refers to a variety of

arrangements by which transportation and other operating

agencies collaborate to submit funding requests, develop

pooled funding mechanisms, or share equipment and

facilities. As a linkage mechanism, this also refers to efforts

to coordinate between visions of transportation systems

management that are discussed in plans and the regional

funding policies and commitments that are needed to make

those visions a reality.

What Are the Sources of Funds for Management

and Operations Efforts?

A number of funding sources can support management and

operations activities and equipment. In practice, however,

funding for system management and operations must often

rely on the discretionary budgets of individual jurisdictions

and/or agencies.

Federal policies allow several funding sources to be used

for regional systems management and operations programs. In TEA-21, the Federal-aid Highway Program

continued eligibility for Federal funding of operating costs

for traffic monitoring, management, and control systems.

Such operating costs can include both the establishment

and continuous operation of management systems such as

integrated traffic control systems, incident management

programs, and traffic control centers.

For projects located in air quality non-attainment and

maintenance areas, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds may be used for

activities that demonstrate a reduction in traffic delay or

emissions. CMAQ can support an individual M&O

program for up to 3 years.15 Examples of projects eligible

for CMAQ funds include the implementation of ITS

strategies, enhanced signalization projects, and intersection improvements.

Although there are greater Federal funding opportunities

for management and operations than many regions

perceive, the bulk of funds typically must come from States

and localities. State and local funding processes make it

difficult to fully integrate planning and operations by

creating separate categories of funds for capital and

operations expenses.

Degrees of Funding and Resource Coordination

The structure of resource sharing arrangements may

evolve over time in response to changing regional needs

and changing relationships between agencies. Initially,

sharing may be limited to supplying staff, equipment, or

facilities in support of regional meetings or other regional

collaboration activities. If appropriate, participating public

and private organizations may develop more formal sharing

arrangements, including pooling of funds and other

resources to sustain cooperative regional efforts. In some

regions, agencies may provide funding to support a

regional entity charged with leading regional collaboration

or an entity that owns and operates regional transportation

system assets. Exhibit 9 illustrates this range of resource

strategies.

15 Eligibility requirements for CMAQ are listed in 23 U.S.C. 149(b).
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 25

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

All regions lack sufficient funds to implement the full

spectrum of transportation projects and programs desired

by the region. Sometimes, competition for resources

between and within agencies can hinder regional coordination and prevent the region from achieving the full benefits

of system-wide M&O strategies. This section discusses

some approaches to funding and resource sharing that can

help to build bridges between planning and operations

practitioners.

Link Funding to Planning Goals and Objectives

Increasingly, local and regional transportation plans

include language supporting improved transportation

systems management, promoting more efficient use of

existing infrastructure, and adopting a more customeroriented approach to transportation service provision. Yet

the funding and staff resources to support the implementation of such planning objectives are often lacking. For

example, a plan might state that regional coordination to

maximize efficiency of the existing system is a top priority,

but no funding is then allocated toward regional incident

management programs, corridor management strategies, or

regional traveler information systems.

Several approaches have been used to more closely link

funding to operations goals. One approach is to have

regional stakeholders determine minimum budget requirements to support long-range transportation plan objectives

in each program area (see Case 18).16 Based on these

minimum requirements and total funding availability, each

program area is assigned a target budget. Projects slated to

receive new funding are then prioritized based on whether

the target has been met for each proposed project’s

program area. For example, if new roadway construction is

targeted to receive 40 percent of the transportation budget

and the current TIP devotes 50 percent of its funding to

this category, then other program categories (such as

M&O) would receive higher priority when selecting

projects in a new TIP.

Some regions employ a project prioritization process that

deliberately assigns more weight to projects that support

regional management and operations objectives, as

outlined in the region’s long-range plan. This approach

encourages planners and operators to work together when

assessing the cost-effectiveness of management and

operations strategies. In these cases, the likelihood that

management and operations programs receive significant

funds depends on how M&O criteria are weighted relative

to other prioritization criteria. At a minimum, this approach

will assist stakeholders in clearly articulating where M&O

investments should be positioned amongst the region’s

competing transportation needs.

16 Program areas include, for example, ITS, bicycle and pedestrian

systems, transit programs, and roadway construction.

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

Exhibit 9: Range of Resource Strategies
2 - 26 | Getting More by Working Together

Develop Innovative Operations Funding

Sources

New funding mechanisms can help to create bridges

between planners and operations managers. One strategy

is to fund certain M&O efforts as part of the initial capital

investment for a project (e.g., ITS equipment that enhances

corridor management activities, see Case 19). Planners and

operators increasingly see that funds for management and

operations associated with a particular project or corridor

are best secured in coordination allocations for major new

construction or rehabilitation. Working together, planners

and operators can make the case that proper management

of new transportation facilities will maximize the long-term

benefits of the initial investment. Some areas have required

consideration of M&O by developing a checklist for

project sponsors.

In the search for funding for system operations, some

regions have turned to land developers. The practice of

requiring developers to fund transportation improvements

as a way to mitigate the transportation impacts of their

projects is well established, but relying on this as a source

of management and operations improvements is relatively

new (see Case 20). Developer concessions can provide an

important source of revenue, and can also encourage more

detailed planning for management and operations programs. In order to require developer-funded improvements,

local governments typically must show how the management strategies can mitigate transportation impacts, such

Case 19: Hampton Roads Region Includes ITS in

Long-Range Investment Planning

The Hampton Roads region incorporated ITS into the

MPO’s project selection process for regional Surface

Transportation Program and CMAQ funding

programs. ITS projects are scored for their capacity to

support planning objectives. As a result, several ITS

plans and projects have been funded through this

process, including a regional roadway information

system, a centralized traveler information system,

signal system upgrades, and implementation of the

local Smart Traffic Centers. ITS is also a distinct

element of the MPO’s long-range plan. The current

draft of the region’s 2026 Plan includes long-range

investments for future ITS projects.

Contact Camelia Ravanbakht: cravan@hrpdc.org

Case 18: Albany New York’s Funding Prioritization

Process

The Capital District Transportation Commission

(CDTC) is the MPO for the Albany, NY, metropolitan

area. CDTC brought together a wide range of

stakeholders from 1993 to 1997 to develop a new

approach to long-term planning. This effort involved

workshops, conferences, nine topical task forces,

and a yearlong public review. The product was a

more integrated approach to long-term planning and

new prioritization procedures that acknowledge the

importance of a variety of transportation options from

management and operations strategies to TDM to

smart growth.

One critical outcome of this long-range planning

process was a new method for funding allocation. It

defined the distribution of all regional funds among

17 project categories, consistent with the proportions

agreed upon through the planning process. Projects

in a given category could not be added to a new TIP if

the current TIP projects exceeded the designated

funding percentage for that category. This process

has worked to balance the distribution of funds in a

way that is more consistent with the plan’s stated

priorities. For example, road construction projects

have consistently used more than their target share

of regional dollars because of a backlog of TIP

projects in this category. Consequently, no new

roadway construction projects have been added to

the TIP, allowing other classes of projects (such as

ITS) to come closer to their target share of regional

funds.

Contact John Poorman: jpoorman@cdtcmpo.org

Case 20: Developers Fund Operations in

Montgomery County

In Montgomery County, Maryland, an impact fee for

large developments has replaced the use of some

discretionary transportation funds. This new funding

source has helped to promote coordination between

planning and operations. The county’s public works

department is using these impact fees to fund

operations equipment, such as monitoring cameras

and signal timing improvements. In one instance, a

major development funded an electronic message

sign that indicates when transit parking is filled at

more central rail stations, encouraging vehicles to

use station parking lots located further from the

region’s core.

Contact Emil Wolanin:

emil.wolanin@montgomerycountymd.gov
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 27

as improvements to traffic flow in a particular corridor. This

funding opportunity may also prompt local governments to

more thoroughly identify management and operations

needs so that individual funding opportunities can work

together to support an integrated operations approach.

This is critical, since operations must typically be applied

on a system rather than spot location basis.

Planning and operations coordination can also be strengthened when transportation management strategies are

viewed as a potential source of transportation dollars.

Pricing mechanisms are an effective tool for managing

transportation demand and achieving more efficient use of

existing facilities. Moreover, new technologies, such as

electronic toll collection, can enable greater use of pricing

while reducing collection costs. They can also serve to

generate funds for both management programs and new

infrastructure. As such, these transportation management

strategies naturally capture the interest of planners and

decisionmakers, opening the window for a broader

discussion between planners and operations managers.

As a first step toward incorporating some of the funding

strategies such as those discussed above, examine regional

planning documents for goals or objectives that support

regional systems management activities. Consider how

such objectives are supported with funding, performance

measures, or decision criteria in the plan. Develop recommendations for future plan updates that could promote

funding for management and operations objectives, such

as project prioritization criteria that favor M&O strategies

or multi-jurisdictional operations initiatives.

Build on Emergency Response Needs to Create

Regional Momentum for Collaboration

The recent focus on improving emergency preparedness

and response has heightened the need for coordination

between planning and operations. Increased transportation

resources are available to conduct emergency response

exercises and planning. Explore these funding sources as

well as opportunities to use existing emergency management activity to initiate regional interagency collaboration.

Prioritize Multi-Jurisdiction Funding Requests

A number of MPOs give preference to collaborative

funding requests in the project prioritization process (see

Case 21). This encourages funding requests for ITS and

other systems management initiatives that are coordinated

between organizations and jointly submitted by different

agencies and jurisdictions. Inter-jurisdictional collaboration

is frequently a stated objective or strategy in regional

transportation plans, so preference for these funding

requests is well justified. Such coordination can help to

promote a regional systems management approach.

Integrate Capital Investments and M&O Within

a Single Budget Process

State and regional management and operations activities

are often lumped under broad operations budget categories. These operations categories are usually assessed

through a process that is separate from the capital investments planning and budget process. Where this is the

case, MPOs might consider ways of incorporating specific

management and operations activities as individual budget

items within the capital investments budget.

Along the same lines, transportation agencies may

consider addressing management and operations costs

associated with a particular project as part of the capital

investment decisionmaking process. This can link planning

and operations by explicitly addressing M&O investments

that would be required to optimally integrate the proposed

project. This would provide a stronger motivation to

include operators in the discussion of the M&O costs

associated with capital investments. (NOTE: This discussion does not imply that routine operating costs would be

supported with Federal funds.)

Case 21: Salt Lake City Region Encourages Agency

Cooperation through ITS

In the Salt Lake Region, the MPO has programmed

CMAQ funds for ITS and traffic management

activities. The Utah DOT, the Utah Transit Authority,

and local cities and counties then work together to

agree on projects to use these funds, both for capital

improvements and for operating assistance. This

cooperation has led to the development of one traffic

management system that all play a role in and to

increased interagency management and operations

coordination.

Contact Doug Hattery: dhattery@wfrc.org
2 - 28 | Getting More by Working Together

Share Office Facilities

Sharing office facilities inspires enhanced collaboration. In

some cases, office sharing is arranged intentionally

because there is recognition that transportation agencies

working in the same space may do their job more effectively (see Case 22). A common example is a traffic management center shared by traffic operators, transit staff, and

public safety personnel. In this case, the planning and

development of the facility functions to inform all stakeholders about the importance of regional coordination

between practitioners.

At times, sharing of facilities is not by design. Groups that

typically work independently may be required to share

office space due to funding or facility limitations. Some

agencies that have found themselves unintentionally colocated have discovered that this makes an important

difference in the degree of communication between

practitioners. When planners and operators are co-located,

they are more likely to communicate about their projects,

develop new personal relationships, and discover opportunities to assist each other.

In many cases, there is a tradition of agency and jurisdictional independence, and some practitioners may have

never considered options for sharing facilities or equipment. The increased efficiency and professional ties that

can grow from such cooperative arrangements suggest that

this should be a more conscious part of institutional

consideration.

Use the Unified Planning Work Program to

Define Commitments to M&O Planning

Planning agencies continue to face the perception that

management and operations planning is a secondary

activity to other MPO and State DOT responsibilities. As

such, when agencies are facing staffing and funding

shortfalls, it can be difficult for them to initiate regional

systems management activities. Some MPOs have found

that specific enumeration of regional management and

operations activities in the agency’s Unified Planning Work

Program (UPWP) is a way to ensure that such activities are

implemented (see Case 23). This also builds the understanding that the MPO intends to take a leadership role on

regional M&O issues.

Case 22: Central Ohio Regional Transportation and

Emergency Management Center (CORTRAN)

In 2001 the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning

Commission (MORPC) recognized the need for a

multi-jurisdictional operations facility where

transportation and emergency agencies work side

by side to manage traffic, transit, incidents, and

emergencies. MORPC conducted a feasibility and

cost study, involving stakeholders in the

identification of funding opportunities and in the

development of an operational concept, functional

requirements, and overall design of the facility.

Following the study, CORTRAN evolved into a

collaborative effort between State, county, and city

transportation agencies, as well as emergency and

public safety agencies. When the facility is finished,

CORTRAN will have 50 to 60 full-time staff to control

the Columbus Freeway Management System, to

operate a transit computer-aided dispatching

service, and to monitor video feeds of the local

roads. The expected benefits of CORTRAN include

improving incident management, coordinated

emergency response, avoiding duplicate facilities,

and providing a single source for media and

communications. MORPC continues to support the

CORTRAN effort by including it in the TIP with State

and local funds, and by guiding the partners in

forming an intergovernmental agreement.

Contact Erika Witzke: ewitzke@morpc.org

Case 23: Maricopa Association of Governments

Uses the UPWP to Support M&O

Through the development of an initial regional ITS

architecture, stakeholder agencies and jurisdictions

in the Phoenix metropolitan area recognized the need

for a Regional Concept of Transportation Operations.

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the

region’s MPO, wanted to ensure that this M&O

planning work took place in a timely fashion because

it was central to ongoing M&O coordination activities.

By including the Regional Concept of Transportation

Operations project in MAG’s UPWP, staff ensured

financial support for this critical activity. The project

was completed in 2003 and is the first

comprehensive example in the United States for an

urban transportation operations plan.

Contact Sarath Joshua: sjoshua@mag.maricopa.gov
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 29

Use Funding as a Tool to Attract Participation in

M&O Discussions

Funding is a powerful tool for promoting participation.

When groups are unaccustomed to coordinating with

many other agencies or perceive that such coordination

would provide more hardship than benefit, one way to

overcome this barrier is to provide additional resources to

such groups in exchange for participation in collaborative

efforts. In some cases, MPOs have attempted to create

training programs or other forums to promote the consideration of management and operations strategies (see Case

24). There are inevitably difficulties in getting some

jurisdictions or stakeholder groups to the table, particularly

when a forum or activity is not part of an established

regional process. MPOs have had success in overcoming

these barriers by linking participation to funding access.

For example, a jurisdiction may become eligible for matching funds only by participating in a management and

operations training program. Or a public safety group may

gain access to new sources of funds contingent upon its

participation in regional M&O forums.

LESSONS LEARNED

This section reviews some lessons learned through efforts

to secure funding for M&O programs. Past experience has

highlighted some of the challenges associated with using

resource sharing as a means to link planning and operations, and provides insight on potential ways to overcome

these challenges.

Funding Constraints Can Elevate M&O

Solutions

Almost every transportation agency identifies inadequate

funding as a major concern. At the same time, virtually

every agency acknowledges that funding constraints are a

major impetus for advancing management and operations

strategies. Planners often become champions for management and operations strategies only when they recognize a

serious discrepancy between available funds and the cost

of new capital investments necessary to maintain regional

mobility (see Case 25). This does not imply that planners

should wait until desperate times before offering regional

leadership on management and operations coordination,

nor does this imply that practitioners should choose

between funding roadway construction versus funding

operational improvements. Rather, the lesson is that

periods of severe funding shortfalls should be seen as

opportunities to educate a broader regional constituency

about management and operations solutions.

Case 24: Examples of Using Funding to Attract

Participation

z The North Central Texas Council of Governments

created training on sustainable development that

incorporated management and operations

priorities. The MPO used access to a new source

of local matching funds as an incentive to get

local jurisdiction managers to participate.

z In order to demonstrate to public safety officials

that participation in regional incident

management discussions can lead to tangible

results, the Maryland DOT paid for the retrofit of

police facilities to accommodate Coordinated

Highways Action Response Team (CHART)

equipment and staff, and paid for additional State

police vehicles in order to improve response

times to incidents.

Case 25: Washington DOT Policy on Funding

Washington State DOT had to address a severe

disparity between transportation needs and revenues

in its 20-year transportation plan. The plan prioritizes

investment choices as follows:

1. Maintenance, traffic operations, and preservation

activities are top priorities and are first in line for

available revenues.

2. Highway safety, environmental retrofit, economic

initiatives, and a Puget Sound core system of

HOV lanes are high priorities and are second in

line for available revenues.

3. Revenues remaining after the above priorities are

addressed go to other highway mobility

improvements.

Traffic operational solutions are considered as the

first step in addressing a congestion problem

identified in the plan. The stated goal of operational

strategies is to reduce delay of both people and

freight on the State’s system. The plan defines

operational strategies to include traveler information

systems, safety enhancements, ramp metering in

peak hours, service patrols and incident response

teams, signal timing and HOV lanes, and improving

advanced technology applications for commercial

vehicles.

Contact Toby Rickman: Rickman@wsdot.wa.gov
2 - 30 | Getting More by Working Together

MPOs and DOTs May Resist New Operations

Programs

Both MPOs and State DOTs tend to be reluctant to commit

to new management and operations programs. This is

generally because of the perspective that these activities

are continuous and therefore commit the agency to provide

funding every year or else face the unpopular option of

cutting an existing program. Consequently, MPO and DOT

leaders prefer that such ongoing funding requirements be

left to local jurisdictions. This can create a situation in

which management and operations activities are a patchwork of programs from various jurisdictions, limiting their

efficiency and effectiveness at the regional scale. This

lesson highlights the need for education about the value of

regional operations coordination.

Perspectives Differ on the Value of Dedicated

M&O Funding

Practitioners voice significantly different perspectives

regarding how funding sources can best be structured to

promote management and operations more consistently

during the planning process. Some practitioners find that

management and operations strategies are hindered by

regional, State, or Federal restrictions on how particular

funds can be spent. From this perspective, funding

categories tend to prevent systems managers from using

the most efficient approach to manage the transportation

system. For example, one region maintains that ITS

earmarks have been detrimental to integrated planning

because they tend to set ITS on a separate track from other

transportation planning activities. In some cases, this may

limit exposure to ITS strategies for the planners and

stakeholders who are involved in regional transportation

planning.

Other practitioners have observed that the absence of

funding sources specifically designated for management

and operations can make it difficult to include such

projects in the long-range transportation plan (see Case

26). Although M&O activities are frequently funded under

broad operations or TDM categories, this often means that

they are not specifically listed in the funding program. By

creating more narrowly defined M&O funding categories,

MPOs and State DOTs can make it clear to agencies and

jurisdictions that such projects are appropriate uses for

regional, State, and Federal funds. They also elevate the

profile of such activities among transportation practitioners.

Case 26: Baltimore Region Considers M&O Project

Categories

Staff members for the Baltimore Regional

Management and Operations Partnership submitted

a traffic detection and real-time traffic operations

project for consideration in a recent update of the

regional transportation plan. The project did not

technically fit under the capacity expansion or the

maintenance and system preservation categories.

Ultimately, this project was lumped together with

other projects in a general TDM/TSM category. For the

next plan update, the Partnership has recommended

that it work with the MPO to revise project categories

so M&O projects can be considered alongside

traditional capital projects.

Contact Eileen Singleton: esingleton@baltometro.org
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 31

2.6

BACKGROUND

Today, a range of technological advances and new

transportation priorities provide opportunities to link

planning and operations through institutional arrangements. For example, technological advances have allowed

the deployment of ITS systems that cross many jurisdictional boundaries, requiring coordination in funding and

operations. Transportation agencies that have traditionally

focused on planning, programming, and maintaining

roadway capacity additions are now focusing more on

managing and operating a mature system. There is also

greater need for public and private sector collaboration and

for more cooperation among public agencies, partly in

response to funding limitations and partly in response to

the increasing system performance effects of non-recurring

incidents. As a result of these changes, transportation

agencies are taking on new responsibilities and exploring

new relationships. This section discusses how institutional

arrangements can be put to use to strengthen the linkages

between operations and regional transportation planning

and programming.

What Is Meant by Institutional Arrangements?

Institutional arrangements refer to agreements and

organizational structures both within transportation

agencies and between agencies. This can mean forums that

regularly bring together transportation planners and

operations practitioners. It also refers to arrangements that

promote involvement of management and operations

practitioners in planning processes or that promote a

regional planning perspective within an operations

environment.

New institutional arrangements are created for a number of

reasons. There may be a seminal event (e.g., hosting a

major national or global event, or responding to a major

natural disaster) that motivates planning and operating

agencies to coordinate more effectively. New arrangements

may also be conceived to manage new programs (e.g., ITS),

to respond to new State or Federal mandates, or to take

advantage of new funding sources. Moreover, arrangements are often formed to achieve a specific regional

operations objective, such as regional management of work

zones, coordinated incident management, or ITS deployment. Sometimes these regional institutional arrangements

broaden their mandate over time to include coordination

among a range of regional management and operations

strategies.

Some institutional arrangements may link planning and

operations for a specific process (e.g., an interagency

committee that oversees the development of performance

measures). Many regions have other types of institutional

arrangements that focus on M&O more broadly, and can

serve as a link to regional planning activities. The circumstances that lead to institutional innovation may differ

across regions (see Case 27). Several examples of arrangements that better tie together planning and operations

include the following:

z Regional management and operations committees

within the MPO or other regional body,

z Regional collaborations that function as independent

partnerships between transportation and public safety

organizations (for example, committees that allow

police and fire personnel to coordinate transportation

operators on emergency response plans),

z Transportation agencies that include both operations

and planning divisions (often State DOTs and transit

agencies), or

z Regional traffic management centers co-managed by

public safety officials and traffic operations staff.

How Can Institutional Arrangements Improve

Planning and Operations Coordination?

Institutional arrangements such as those discussed above

can improve the linkage between planning and operations

in a number of ways. They enable the development of a

regional vision for systems management and operations,

which in turn creates an opportunity for addressing

technology-oriented solutions, short-term coordination

goals, cooperative funding, and coordinated implementation processes. Some arrangements create a more centralized point of contact for regional operations responsibilities, increasing the sense of accountability and, consequently, increasing the need to coordinate.

Some institutional arrangements help operations stakeholders to see how their own contributions promote regional
2 - 32 | Getting More by Working Together

transportation functions. This is important because many

public and private transportation providers and users that

are not involved in the transportation planning and

programming process have few other opportunities to view

the system form this regional perspective. New forums or

organizations that focus specifically on management and

operations can attract these stakeholders who previously

had no satisfactory way to be engaged at the regional

scale. Expanded stakeholder participation not only brings

critical new perspectives to the task of enhancing regional

management and operations, it also increases the number

of local agencies and jurisdictions that consider regional

goals in developing their own operations strategies. In

addition, when new stakeholders perceive benefits to their

own interests from regional coordination, they will help

pressure elected officials to secure funding for regional

management and operations solutions.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Some common strategies have emerged for building

institutional arrangements that can better link planning and

operations. Changing institutional relationships and

behavior is a tremendous challenge and requires a sustained effort. But laying the groundwork for such change

can begin immediately. The following approaches can

highlight opportunities for existing institutions to better

coordinate planning and operations and prompt leaders to

consider where new institutional arrangements may be

needed.

Designate an MPO Stakeholder Forum on

Regional Management and Operations

An increasing number of MPOs support interagency

committees that deal directly and regularly with the

management and operations of regional transportation

systems. In hosting such committees, the MPO facilitates a

vital forum where interjurisdictional coordination, funding

strategies, and data sharing can be addressed (see Case

28). In addition, the MPO can use the committee’s diverse

operations expertise to inform M&O issues in regional

planning documents and in the MPO’s annual work

program. The forum allows operations managers to

increase their awareness of broader regional trends, needs,

and strategies.

Developing an effective structure for these MPO committees can be difficult. One reason is that regional management and operations planning must often deal with narrow

technical issues. Example might include how to provide

back-up power at signals, use of various signalization

software programs, and measures of effectiveness for

signals. These forums may be invaluable as an information

exchange for operations practitioners, but less useful as a

forum for addressing broader coordination issues. As a

result, some MPOs have created separate subcommittees

for technical and policy issues. A technical subcommittee

focuses on the details of equipment coordination, while the

policy committee addresses regional funding strategies and

prioritization of regional operations initiatives. Periodic

meetings of the full committee allow exchange between

technical and policy staff.

Case 27: Examples of Circumstances That Led to

New Institutional Arrangements

z Recent Institutional Change—The Hampton

Roads Planning District Commission is the

product of the merger of two smaller MPOs. At the

same time that these two MPOs merged, the two

major transit agencies in the region also merged.

These shifts established the need for institutional

change as well as interjurisdictional and

interagency coordination. A culture of enhanced

collaboration and communication arose at the

time when ITS opportunities were beginning to

be taken seriously in the planning process. The

challenges associated with ITS implementation

highlighted the benefits of a more collaborative

regional environment.

z Institutional Boundaries Dictate MPO

Leadership—The Kansas City metropolitan

region is divided between two States, making it

difficult for one State DOT to take the lead on

operations coordination. As a result, the MidAmerica Regional Council (the region’s MPO)

has taken on a leadership role in management

and operations issues out of necessity.

z Overwhelming Need—The New York Tri-State

Metropolitan Area includes 15 major transit,

roadway, and port operating agencies in the

States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Under these circumstances, the need for

regional operations coordination was so extreme

that an agency devoted to coordinating

construction projects, emergency response, and

traveler information services was conceived.

Today, this multi-agency body can bring a

coordinated management and operations

agenda to the planning table.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 33

Attract Stakeholders With Specific Regional

Operations Programs

One way to achieve greater stakeholder participation in

stakeholder forums is to focus the forums’ discussions on

specific operations concerns (see Case 29). This makes it

clear to both operations practitioners and policy makers

when the forum is within their area of expertise. For

example, someone who manages first responders is more

likely to attend a committee dealing with regional incident

management than a committee dealing with the very broad

topic of regional management and operations coordination.

A focused forum will also likely benefit from participants

who have a grasp of both the technical and the institutional challenges associated with regional coordination for

that specific topic.

Freight transportation planning is an area where focused

forums have been successful. Engaging shippers, freight

carriers, and freight terminal operators in the regional

planning discussion has been challenging, in part because

the long time frame of planning is foreign to most private

sector entities. Freight companies may also be mistrustful

of government planners, and concerned about divulging

proprietary business information. Some regions, however,

have successfully developed forums or task forces

specifically to address regional freight operations planning.

Part of the success has come from a committing funds

toward short-term freight corridor improvements and

making clear that the committee input would influence

actual freight management investments. Such committees

have managed to bring freight needs and perspectives to

the planning process, helping to promote a regional

perspective on operations challenges (see Case 30).

Involve Regional Operations Forums in the

Planning Process

Regional transportation operations collaborations and

traffic management centers (TMCs) increasingly offer

forums for integrated operations that are independent of

other regional bodies. These organizations may have

specific mandates, such as running a regional incident

management program, providing real time traffic information, and coordinating emergency management plans. They

often provide a unique opportunity to bring together the

public safety and operations management communities,

and thus are well positioned to address broader operations

issues.

Regional transportation operations collaborations and

TMCs can provide valuable input to the planning process.

At the same time, State and regional planners should

ensure that these organizations are aware of the planning

cycle and planning decisions that could influence regional

management and operations initiatives.

Case 28: National Capital Region’s Management,

Operations, and ITS Task Forces

The National Capital Region Transportation

Planning Board (TPB) initiated an ITS Task Force in

1997. After the region received Federal funding

earmarked for ITS, the task force attracted interest

from a number of agencies in the region. These

agencies were among those collaborating to

develop CapWIN, a wireless, integrated, mobile

communications network that supports coordination

between public safety and transportation agencies.

Later that year, the TPB divided the Task Force into a

technical task force and a policy task force. This

facilitated the direct involvement of policy-level

officials in ITS activities, while maintaining the

capacity to address technical details associated with

ITS integration and coordination. In 2001, the TPB

changed the names of the two task forces to the

Management, Operations, and Intelligent

Transportation Systems (MOITS) Policy Task Force

and the MOITS Technical Task Force to reflect a

broader focus on management and operations from

a regional perspective.

Contact Andrew Meese: ameese@mwcog.org

Case 29: Wasatch Front Regional Council

Promotes Traffic Management

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Wasatch Front

Regional Council (WFRC) recognized that it needed

to make better use of the existing transportation

system by expanding traffic signal coordination

within the region. WFRC hosted a forum for city and

county engineers to address signal coordination.

This coordination helped gain the support of

legislators. Based on growing interest, a signal

coordination committee was formed under the Utah

DOT. Committee members included representatives

from cities, counties, WFRC, and the Utah Transit

Authority. Over time, the committee’s focus

expanded, and it evolved into the current traffic

management committee. A significant achievement

of the committee was the implementation of the

traffic management system led by UDOT.

Contact Doug Hattery: dhattery@wfrc.org
2 - 34 | Getting More by Working Together

In addition to offering a forum for coordination on day-today operations issues, a growing number of regional

transportation operations collaborations are leading

longer-term, interagency operations planning (see Case 31).

Specifically, the functions of these organizations have

grown to cover:

z Integration of personnel from multiple agencies into

focused program implementation teams;

z Integration of equipment through sharing of

communications infrastructure, specialized vehicles,

and data; and

z Source of funding for coordinated operations

activities, both through pooled funds from

participating agencies and through direct State and

Federal funding awards.

Consequently, through the development of regional

operations plans, regional organizations collaborations can

ensure that operations goals, objectives, and strategies are

included in the regional transportation planning process.

These operations plans not only help to address immediate

operational needs, but also allow operations managers to

come to the planning table with an integrated set of

strategies. In this manner, operations managers can more

effectively advocate for appropriate policies and coordinated funding within the regional planning and programming process.

Case 31: Central Florida’s Regional Operations

Consortium Helps Attract Federal Funds

The Central Florida Regional Transportation

Operations Consortium began as an ITS Working

Group seeking to improve interagency coordination

on ITS projects. Agencies involved include the State

DOT district office, turnpike and expressway

authorities, several cities and counties, the regional

transit agency, and the local State highway patrol

troop. The group formalized this relationship in a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The object of

this MOU is to:

Establish the organizational structure to

promote coordinated decisionmaking and

information sharing in planning, developing,

and funding a Regional Transportation

Operations Consortium of operating

agencies within the Central Florida region

for the deployment, operation, and

maintenance of ITS initiatives.

In May 2003, FHWA awarded a $20 million grant for

the Florida model deployment program. The

existence of a body that was actively collaborating on

operations played an important role in the contract

award. FHWA recognized the value of this strategic

partnering in making the most effective use of ITS

deployment dollars.

Contact David Grovdahl:

dgrovdahl@metroplanorlando.com

Case 30: Puget Sound Freight Roundtable

In 1994 the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC),

the MPO for the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, in

partnership with the Economic Development Council,

convened public and private freight sector

representatives to form the Regional Freight Mobility

Roundtable. The Roundtable was initially created to

better involve the freight shipper and carrier industry in

the regional transportation planning and project

selection process. The first task of the Roundtable

was to provide input on freight issues to the update of

the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (1995). Since

then, the Roundtable has become a mutually

supported and widely respected “communication hub”

and has influenced public and private transportation

decisions in several ways. It informally advises

Federal agencies, the PSRC, the State, and local

sponsors on freight needs and the potential impact of

proposed strategies and project packages on freight

mobility. It educates policy-makers and the public on

freight issues. And it helps to develop performance

measures and analysis necessary to study

multimodal and intermodal freight movement. The

benefits from the Roundtable extend equally to all of

its public and private sector freight members.

Roundtable participants have been learning how the

MPO and other funding processes work and how to be

heard, increasing the awareness of freight with the

public, decisionmakers, planners, and other

Roundtable members. The planning process now

considers freight transportation improvements and

evaluates the effects of policy proposals, capital

improvements, and operations projects on freight.

Contact Peter Beaulieu: pbeaulieu@psrc.org
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 35

Define an Organizational Structure for the MPO

That Reflects the Importance of Regional

Operations

MPOs have historically been organized around long-range

planning and programming of capital projects. In recent

years, many MPOs have expanded their role to include

greater involvement in regional systems management

issues (see Case 32). Some agencies have chosen fundamental restructuring to reflect a growing responsibility for

regional management and operations. MPOs should

consider the potential benefits of an institutional structure

that reflects a heightened focus on managing the regional

network.

One option for such a restructuring is to develop a division

within the MPO that is specifically responsible for regional

system M&O coordination. Such a division may be

charged with promoting data sharing programs, coordinating operations between jurisdictions, ensuring intermodal

coordination, and leading ITS planning. The advantage of

such a structure is that practitioners within the regional

planning agency are more likely to be familiar with the

timing and details of the planning and funding process,

and thus able to be effective in advancing systems

management programs. An operations arm of an MPO may

appear more accessible and carry more legitimacy with

operations staff in the other bodies such as the State DOT,

local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and private fleet

operators.

Link Planning and Operations Within State

DOTs and Transit Agencies

Unlike MPOs, most State DOTs and regional transit

agencies traditionally have included both planning and

operations functions. They have an opportunity to better

coordinate planning and operations without some of the

interjurisdictional and interagency challenges faced by

MPOs. Some DOTs have bridged this gap because of the

initiative taken by both planners and operators. Planners

get involved in operations activities in cases where policy

issues become integral to operations decisions (e.g.,

developing policies regarding the use of HOV lanes).

Operators assist planners in some technical aspects of

prioritizing needs according to specific objectives, and by

helping to apply performance measures.

The development of a statewide plan offers additional

opportunities to link planning and operations. In some

cases, an operations committee or operations division has

led development of portions of the statewide plan (see

Case 33, page 2-37). This is a valuable means for raising

awareness of the planning process within the operations

community, while bringing operations expertise into the

planning process.

Building bridges between staff members is a critical step in

breaking down intra- and inter-agency barriers. Agencies

and jurisdictions should explore options for a staff

exchange between agencies to promote such connections.

Identify specific projects for which a staff exchange would

benefit both agencies while exposing staff members to new

institutional processes and cultures. Work toward a regular

exchange program that will build a network of interagency

or interdivisional relationships and experience.

Reinforce Institutional Links by Integrating

Operations Into Project Design and Delivery

Operations practitioners should be involved in project

design at the earliest possible stage in order to ensure that

projects support, or at the very least, do not conflict with

regional operations strategies. Institutional relationships

between planning and operating agencies are supported

when practitioners collaborate to accommodate ITS, transit,

and operations flexibility into design during the early

stages of the project development process. In some cases,

management and operations options are only possible if

they are funded as an integrated element of a broader

infrastructure project. To ensure that operations strategies

are embedded in capital projects, MPOs should take steps

to ensure that appropriate operations stakeholders become

part of the early stages of the project development and

design process. This includes key constituents who may

not participate in an existing regional operations forum

(e.g., major employers, shippers, major housing or commercial developers, and special events managers).

LESSONS LEARNED

Institutional arrangements that have worked well in some

regions have fallen apart in others. Below are several

lessons learned from institutional arrangements that have

been developed in the field.

Approaches for Attracting Diverse Stakeholders

A number of hurdles have emerged for regions attempting

to develop institutional arrangements suited to implement

regional management and operations initiatives. One of the

most common challenges is getting public safety officials

involved (see Case 34). Regions routinely struggle to

attract public safety officials to meetings that cover
2 - 36 | Getting More by Working Together

Case 32: Innovative Institutional Arrangements

Operations in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Institutional Structure

The institutional structure of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the MPO for the San Francisco

Bay Area, promotes parity between transportation planning and operations. MTC is heavily involved in operations

activities, such as the Freeway Service Program, the ITS Early Deployment Plan, a traffic engineering technical

assistance program, and an advanced traveler information system.

To reflect its growing role in operations, MTC reorganized its structure into two units: operations and policy. The

operations branch is concerned with bridge and highway operations, transit coordination and access, and

advanced systems applications. The policy branch focuses on planning, finance, programming and allocations,

and legislation and public affairs.

Contact Ann Flemer: aflemer@mtc.ca.gov

The Chicago Area Transportation Study’s Institutional Structure Includes Operations

The organizational structure of the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) reflects management and operations

as a significant force in the region’s transportation decisionmaking. Institutionally, CATS is divided into four core

functional groups: planning, programming, operations, and development. The operations group consists of three

support divisions: transportation management, operations analysis, and advanced technologies. The

transportation management division analyzes strategies, programs, and protocols (such as expressway ramp

HOV lanes) to provide recommendations for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The operations analysis

division focuses primarily on addressing intermodal freight movement within the region and provides input to the

RTP process. It collects and analyzes freight data, participates in national forums on freight operations and

planning, and assesses regional traffic signal issues. The advanced technologies support division is responsible

for assisting in the ITS component of the RTP, the development of the regional ITS architecture, and the multi-state

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS Corridor.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 37

Case 33: Operations Division Does Planning at

WSDOT

Washington State DOT is developing a statewide

multimodal transportation plan. For the first time, the

operations division of the agency is leading the

development of the highway component of this plan.

This represents the DOT’s realization that operations

issues form the foundation for the State’s highway

strategy and priorities. The State thus determined that

highway system operations expertise was needed at

the leadership of this component of the plan.

Because the operations division has developed

sufficient familiarity with the planning process over

several years of collaboration, the DOT felt

comfortable with this division leading a component of

the statewide plan.

Contact Toby Rickman: Rickman@wsdot.wa.gov

Case 34: Tailoring Workshops for Specific

Stakeholders in Hampton Roads

The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission

has faced challenges in getting emergency planners

to participate in regional M&O planning efforts. They

achieved success by using the MPO’s emergency

planning committee to host workshops on ITS for

emergency management.

Contact Camelia Ravanbakht: cravan@hrpdc.org

broader issues of operations coordination. Some regions

attribute the problem to differences in management

approaches between public safety officials and other

transportation agencies; many public safety management

practices follow a strict command structure and less

consensus-oriented decisionmaking. Some regions have

found that demonstrating the benefits of involvement to

public safety officials can increase their engagement.

Benefits of coordination in some regions have led to better

exchange of information about emergency response routes,

active management of traffic to facilitate faster response,

and access to funds for better communications equipment.

Others have found success through implementation of

regional traffic management centers. When public safety

officials are involved in cooperative management of these

TMCs, a forum is created for communication and for

learning more about each other’s roles.

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

amorphous topic of regional management and operations.

By focusing a committee narrowly (e.g., on freeway

management, or on corridor signal synchronization), a

sponsoring agency may be more effective in drawing

practitioners from diverse agencies and jurisdictions.

Practitioners tend to participate in a committee if they are

confident that it relates to their expertise. However, this

more focused approach to regional management and

operations has drawbacks. Some regions have found the

threat of redundancy in activities when management and

operations committees are narrowly focused. More

importantly, the opportunity to integrate various specific

operations activities is diminished. These challenges are

inspiring agencies to seek more creative techniques for

drawing a broad range of stakeholders to the table for

integrated regional M&O discussions. Appropriate use of

task forces and subcommittees appears to offer the best

solution.

The Importance of Interagency Staff Relations

Transportation agencies often cite personal relationships

within and between agencies as one of the most important

factors influencing the likelihood of regional planning and

Case 35: Strong Ties between Planning and

Operations in Maryland

Although there is not a formal structure for

collaboration among planners and operators in

Montgomery County, Maryland, the Operations Division

of Montgomery County Department of Public Works

and Transportation (DPWT) and the Montgomery

County Department of Parks and Planning in the

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning

Commission (M-NCPPC) find numerous opportunities

to work together for improved transportation system

performance. Their working relationship was solidified

in part by a former transportation coordinator at DPWT

who moved to M-NCPPC. This opened new channels

for communication as the former operations

practitioner could bring operations issues to the

planning agency, communicate with operators, and

give credibility to M-NCPPC among transportation

operators. The relationship between DPWT and MNCPPC continues to be strengthened by such

relationships between personnel, but it is no longer

dependent upon individuals within the agencies. The

familiarity with each other’s practices and long history

of cooperating on projects has helped these agencies

to seize opportunities for collaboration.

Contact Emil Wolanin:

Emil.wolanin@montgomerycountymd.gov
2 - 38 | Getting More by Working Together

Key Resources on Institutional Arrangements

z Organizing for Regional Transportation

Operations: An Executive Guide, FHWA/ITE, July

2001. http://www.ite.org/library/

reg_trans_ops.asp

z What have we learned about ITS: Cross-Cutting

Institutional Issues, FHWA. http://

www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/EDLBrow/

@@401!.pdf

z Wide-ranging Internet resources on institutional

issues relating to implementation of ITS. http://

www.its.dot.gov/EVAL/docs_instissues.htm

operations coordination. In some cases, key staff members

have spent time in both operating agencies and transportation planning agencies (see Case 35). This breadth of

experience creates a familiarity with the structures, processes, and cultures in both operating and planning

environments, enabling more frequent and effective

coordination. In other cases, many of the transportation

practitioners scattered among different planning and

operating agencies have connections through their

university background, and have maintained an interest

and capacity to communicate and work together toward

regional transportation solutions.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 39

2.7

BACKGROUND

A regional ITS architecture17 establishes a framework for

implementing ITS projects at the regional level (see Exhibit

10). Because the development of the architecture is a

Federal requirement,18 it presents a strong opportunity to

enhance collaboration between a region’s operations and

planning practitioners. The development, use, and maintenance of a regional ITS architecture serves to highlight the

importance of operations strategies that can improve

transportation system performance, including strategies

that address recurrent and non-recurrent congestion. The

architecture can also help to ensure that these projects are

included in the region’s long-range plan and TIP.

Because operations managers participate in development

of the regional ITS architecture, they may work closely with

transportation planners and are exposed to the region’s

planning and programming process. Planners who engage

in the development of the regional ITS architecture will

develop greater appreciation for the use of integrated

communications and data technologies to enhance the

efficiency of the transportation system. In addition, the

architecture development process can highlight for

planners the importance of integrating ITS technology and

management considerations into regional plans.

What Is a Regional ITS Architecture?

ITS projects make use of electronics, communications, or

information processing to improve the efficiency or safety

of a surface transportation system. Such information

technology is generally most effective when systems are

integrated and interoperable. Recognizing this fact, the U.S.

DOT has established the National ITS Architecture to

provide a common structure for the design of ITS projects.

The National Architecture describes what types of

interfaces could exist between ITS components and how

they will exchange information and work together to deliver

ITS user service requirements.

To implement ITS projects supported by the Highway

Trust Fund, Federal regulations require that a region must

develop a regional ITS architecture, using the National ITS

Architecture as a resource.19 The purpose of developing a

regional ITS architecture is to illustrate and document

regional integration so that planning and deployment of

ITS projects can take place in an organized and coordinated fashion.20 Once developed, any ITS project in the

region that receives funding from the Highway Trust Fund

must adhere to the regional ITS architecture. A region can

be specified at a corridor, metropolitan, statewide, or

multistate level, although the Metropolitan Planning Area

is the minimum regional size within a metropolitan area.

19 23 CFR Part 940.3.

20 This is described in the FHWA rule and companion FTA policy published

in January 2001 to implement Section 5206(e) of TEA-21.

17 This section focuses primarily on regional ITS architectures. There are

also statewide ITS architectures, and many of the same points may apply.

The focus here is on the regional architecture because this is where the

MPO role is likely to be greatest.

18 The Federal requirements related to ITS architectures apply for all

regions wishing to receive Federal funds for ITS projects after April 2005.

Exhibit 10: A Regional ITS Architecture Must Include

z Description of the region

z Identification of participating agencies and

stakeholders

z Operational concept, including roles and

responsibilities of participating agencies and

stakeholders

z Any agreements needed for operation

z System functional requirements

z Interface requirements and information

exchanges with planned and existing systems

z Identification of applicable standards

z The sequence of projects necessary for

implementation
2 - 40 | Getting More by Working Together

How Can the Regional ITS Architecture Create

Stronger Linkages Between Planning and

Operations?

The regional ITS architecture serves as a focal point for

coordination and collaboration between planning and

operations practitioners. In a broad sense, the regional ITS

architecture presents an accessible way for transportation

planners to become more familiar with integrated management and operations activities and capabilities. It can also

help to engage operations managers in regional planning,

including establishing transportation investment priorities

(see Case 36).

Each of the discrete steps involved in the development,

implementation, use, and maintenance of the regional ITS

architecture provides opportunities for coordination and

collaboration between planners and operators. In fact, the

success of the regional architecture depends on planners

and operators working together and bringing their expertise

and perspective to bear throughout this process. Exhibit 11

illustrates some examples of these complementary perspectives as they relate to each step of the regional ITS

architecture development process.21 These steps are

reviewed in further detail after Exhibit 11.

Step 1 (Getting Started) in the development of the regional

ITS architecture involves defining the stakeholders and

people that will be involved, building consensus in the

region, and establishing an overall plan for development

(e.g., regional definition, timeframe, basic scope of services

to be included). Operators bring to this process familiarity

with operations stakeholders and potential leaders, and an

understanding of service boundaries and areas of jurisdictional overlap. Planners bring experience working with

diverse stakeholder groups and with elected officials, and

ability to build regional consensus.

Step 2 (Gathering Data) of the development process

assembles an inventory of existing and planned ITS

systems in the region, defines the roles and responsibilities

of stakeholders, and documents the ITS services to be

provided and the functional requirements of each service.

Operations practitioners are vital to this step because they

bring a detailed understanding of existing ITS systems,

particularly of systems that support interfaces that cross

stakeholder boundaries. Operators also play a key role in

identifying candidate ITS services that can address

regional needs. Planners bring an understanding of the

region’s transportation needs, through detailed knowledge

of the region’s long-range plan and transportation investment programs. This perspective is critical to ensure that

the architecture accounts for any new facilities or services

planned for the region, and for the evolution of the system

in general. Planners and operators then work together

directly to discuss integration opportunities as part of the

development of the operations concept and definition of

system functional requirements.

Step 3 (Defining Interfaces) identifies the interconnections

between systems and defines the information flow between

systems. As in Step 2, operations stakeholders bring to this

process a unique understanding of ITS systems, including

connection points and information flows. Through their

efforts to collect, organize, and disseminate data on

transportation system conditions, operators work daily

with information flows within and between ITS systems.

Because only a portion of the possible information

exchanges suggested in the National ITS Architecture will

be included as interconnects in the regional architecture,

the planning perspective is useful to hone in on those that

help support the needs (and corresponding services) of the

region.

Case 36: Hampton Roads Region: ITS Planning

Kicks Off an Era of Collaboration

In the Hampton Roads metropolitan area of Virginia,

planning and operations coordination began when

the region was preparing to deploy ITS technologies.

An initial meeting was held with planners, traffic

engineers, and other regional stakeholders. By the

end of this meeting, most of the stakeholders saw

the need for improved coordination. Everyone

exchanged contact information and, from this point

forward, have been coordinating to let each other

know about events and activities relating to ITS. From

this initial meeting, the ITS committee was formed

and has been collaborating effectively ever since. The

committee includes officials from the local MPO,

planning and public works departments in the

various jurisdictions, transit agencies, Navy, ports,

State police, and many different offices within VDOT.

Contact Camelia Ravanbakht: cravan@hrpdc.org

21 See Regional ITS Architecture Guidance, U.S. DOT, October 2001, for a

detailed description of these steps.
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 41

 Exhibit 11: Regional ITS Architecture Development Process and Examples of How Planners and Operators Can Contribute

Core Process Planners Operators

Understand changes in regional needs, funding, and service opportunities

Understand ITS inventory changesUnderstand changes in technologies and standards

 



6. Maintaining the Architecture

Should develop plans that reflect the ITS architectureShould include operations projects in investment programs

Implement M&O strategies, programs, and projectsParticipate in developing ITS strategic plans to detail ITS operational needs





Develop investment programs for the region (TIP and UPWP)Work with State DOT, counties, and other agencies in planning and programmingProvide leadership in executing new agreements

Define project sequencingDevelop list of agency agreementsIdentify ITS standards

Set M&O priorities and sequence activitiesDevelop relationships and agreements with other agencies involved in operationsUnderstand equipment costs and applicable standards







4. Implementing the Architecture

Assess and ensure interconnectivity of transportation infrastructureUnderstand user needs and areas of service interface

Support the planning processSupport project implementation

5. Using the Architecture

Identify interconnectionsDefine information flows

Understand how technology deployments should work in concertCollect, organize, and disseminate data needed for system operations







3. Defining Interfaces

Are responsible for developing multimodal system plansUse data on region's economy, land uses, infrastructure, and mode-specific travelDevelop investment programs designed to improve system performance

Inventory systemsDetermine needs and servicesDevelop operational conceptDefine functional requirements

Are responsible for existing equipmentCollect and use real-time data from traffic monitoring systemsDefine technical requirements of existing and planned systems







2. Gathering Data

Understand region-wide traffic patternsUnderstand perspectives of diverse stakeholder groupsWork with and respond to needs of elected officials and technical staff in regionAre familiar with regional vision and longrange plan

Identify needDefine regionIdentify stakeholdersIdentify champions

Know operational challenges across the systemUnderstand service boundaries and crossjurisdictional issuesWork with stakeholders that can affect system performance on a daily basis







1. Getting Started
2 - 42 | Getting More by Working Together

Step 4 (Implementing the Architecture) defines several

additional products that bridge the gap between the

regional ITS architecture and regional ITS implementation.

During the project sequencing step, operations experts are

instrumental in identifying project elements that are

dependent on other projects, estimating project costs, and

identifying any regional ITS standards to be used in

projects. Planners contribute an understanding of a

region’s existing short- and long-term project priorities and

can assist with assessing ITS project benefits to the

regional transportation system. Planning and operations

stakeholders contribute to developing a list of agency

agreements – operators because they typically maintain

some existing agreements, and planners because they can

provide leadership in the lengthy process of executing new

agreements.

Step 5 (Using the Architecture) is where the regional

architecture directly supports the planning process, as

spelled out in DOT’s guidance. This occurs, for example,

through increased stakeholder participation in the longrange plan development and through better system and

inter-jurisdictional integration. The architecture can directly

support the selection of projects for the TIP. The architecture can also serve as the basis for an ITS strategic plan

and play a role in the development of corridor plans.

Likewise, Step 6 (Maintaining the Architecture) provides

further opportunity for planners and operators to participate in continuing forums to address ongoing operations

priorities and integration opportunities.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Most regions either have completed an initial ITS architecture or currently are in the process of developing one.

These experiences have demonstrated a number of linkage

opportunities, as discussed below.

Designate the MPO to Lead the Development

of the Regional ITS Architecture

Federal regulations do not specify which agency should

lead the development of a regional ITS architecture. In

practice, a variety of agencies have taken the lead in

different regions. At the regional scale, MPOs are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the regional ITS

architecture requirements are met for the purpose of using

Federal funds.

In regions where MPOs lead or are heavily involved in the

development of the architecture, there is a strong opportunity for coordination with broader planning processes (see

Case 37). MPOs often have expertise in collaborating with a

broad set of stakeholders who can work toward solutions

to regional transportation issues. Concurrently, MPOs can

benefit from exposure to a process that focuses on

management and operations strategies, since this may be

unfamiliar territory for them.

Given the authority that most MPOs have in regional

transportation decisionmaking, they are in a unique

position to ensure that the ITS architecture informs the

transportation planning process. For example, data

collection for planning purposes is not typically a high

priority of operating agencies; the MPO can ensure that

Case 37: NCTCOG: MPO Leads the Regional

Architecture

Over the past 6 years, the North Central Texas

Council of Governments (NCTCOG) has been an

advocate for the collaborative development of ITS in

the region. In 1998, the MPO, Texas Department of

Transportation districts, transit and toll authorities,

and other stakeholder groups signed a

memorandum of understanding agreeing to

coordinate in the planning, implementation, and

operation of ITS. As a result of this MOU, NCTCOG

began leading regular meetings to enhance

understanding of ITS, discuss methods for

deployment, and develop a regional ITS architecture.

Some participants were skeptical of the MPO’s

capacity to lead the architecture development, but

they recognized the important resources that the MPO

brought to the process. NCTCOG offered expertise

and authority with respect to funding sources.

NCTCOG also brought experience with diverse

stakeholders and provided the region-wide and longterm perspective vital to the architecture.

Through this multi-jurisdictional interaction,

representatives have started to coordinate mobility

crews on the freeways, cameras, variable message

signs, and other ITS programs. Currently, the

architecture is evolving from a statement that defines

where the region wants to be in future years into a

staged deployment plan. NCTCOG is preparing to

include the architecture in the long-range plan and

use it in the short-range plan for prioritizing corridors

for capital investment.

Contact Natalie Bettger: nbettger@nctcog.org
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 43

this need is recognized in the architecture. In addition, the

MPO’s experience with regional funding strategies allows it

to inform stakeholders about funding opportunities or

constraints during the course of developing the ITS

architecture.

In some regions where the MPO has not led the regional

ITS architecture process, the MPO has been asked to

adopt the architecture. Although this is not a Federal

requirement, adoption of the architecture by the MPO does

provide another opportunity to broaden the range of

stakeholders. Similarly, it encourages the MPO to ensure

that the priorities of the ITS architecture are consistent

with the needs and objectives enumerated in the regional

transportation plan.

Make the Regional ITS Architecture Part of an

Integrated Regional Plan

Once a regional architecture is created, it is important that it

serve as a resource for planning, programming, designing,

and deploying ITS projects. The architecture should serve

as a tool to improve regional thinking on operations. One

way to promote the architecture’s use is by incorporating it

into the region’s long-range transportation plan (see Case

38). This helps encourage consistency between proposed

ITS projects and the architecture and ensures that additional integration opportunities are considered.

Making the architecture part of the long-range plan also

helps give operations managers a stake in the planning

process. The architecture provides a point of entry to the

broader planning effort, and allows operations managers to

see how the ideas embodied in the architecture are framed

within the context of the region’s transportation policies,

initiatives, and activities.

Following are some steps that can begin to link the ITS

architecture with the regional plan:

z Get involved with the regional architecture. Your area

may already have completed an initial regional

architecture or may be in the midst of developing

one.22 Consider what your agency can contribute to

the development of the architecture and how the

architecture may affect your agency’s activities.

z Identify how the architecture incorporates regional

goals and objectives. The ITS architecture should

relate to other planning documents, particularly the

long-range or regional transportation plan. Review the

goals, objectives, and strategies set forth in

transportation plans and note the opportunities for

coordination with the regional ITS architecture. If you

do not see cross-referencing in these documents,

consider appropriate mechanisms to better link the

architecture with planning documents.

z Adopt a regional ITS architecture. A completed

regional ITS architecture will provide the greatest

benefit if relevant agencies use it as a framework to

inform decisionmaking and promote communication.

Attempt to identify all agencies that have been

involved with the architecture development and any

additional agencies that might make decisions relating

to transportation operations and ITS. Encourage these

agencies to adopt the architecture to guide ITS-related

decisionmaking.

Link the Architecture to the TIP

Ultimately, the goal of the architecture is to facilitate the

efficient deployment and use of ITS equipment, networks,

and management structures to create a safer and more

efficient transportation system. This requires prioritization

of resources over a long period (see Case 39). U.S. DOT

requires that the architecture includes a sequence of

projects.23 Developing the sequence is a consensus

building process that considers costs and benefits,

technological feasibility, and project readiness. While not

intended to be a formal ranking of ITS projects, the project

sequence can be carried over to the TIP process. Both

Case 38: Chicago Area Planning Integration of ITS

Architecture

In the Chicago metropolitan area, the Northeastern

Illinois Regional ITS Architecture was used to update

the Regional ITS Vision, the Regional ITS Integration

Strategy, and the Deployment Action Plan. The

updated ITS plan then became a key input to the

long-range Regional Transportation Plan as the first

step in deployment.

22 The best way to identify the status of your region’s ITS architecture is

through the State DOT or MPO. You can also check the following status

Web site maintained by U.S. DOT’s ITS Joint Programs Office http://

www.its.dot.gov.

23 FHWA Rule 940.9(d)6 and FTA National ITS Architecture Policy Section

5.d.6.
2 - 44 | Getting More by Working Together

activities aim to use local knowledge and consensusbuilding to determine the most suitable sequence of

projects to create a transportation network that best meets

the region’s needs.

Some MPOs have connected the ITS architecture to the

project development process by way of a checklist that is

presented to all project sponsors (see Case 40). This is a

simple and useful way to promote incorporation of

consistent ITS elements into appropriate projects, particularly in areas where reference to the architecture tends to

come late in the project development process. When

project sponsors are prompted to consider ITS early in

project development, ITS will be better integrated into

projects and will be more likely to improve system efficiency. Consider developing a checklist for project

sponsors that describes important ITS considerations.

Build From the Architecture’s Operational

Concept

The regional ITS architecture includes an operational

concept that defines the institutional relationships among

the organizations involved in the deployment and operation of regionally integrated ITS systems. Consider using

this operational concept as a starting place for linking

planning and operations more broadly. Consider how the

operational concept can function to guide operations

coordination beyond ITS.

Build a Sustained Forum Around Maintenance

of the Architecture

A region’s ITS priorities and organizational approach will

need to evolve along with the region’s travel patterns,

available funding, and technological capabilities. Project

implementation may also be a catalyst for maintenance of

the architecture. As projects come into final stage of design

the regional architecture should be reviewed to see if there

is any impact to the capabilities documented in the regional

architecture. Likewise, the architecture will need to respond

to changes in the region’s long-term goals and objectives.

For these reasons, agencies should consider procedures

and responsibilities for maintaining the regional ITS

architecture as needs evolve within the region. The

requirement to maintain the regional ITS architecture

provides an opportunity to institutionalize certain planning

and operations linkages.

Without active engagement, stakeholder participation has a

tendency to fall off when the architecture is complete.

Agencies can identify activities to maintain involvement of

a core group of stakeholders. Such a group can also serve

to help coordinate transportation planning and operations

more broadly. A good way to keep the stakeholder group

active is to involve it in on-going regional transportation

planning and programming activities. In addition, a number

of regions have maintained engagement by designating a

Case 39: Anchorage Prioritization Process for ITS

Projects

The Anchorage area MPO facilitated development of

Alaska’s regional ITS architecture. The architecture

includes short- and mid-range priorities and system

maintenance strategies. Anchorage has been able to

build consensus around a prioritization process that

acknowledges both mid-term operational needs and

long-range planning goals. This was achieved by

engaging operations managers as well as planners

and decisionmakers in the development of

architecture’s project selection criteria.

Contact Vivian Underwood: underwoodvr@muni.org

Case 40: Salt Lake City Region: ITS Consistency

Checklist

The MPO for the Salt Lake City region has developed

a checklist of ITS considerations for project sponsors.

This checklist includes the following:

z Briefly describe how this project fits in with the

regional ITS integration strategy.

z Note on the regional architecture diagrams how

this project fits with regional ITS.

z Briefly describe what connections and

architecture flows are planned to existing ITS as

part of this project.

z List stakeholders that have been and/or will be

involved in project concept development.

z Briefly describe how this project will facilitate

implementation of other future elements of the

regional architecture.

Contact Wayne Bennion: wbennion@wfrc.org
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 45

steering committee and by developing a regional ITS

architecture Web site.

Although a single agency may be designated to maintain

the architecture, it is important that a diverse set of

stakeholders remain actively engaged in the architecture

review and maintenance processes. These groups of

stakeholders can also function as ongoing forums where

planning and operations practitioners ensure that their

activities are coordinated.

LESSONS LEARNED

With many regions in the midst of ITS architecture

development, there is a wealth of perspectives on how the

process is working. Two lessons relating to planning and

operations coordination have been expressed frequently.

Stakeholders Take Interest in Concrete

Benefits

A number of regions have labored to attract a diverse range

of stakeholders to participate in the regional ITS architecture process. While coordinating ITS may already provide

benefits to many planning and operations stakeholders,

practitioners may not readily link these benefits with the

more abstract architecture process. This challenge has

been successfully addressed in several ways. Many

regions have found that the architecture tends to attract

more interest if it is promoted as a step to enhance existing

successful ITS initiatives (see Case 41). This may be a

traffic management center, an incident response program,

or some other initiative that is particularly important to the

stakeholders being targeted. Furthermore, to better engage

stakeholders in developing the operations concept, realworld operations situations or scenarios can be used to

guide the discussion and make the concept more accessible. Finally, all stakeholders take interest when funding is

at stake. Greater participation has been achieved by

highlighting the linkage between the ITS architecture and

access to Federal funds, or by communicating ways that

the architecture will delineate regional ITS investment

priorities.

The ITS Architecture Can Be Expected to

Enhance Collaboration Over Time

FHWA’s ITS architecture rule requires that the regional

architecture be developed by April 8, 2005. After this

deadline, Federal funds cannot be used for ITS projects in

the region until a regional ITS architecture has been

developed. Understandably, many regions that have not

yet developed an architecture are focusing their attention

on satisfying this Federal requirement. As a result, some of

the more complex institutional issues are not being fully

addressed in these initial regional architecture plans. Once

the deadline is satisfied, regions that have recognized this

value will have the opportunity to refocus on aspects of

the architecture that help collaboration between jurisdictions and between ITS and regional planning processes.

Ongoing implementation and maintenance of the architecture affords numerous opportunities to implement some of

the collaboration opportunities that become apparent in the

initial architecture development.

Key Regional ITS Architecture Resources

z Regional ITS Architecture Guidance: Developing,

Using, and Maintaining and ITS Architecture for

your region, U.S DOT, October 2001. http://

www.its.dot.gov/aconform/Guidance.htm

z Regional ITS Architecture Maintenance Website:

http://www.its.dot.gov/aconform/Guidance.htm

z Joint ITS Program Technical Assistance Site:

http://www.its.dot.gov/itsweb/Technical/

technical.htm

Case 41: Kansas City Scout: Inspiring Participation

in the Architecture

Kansas City Scout is an extensive freeway

management system for the bi-state Kansas City

metropolitan area. The system came about prior to

development of a regional ITS architecture. According

to ITS planners in the region, existence of Kansas

City Scout made it easier to engage stakeholders in

ITS issues going forward. The success of the system

has drawn interest from cities throughout the region.

These jurisdictions understand that further expansion

and development must be consistent with the

regional architecture, and based on the success of

Kansas City Scout, they see the value in intraregional coordination.

Contact Ron Achelpohl: rona@marc.org
2 - 46 | Getting More by Working Together

2.8

BACKGROUND

Some projects are especially likely to bring together

planners and operators. For example, any regional management and operations projects require involvement of State

or regional transportation planners. Such planners may be

needed to manage regional funding opportunities, to

coordinate across jurisdictions and modes, or simply to

provide regional leadership. Exhibit 12 lists some examples

of such regional M&O projects.

What is Meant by Regional M&O Projects?

Regional management and operations refers to the

multimodal, cross-jurisdictional systems, services, and

projects that are implemented to optimize the performance

of the existing infrastructure. These systems, services, and

projects are designed to preserve capacity and improve

security, safety, and reliability of transportation systems.

Regional M&O projects include a diverse range of activities (as illustrated in the breadth of activities included in

Exhibit 12).

How Can Regional M&O Projects Create

Linkages?

Regional M&O projects can help to link planning and

operations in a number of ways. For example, if an MPO

leads an operations-oriented project, MPO planners may

work closely with operations agencies, developing a better

understanding of operations in the process. When regional

planners understand the role of management and operations, there is a greater likelihood that regional M&O

projects will be supported in the long-range planning and

programming process. From another perspective, as longrange plans increase their focus on regional M&O projects

to maximize the efficiency of a mature transportation

systems, planners will require more involvement and

expertise of operations practitioners. Regional M&O

projects can also educate operations managers about

broader regional planning and policy objectives that cut

across modes and jurisdictions.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

This section highlights opportunities to link planning and

operations through specific types of regional M&O

projects. Nearly every M&O project can strengthen the

planning and operations link in some way, so these

examples should be considered as illustrative rather than as

a comprehensive list. Indeed, the very existence of regional

M&O projects may be an indication that a region has

developed some coordination between planning and

operations. For example, an effective regional incident

management program requires input from operations

managers as well as some institutional awareness at the

State and regional planning level to recognize the need and

to fund such a program. Through the ongoing implementation and expansion of regional M&O projects, planning

and operations coordination will continue to evolve in a

productive manner.

Work Zone Management Programs

The goal of work zone management programs is to reduce

the impact of roadway construction and maintenance on

mobility and safety. Travelers are often frustrated when

they perceive that the impacts of highway construction

Exhibit 12: Examples of Regional M&O Projects

and Programs

> Arterial management systems

> Work zone management systems

> Emergency management

> Electronic toll and fare collection

> Special event coordination Automated traffic

enforcement

> Traffic incident management

> Road weather management

> Traveler information services

> Commercial vehicle operations

> Traffic detection and surveillance

> Freight management

> Development of HOV/HOT lanes
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 47

activities have been poorly managed resulting in congestion and delay. In response to customer concerns and the

potential for efficiency gains, work zone management

programs have become a focus of regional operations

thinking and have gained recognition as an important area

for interagency and interjurisdictional coordination.

Work zone management is inherently an operations

concern, since it focuses on strategies for minimizing

disruption to the roadway system. However, planners can

play a significant role in helping to ensure that construction and maintenance projects scheduled for a corridor are

considered early in the planning and programming process

to minimize the impacts of multiple work zones. Planners

can also help to ensure coordination between jurisdictions

when scheduling roadwork.

Traditionally, conducting the work during off-peak hours

minimized work zone mobility impacts. This has become

more difficult as peak-periods are spreading and the time

window for conducting work is shrinking, making it critical

to plan for work zone impacts early in the project development process. It is also typically more expensive to do work

during off peak hours, consuming a larger share of scarce

resources. Planners are beginning to get involved in work

zone management at the corridor level, including learning

the details about the work and exploring regional options

to mitigate traffic impacts (e.g., development of service

roads or advance preparation of alternate routes). Work

zone management issues can even be considered during

the regional project prioritization process.

Through involvement in work zone management programs,

planners gain exposure to traffic management strategies

that may have broader application for addressing shortterm regional concerns. Concurrently, planners offer

expertise in public information distribution, stakeholder

involvement, and transportation system network behavior.

For these reasons, the MPO often serves as a good forum

for coordinating work zone management between agencies

and jurisdictions.

Major transportation construction projects also offer an

opportunity to demonstrate the capacity for management

and operations strategies to mitigate impacts to the

regional traffic network. Such mitigations could include

travel demand management services and their promotion,

temporary signal timing adjustments on alternate routes, or

advanced traveler information strategies (such as variable

message signs) to keep travelers apprised of real time

conditions before they reach the work zone. Implementation of such strategies can be a way to demonstrate their

potential for broader application to address regional traffic

disruptions.

Regional Incident Response Programs

Incident management is the process of managing multiagency, multi-jurisdictional responses to highway traffic

disruptions. Efficient and coordinated management of

incidents reduces their adverse impacts on public safety,

traffic conditions, and the local economy. These programs

typically require involvement from a wide range of stakeholders including State and local law enforcement agencies, fire and rescue agencies, HAZMAT clean-up services,

towing and recovery companies, and public and private

traveler information providers. Due to the wide range of

actors involved, these programs provide a mechanism to

link operations stakeholders and help to jumpstart other

regional operations efforts. Several regions have sponsored conferences to share information and best practices

on incident management. Conferences provide opportunities for operations practitioners to work with planners to

expand services and discuss facility design issues that

affect the efficiency of incident response efforts.

In some regions, MPOs have taken the lead role in advancing coordinated incident response and freeway service

patrol programs (see Case 42). Because traffic incidents are

responsible for such a large portion of regional congestion,

MPOs are becoming more active in incident response.

When the MPO takes the lead, it provides an important

opportunity for broader involvement by the MPO in

thinking about day-to-day management of transportation

facilities. In addition, operations managers within the

region may come to see the MPO as a more relevant player

and, consequently, participate more actively in the MPO’s

activities.

Special Events Management

Transportation practitioners often comment on the power

of major special events to promote unparalleled levels of

planning and coordination between otherwise disconnected transportation agencies. This condition is particularly evident for special events that bring broad national or

international attention to a particular city, such as major

sporting events or high-profile conventions (see Case 43).

A special event can serve as a catalyst for the development

of a new model for planning and operations coordination –

a model that can potentially continue to function long after

the event has occurred. To sustain and build upon the
2 - 48 | Getting More by Working Together

collaborative attitudes that are common during special

events, it is important that stakeholders consider in

advance how to build from these events. Planners and

operations representatives can work together to discuss

opportunities to build from successful event coordination.

Regional Signal Coordination

Signal coordination programs, traditionally conducted in

isolation by individual cities, are now being conducted

across jurisdictions. Interconnecting traffic signals and

optimizing signal timing has been shown to reduce travel

times by 8 to 25 percent along an arterial or corridor. Some

regions are also working to integrate arterial signalization

systems with transit operation, emergency operations, and/

or freeway management efforts.

Cross-jurisdictional signal coordination is often led by a

city, usually a large central city coordinating with smaller

surrounding cities. But MPOs and other regional agencies

also can lead regional signal coordination efforts, and in

the process help to strengthen ties between planners and

operators (see Case 44). For example, some MPOs have

formed a traffic signal coordination committee made up

primarily of local government traffic engineers and public

works managers. The committee works together to craft a

written agreement on signal timing that is consistent with

regional planning objectives and also acceptable to the

local jurisdictions. The involvement of the regional planning

agency can help to bring all the necessary stakeholders to

the table while ensuring that the signal coordination supports

regional air quality planning, ITS deployments, transit

operations, and other regional initiatives.

HOV Lane Development

Some new transportation infrastructure projects inherently

involve consideration of regional M&O issues as well as

regional planning and policy issues. HOV lane (or HOT

lane) development is a prime example. HOV lane construction involves all of the engineering and operational

considerations associated with traditional freeway lane

additions plus a range of planning and policy concerns.

For example, HOV lane projects must address detailed

operational considerations for lane access points as they

relate to overall system performance. HOV lanes also

require State and regional policy considerations such as

hours of operation, vehicle occupancy requirements for

access, exceptions to HOV requirements, and policies

relating to emergency and special event use of HOV lanes.

These are frequently controversial topics related to broader

regional demand management efforts. MPOs and State

DOT planning agencies are usually more versed in the

broader policy considerations, but operations practitioners

are needed for the consideration of operations constraints.

As a result, HOV projects tend to generate numerous

opportunities for new professional connections between

planning and operations (see Case 45).

Transportation Emergency Preparedness and

Security Planning

Agencies involved with transportation management and

operations are increasingly focused on disaster preparedness planning and emergency response coordination –

Case 42: Bay Area Freeway Service Patrol

Established in 1992, the Bay Area Freeway Service

Patrol (FSP) is a joint project between the

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways, the

California Highway Service Patrol, and the California

DOT. The 74 FSP trucks patrol 450 miles of the Bay

Area freeways to clear crashes, remove debris, and

help stranded motorists without a fee. FSP’s fast

response time helps to reduce congestion and

secondary crashes. Patrol trucks are equipped with

advanced communications equipment, including an

automatic vehicle location system to assist in

dispatch. As an indication of its widespread success,

on March 24, 2003, FSP recorded its 1 millionth driver

assist.

Contact Rod McMillan: rmcmillan@mtc.ca.gov

Case 43: Dallas/Fort Worth Region Olympic Bid

Lessons

In preparing a bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics, the

Dallas/Fort Worth region worked collaboratively to

design a system of managed lanes throughout the

region. Through this planning exercise, operations

managers and planning staff learned that managed

lanes were the only feasible way to provide rapid

priority travel to particular sites. Although Dallas did

not win the Olympic bid, the planning exercise

resulted in some important lessons about the

flexibility of a regional managed lane network.

Contact Dan Lamers: dlamers@nctcog.org
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 49

coordination that should take place at the regional scale. A

number of regions have established a management and

operations committee that focuses on day-to-day operations activities, with a transportation emergency preparedness subcommittee that focuses on longer-range planning

and training programs related to emergency management.

Arrangements such as these serve to facilitate better

coordination between planning and operations.

Recent efforts to model emergency situations have applied

traditional planning tools to improve transportation

management practices. These models often combine GIS,

travel demand forecasting procedures, and simulation of

emergency scenarios to assist in emergency response

planning (see Case 46). Setting up and running these

models may require involvement of both regional transportation planners and system operations experts.

Regional Traffic Management Centers

Regional traffic management centers (TMCs) are typically

involved with M&O projects and programs such as those

discussed in this section. A TMC may serve as headquarters for incident management activities and is also likely to

be an important participant in planning for emergency

preparedness and for special events. TMCs can also create

additional opportunities for improving planning and

operations coordination.

For planning agencies, being involved in the development

of a TMC can serve as a unique bridge from a capital

project focus to management and operations coordination.

Planners familiar with the capital project development

Case 44: Kansas City Operation Green Light

Operation Green Light is a joint effort between State

and local governments to synchronize traffic signals

on 1500 intersections throughout the Kansas City

area in order to improve traffic flow and air quality. The

Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), the area’s

MPO, is the umbrella under which the Missouri and

Kansas Departments of Transportation and 17 area

cities work together to develop coordinated timing

plans and signal communication systems. The

coincidence of several key events helped bring

Operation Green Light into existence. In 1998, MARC

allocated funds to study the impact of traffic signal

coordination on emissions reduction. That same year

the Missouri DOT and the Public Works Department

of Kansas City conducted a study addressing

common hardware standards for traffic signal

equipment. In the summer of 1998, the two studies

were combined and resulted in a recommendation

for regional signal timing coordination. With its recent

eligibility for CMAQ funds, the Kansas City region was

able to initiate Operation Green Light. At the present

time, the region is assembling resources and

working with local agencies to deploy signal timing

plans. Operation Green Light is expected to reduce

traffic delays, improve traffic flow, reduce emissions,

and assist in managing changes in traffic patterns

resulting from a new freeway management system.

Contact Ron Achelpohl: rona@marc.org

Case 46: Operations Coordination Peaks for

Nebraska’s Emergency Management Exercises

The Nebraska Department of Roads has been

involved in extensive disaster preparedness training

exercises. They have observed high levels of

collaboration and cooperation among agency

divisions and regions during the exercise

development and execution process. These training

exercises have led to a better understanding of the

physical assets and expertise available to each

agency and region, helping to promote greater

collaboration in day-to-day management and

operations activities.

Contact Jim Schmailzl: jschmail@dor.state.ne.us

Case 45: HOV Projects Drive Coordination at

Washington State DOT

There have been major debates within the Seattle

region regarding who has driving privileges in the

HOV lanes. Operations managers at the state DOT

recognized that these policy concerns were the

domain of planning practitioners. Planners who

became involved with HOV policy development had to

learn everything about the operation of such facilities

so that they could make well-informed policy

decisions. As a result of taking the time to understand

the systems operations issues associated with HOV

operations, these planners have gained a broader

connection with operations staff and have been

exposed to “operations thinking.”

Contact Toby Rickman: rickman@wsdot.wa.gov
2 - 50 | Getting More by Working Together

process usually lead the process of funding, designing,

and constructing a TMC facility. But the TMC development process can also stimulate a broader discussion of

what takes place within the traffic management center, such

as:

z Who must be involved in its design and management?

z How will the activities be sustained?

z How will it link with other centers?

z What is the ultimate scope of management activities

that could occur in the center?

These topics can help engage operations management and

planning agencies in a broader discussion of M&O

coordination.

A number of regions report that the operation of regional

TMCs has helped build broader cooperation in regional

M&O efforts (see Case 47). For example, some TMCs are

co-managed by the State police. This ensures that this

constituency is consistently involved in broader policy

considerations about the center’s roles and responsibilities. In other regions, emergency management practitioners

have witnessed the benefits of operations technologies

(e.g., signal priority exemption for emergency vehicles), and

as a result become more interested in regional ITS planning

and deployment.

As the operations community looks to expand its role in

the regional transportation planning process, these multiagency working relationships can prove to be critical. The

ability to bring a multi-agency perspective to the planning

table should enhance the decisionmaking process and

result with increased system performance as, for example,

incidents get cleared in a more timely and effective manner.

Cross-cutting Regional Implementation Actions

While the previous discussion of how to exploit these

linkage opportunities referred to particular regional M&O

activities, the following short-term actions apply to a wide

range of regional M&O programs. These are some examples of how agencies can use existing M&O projects to

build a broader regional link between planning and

operations.

z Identify multi-jurisdictional M&O programs that

should involve the MPO. MPOs have skills that are

relevant to integrated management and operations

strategies. These skills include experience with

bringing together diverse stakeholders, awareness of

how to distribute information to the general public,

and familiarity with a broad array of funding

opportunities. Unfortunately, MPOs are not always

well informed about the range of active regional M&O

activities. MPO staff should identify management and

operations programs within the region and assess the

extent of MPO involvement. Consider strategies to

increase MPO involvement in programs that are

dominated by operations practitioners.

z Expand stakeholder participation in existing M&O

projects. Many regions have nascent regional M&O

projects and programs with involvement from a limited

number of regional stakeholders. For example, signal

coordination efforts and special event management

programs often include no more than a few local

governments. Identify opportunities to expand these

programs so that they embrace a larger portion of

regional stakeholders, becoming true cooperative

regional systems management and operations efforts.

z Use specific M&O successes to sell new regional

coordination efforts. Agencies can identify successful

local examples of coordination between regional

planning and M&O projects or programs. Examples

may include a special event where regional

transportation services were particularly well

coordinated, a successful interjurisdictional work zone

management effort, or a multi-jurisdictional

signalization coordination plan that took into account

the needs of multiple modes. Identify factors that

contributed to the success of such efforts, and work to

replicate the success in other regional M&O projects.

Case 47: Austin’s TMC is Building New Interagency

Connections

In its initial several weeks of operation, the Combined

Transportation, Emergency and Communications

Center (CTECC) in the Austin, Texas region

demonstrated its capacity to increase coordination

between traffic operations, emergency services, and

police departments. For example, by facilitating direct

communication between the traffic operations and

emergency services staff, the center has increased

awareness about traffic impacts caused by accidents

so that emergency vehicles are less likely to

unnecessarily block traffic. As the region considers

new projects in the future that involve emergency

services, the CTECC will provide a forum to involve

the broad range of management and operations

constituents in regional planning.

Contact Brian Burk: bburk@dot.state.tx.us
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 51

LESSONS LEARNED

Implementation of regional M&O projects has exposed

numerous challenges and highlighted some promising

ways to overcome them. Many of the lessons learned are

specific to one type of M&O project or program and are

discussed at length in other resources. This section

reviews several lessons that apply broadly to regional

M&O efforts.

Organizing at Regional Scale May Highlight

Differences Between Objectives

Operations practitioners and local decisionmakers are likely

to be concerned about centralizing the control of traffic

management at the regional scale. These concerns are

legitimate – local operators often have vital information

about the particular issues in each jurisdiction that cannot

be readily communicated to regional agencies. What is best

for regional management is not always best for particular

local stakeholders. Any regional M&O effort must be open

to discussing and accommodating issues related to the

authority of existing operating organizations. While it may

not eliminate local concerns, a focus on coordination rather

than centralization is critical for the success of such

regional efforts, and is a prerequisite for engaging operations managers in a broader regional planning dialogue.

Regional M&O Efforts Face Pressure to

Expand in Scope

Some regions have faced a situation in which they set out

to develop a specific regional M&O program and found

that the discussion quickly expanded to cover a broad

array of management and operations efforts. Regional

coordination, information sharing, and public involvement

for one particular program often illuminates needs and

opportunities for regional coordination in other operations

areas. For example, when work zone management programs

are coordinating with regional transit operators, it becomes

apparent that incident management programs and regional

signal coordination programs should be doing the same

thing. Similarly, efforts to establish an incident management

program may highlight poor coordination between various

jurisdictional traffic management centers.

Successful M&O task forces or consortiums should

carefully assess how much responsibility they wish to take

on beyond their original focused effort. Some groups have

successfully expanded beyond straightforward original

goals such as work zone management, taking on broad

responsibilities for a range of regional management and

operations efforts. Other groups have determined that their

institutional arrangement left them best suited to focus on

a specific M&O program and concluded that increasing

demands called for developing management and operations

oversight within the State DOT or MPO.
2 - 52 | Getting More by Working Together

2.9

The previous eight sections discuss specific strategies that

encourage and support linkages between planning and

operations. Each of these strategies has a role within the

existing regional transportation planning process. In

addition, these strategies should be coordinated to support

regional system management and operations. This section

introduces the idea of developing a Regional Concept for

Transportation Operations (RCTO), a tool for ensuring that

management and operation activities build toward a

common vision and relate to the broader regional planning

process. An RCTO links planning and operations by

providing a coherent framework for considering operations

during the planning process and by supporting the

linkages discussed in previous sections.24

An RCTO presents a regional objective for transportation

operations and describes what is needed to achieve that

objective within a reasonably short timeframe, often three

to five years. The development of the RCTO should

include participation by the MPO to ensure consistency

with the region’s vision and goals. It should also involve

stakeholders that depend on regional operations coordination (see Exhibit 13). The process of developing an RCTO

requires sustained collaboration among these stakeholders.

To date, only a small number of regions have developed

documents similar to RCTOs. Therefore, rather than

focusing on the few examples of how these instances have

linked planning and operations, this section describes in

general how an RCTO can support planning and operations coordination and how it can support other strategies

discussed in this resource guide.

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN AN RCTO?

An RCTO can vary significantly in scope depending on the

region and the range of programs it seeks to address (see

Exhibit 14), but certain fundamental components must be

included. An RCTO should describe 1) the operations

objective, 2) the physical elements of the system, 3)

relationships and procedures, and 4) resources required to

achieve the RCTO goals. The issues that would typically

be addressed within each of these sections are described

below.

z Operations Objective: the desired operations outcome

for one or more activities or services at the end of a

three- to five-year period. All stakeholders should

agree upon this outcome, it should be consistent with

regional goals expressed in regional planning

documents, and it should be realistically achievable

given the timeframe and available resources.

z Physical Improvements: the equipment, technology,

facilities, people, and systems needed to achieve the

operations objective.

24 For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Regional Concept for

Transportation Operations: A Tool for Strengthening and Guiding Regional

Transportation Operations Collaboration and Communication, FHWA, http://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/rcto_white_paper/index.htm.

Exhibit 13: Management and operations

stakeholders who may help develop the RCTO

include:

> State DOTs

> MPOs

> Local planning departments

> Local public works departments

> Air/Sea ports

> Local chambers of commerce

> Transit agencies

> Public safety/security agencies

> Tourism bureaus

> Major employers

> Community groups

> Toll authorities

> Advocacy groups

> Major freight shippers

> Local jurisdictions

> Commercial vehicle operators
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 53

Exhibit 14: Examples of services likely to benefit

from regional coordination through a RCTO

> Traffic incident management

> Traveler information

> Electronic payment services (e.g., transit,

parking, tolls)

> Emergency response and homeland security

> Traffic signal coordination

> Road weather management

> Freight management

> Work zone traffic management

> Freeway management

> Congestion management

z Relationships and Procedures: the working

agreements, institutional arrangements, MOUs, and

procedures needed to achieve the operations

objective.

z Resource Arrangements: the funding and other

resource requirements (e.g., staff and equipment) and

how those resources are to be obtained and applied to

achieve the operations objective.

HOW CAN AN RCTO LINK PLANNING AND

OPERATIONS?

An RCTO links planners and operators by helping operators participate in the planning process and by helping

planners understand how operations can support the

region’s broader transportation goals. The RCTO builds

consensus on the future of transportation operations

needs. This provides stakeholders with a basis for

productively participating in regional decisions. It also

provides a framework for critically evaluating whether the

proposed investments adequately support the operations

objective.

Helping Operations Practitioners Engage in the

Planning Process

An RCTO can prepare management and operations

practitioners to be effective contributors within the

transportation planning process

z An RCTO addresses a longer time horizon and a

broader geographic range than is typical for

operations strategies. As a result, the RCTO allows

operations practitioners to link their programs with

future capital investments and potential operations

funding sources.

z An RCTO builds commitment among stakeholders for

a common regional approach to operations (see Case

48). Operations managers will have greater influence in

the planning process when diverse stakeholders have

reached consensus on an operations objective for the

region.

z Though longer than typical operations plans, the

three- to five-year timeframe of the RCTO is shorter

than many planning documents. The RCTO is

therefore more likely to maintain interest of operationsminded stakeholder groups. These are groups that

may not engage in the 20-year regional planning

process. In this way, the RCTO serves as a bridge

between stakeholders focused on very short-term

operations needs and those focused on the long-term

evolution of the regional transportation system. In

addition, the RCTO’s 3 to 5 year timeframe facilitates

coordination with the TIP (also 3 to 5 years).

Helping Planners Promote Management and

Operations

An RCTO can help planners and decisionmakers by

relating management and operations to broader regional

goals and by describing individual operations programs

within a broader regional operations strategy.

z An RCTO links management and operations strategies

with regional goals and objectives. This helps

planners see the benefits of regional operations

investments and creates a common understanding of

regional management and operations.

z An RCTO illustrates how individual management and

operations projects and programs fit into a broader

strategy for regional transportation efficiency (see

Case 49). In this way, an RCTO helps planners

consider how capital projects can be implemented in a

way that complements existing operations strategies.

z By providing a coherent operations strategy for

consideration during the planning process, an RCTO

enables decisionmakers to fund critical operations

initiatives and understand how they support regional

goals. In this way, an RCTO provides elected officials

who must approve transportation plans and programs
2 - 54 | Getting More by Working Together

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

In the Phoenix metropolitan region, the need for an RCTO became clear during the process of developing the

regional ITS architecture. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) ITS Committee found that operations

issues were being considered only at a very high level during the development of the architecture; there was little

detailed discussion regarding how to get from the current way of doing business to the end points defined in the

architecture. As a result, the committee viewed the architecture as a longer-term goal and committed to

developing a shorter-term detailed regional plan for operations coordination.

When MAG’s ITS Committee initiated the process of developing the Regional Concept of Transportation

Operations in 2001, several organizations had already been involved in regional transportation operations

coordination, including the MAG ITS Committee, AZTechTM, and the East and West Valley Traffic Signal Timing

Groups. A consulting agency and a group of stakeholders from city, county, regional, State, and Federal agencies

developed an initial Regional Concept of Transportation Operations. These stakeholders agreed on a common

vision and mission for the region’s transportation system operations. They then developed three- and five-year

operational goals that would move the region toward this vision. To address these goals, the committee agreed

on 11 initiatives and associated steps for action. For example, one initiative focuses on “transit signal priority”

and the associated action is “plan, deploy, operate, maintain and evaluate a Transit Signal Priority pilot project.”

This group of stakeholders also agreed on common operational performance measures that would be used to

track their progress.

The group took several steps to insure success of the newly formed initiatives:

z It developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be signed by each participating agency. The intent

of the MOU is to acquire commitment from the participants to work towards the initiatives and coordinate with

one another in managing and operating the region’s transportation system.

z Existing regional forums or committees and a champion were assigned responsibility for one or more

initiatives. The champion’s duties included being a leader for the area and reporting on the progress at the

MAG ITS Committee meetings.

z It committed to developing a guidance document that will help agencies to implement the actions described

in the RCTO (currently underway).

MAG’s current RCTO and additional discussion of the development process are available online: http://

www.mag.maricopa.gov/project.cms?item=1395

Contact Sarath Joshua: sjoshua@mag.maricopa.gov

with justification for promoting regional benefits

through local operations decisions.

Through the mechanisms outlined above, an RCTO allows

regional planners and operations managers to be proactive

about coordinating operations strategies to serve regional

objectives.

HOW CAN AN RCTO SUPPORT LINKAGE

OPPORTUNITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS

GUIDE?

From the discussion above, it should be clear that the

RCTO links planning and operations in ways similar to the

strategies discussed in previous sections of this resource

guide (Sections 2.2 to 2.8). In fact, the RCTO can be a

valuable tool for integrating all of these strategies to

improve planning and operations coordination. The

following discussion gives some examples of how the

RCTO supports the linkage opportunities discussed in

these previous sections.

z Data Sharing (Section 2.2): The RCTO is an

opportunity to increase regional data sharing. As

discussed in Section 2.2, incompatible or conflicting

data between various agencies and jurisdictions

frequently impede efforts to use of such data for

operations and planning. The RCTO is an opportunity

to highlight the benefits of improved data consistency,

awareness, and accessibility. By understanding such

benefits, agencies can reasonably evaluate tradeoffs

and consider compromises relating to data standards
Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations | 2 - 55

Case 49: A Concept of Operations for Bay Area

Freeways

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MPO

for California’s Bay Area Region) played a key role in

developing a concept of operations to improve

freeway management. MPO staff members

coordinated closely with the State DOT and the

California Highway Patrol to develop the Bay Area

Freeway Concept of Operations Project in 2001. This

effort built on existing coordination of freeway

congestion management, incident management, and

traveler information programs. The project pursued

three objectives:

z Identify potential improvements to policies,

procedures, and practices would enhance

regional agency coordination

z Define roles, responsibilities, and resources for

freeway operations.

z Develop a plan of action for improving freeway

operations.

The project received input from top agency

executives, agency staff, and a range of public agency

stakeholders. Immediate results have included a

regional consensus defining what freeway

operations should look like in the near future,

definition of some measurable objectives, and a plan

for how the participating agencies can meet these

new expectations. Some of the recommended

strategies include integrating incident detection,

developing overall data and video sharing policy, and

detailing a staffing and funding program.

Contact Rod McMillan: rmcmillan@mtc.ca.gov

and protocols.

z Performance Measures (Section 2.3): An RCTO can

provide a basis for developing management and

operations performance measures. Because the RCTO

defines regional operations objectives, physical needs,

institutional relationships, and resource needs, it is the

ideal place to define metrics to assess the region’s

progress in each of these areas.

z Congestion Management Systems (Section 2.4): The

RCTO can help ensure that individual management

and operations projects build toward integrated

regional transportation objectives. Goals for

management and operations may stretch beyond

traditional congestion management to include

objectives such as travel time reliability and intermodal

coordination. The RCTO can provide a framework so

that individual operations projects and programs

within the CMS are not implemented in an ad-hoc

fashion but, rather, contribute to an integrated

strategy.

z Funding and Resource Sharing (Section 2.5): The

RCTO allows operations funding to be targeted toward

a specific operations objective and reveals

opportunities for efficient resource sharing. Section 2.5

described how funding for operations is frequently

allocated under broad categories (such as

“management and operations”) with little specific

reference to the activities that are to be funded. An

RCTO provides a more complete regional operations

vision that helps define specific programs during the

planning stage. This can raise the profile of

management and operations programs among elected

officials and the public.

In addition, by defining some common operations goals

among diverse stakeholders, the RCTO can identify

equipment and other resource needs that are common to

several agencies. This creates an opportunity to identify

particular equipment that might be jointly purchased and

shared by a number of agencies, or to coordinate common

technology or software to enhance compatibility and

efficiency. Raising such opportunities a year or two in

advance is critical for developing coordinated strategies.

z Institutional Arrangements (Section 2.6): Regular

stakeholder forums and interjurisdictional meetings are

familiar to participants in the regional planning

process. However, some operating agencies may be

less accustomed to such practices, and may question

whether they are a valuable use of time and resources.

The RCTO provides an important framework for

ensuring that such forums are directed toward clearly

defined and pragmatic operations coordination.

Initially, meetings to prepare and advance the RCTO

may be the only forums where the participating

stakeholders can focus on regional operations

thinking. The RCTO also offers an opportunity to

forge needed relationships with non-transportation

agencies (such as emergency response and security

agencies).

z Regional ITS Architecture (Section 2.7): Components

of an RCTO correspond with components of the

Regional ITS architecture discussed in Section 2.7. For
2 - 56 | Getting More by Working Together

example, an RCTO’s “relationships and procedures”

section should complement a regional ITS

architecture’s discussion of critical agency

relationships and information sharing. Where a

regional architecture exists, it should both inform and

draw support from the RCTO. In regions where there is

no regional ITS architecture, the RCTO will help

ensure that the architecture is developed in a way that

informs immediate operations decisionmaking and

links to broad regional goals and objectives.

z Regional M&O Projects (Section 2.8): The RCTO is

directly related to the implementation of regional M&O

projects. Section 2.8 describes the common practice of

allocating authority for all operations to local

jurisdictions. The RCTO offers a means by which local

organizations can maintain such control of their own

management and operations projects and programs

while increasing the likelihood that these programs will

build toward an integrated regional management

strategy.

.

THE FUTURE OF THE RCTO

Implementing an RCTO involves significant challenges. For example, there will be challenges in directing

resources toward a new regional coordination effort. There

will be challenges in identifying stakeholders with the

technical knowledge necessary to develop the RCTO yet

with sufficient decisionmaking authority to commit

resources and formalize relationships. And of course, there

will be challenges in building regional consensus on

operations priorities. Based on the RCTO’s potential for

linking planning and operations and improving the

efficiency of existing investments, these challenges are well

worth facing. Existing experience with concepts similar to

RCTOs offers reason to be optimistic.
Self-Assessment | 3- 1

he following table is designed as a self-assessment

tool to help planning and operations practitioners

consider their current level of coordination and

identify potential linkage opportunities.25 If the answers are

“no” to many of the questions for a given opportunity area

then this area may represent a good place to expand

planning and operations coordination. The previous

chapter described a wide range of strategies to help

coordinate transportation planning with transportation

management and operations. These strategies provide

possible starting points for discussion within a region.

25 This self-assessment covers all of the linkage opportunities discussed

in chapter 2 except for the regional concept for transportation operations

(Section 2.9). The RCTO is not included in the self-assessment because

this strategy is new and has been implemented in only a few regions.

3 SELF-ASSESSMENT

T
3 - 2 | Getting More by Working Together

T Do planners and

operators know oneanother and understandeach other’s roles?

T Do public safety, private

sector, and transportationoperations practitionersparticipate in regionalplanning forums?

T Do goals and objectives

address efficient systemsmanagement andoperations?

T Do needs assessments

address institutionalcoordination, systemflexibility, and reliability?

T Do assessments of

alternative planningscenarios consider theeffectiveness ofoperations strategies?

T Do plans articulate or

refer to a future,improved system ofregional operations?

Transportation Planning Process Data Sharing Performance Measurement Congestion Management Systems

T Have any agencies

identified and assessedopportunities to sharedata?

T Is there a place where

agencies and jurisdictionscan identify mostavailable transportationrelated data within theregion?

T Have agencies explored

or implemented specificdata sharing partnershipswhere benefits aresignificant?

T Are universities within

the region involved withdata management andsharing?

T Do agencies make use of

available operations datawhen developing planninganalysis tools andperformance measures?

T Is the ITS architecture

used to informopportunities for sharingdata?

T Does an MPO

committee or task forcehave explicitresponsibility for regionalperformancemeasurement?

T Are managers with dayto-day operations

responsibilities involved indeveloping performancemeasures?

T Are regional

performance measuresthat relate to operationsincluded in strategic/longrange plans?

T Is there an established

schedule forperformance reporting?

T Has the agency identified

specific data and toolsneeded to implementperformance measures?

T Is it clear to

decisionmakers and thepublic how performancemeasures are used toprioritize operations andcapital investments?

T Do CMS meetings

involve operationsmanagers and publicsafety officials?

T Are CMS findings

explicitly discussed in theregional transportationplan and other planningreports?

T Are operators and

planners aware ofprojects that are listed inthe CMS?

T Do CMS strategies take

non-recurring delay intoaccount?

T Are CMS performance

evaluations linked with afunding prioritizationprocess?
Self-Assessment | 3- 3

T Do planning and

operations fundingprograms link clearlywith planning goals andobjectives?

T Are emergency response

and emergencypreparedness funds usedappropriately to supporttransportation operationsplanning?

T Are there funding

incentives to promoteinterjurisdictionalcoordination?

T Do planning documents

identify funding forspecific management andoperations activities?

T Have agencies identified

opportunities to shareequipment or facilities?

T Are any funding sources

used to leverageparticipation inmanagement andoperations coordination?

Funding and Resource Sharing Institutional Arrangements Regional ITS Architecture Regional M&O Projects

T Is there an active forum

for regional managementand operations?

T Do practitioners involved

with specific operationsactivities participate inthe planning process?

T Do practitioners involved

with regional operationscollaboration participatein the planning process?

T Has there been a

strategic discussion aboutthe appropriate MPOrole in regionaloperations?

T Is there coordination

between planning andoperations divisionswithin State DOTs andtransit agencies?

T Is there any staff

exchange betweenplanning and operationsoffices?

T Are management and

operations strategiesdiscussed during projectdesign and delivery?

T Is the MPO actively

involved with the regionalITS architecture?

T Are operations managers

involved with the regionalITS architecture?

T Does the regional ITS

architecture explicitlyaddress regional planninggoals and objectives?

T Do agencies that sponsor

projects consider early onwhether projects areconsistent with theregional architecture?

T Are regional planning

agencies and operatingagencies familiar with thearchitecture’s operationalconcept?

T Do diverse stakeholders

regularly participate inarchitecture meetings?

T Has the MPO or another

regional body definedITS architecturemaintenanceresponsibilities &activities?

T Does the planning

agency know who isengaged with regionalM&O projects?

T Does the MPO get

involved in anymanagement andoperations programs?(e.g., to facilitate publicoutreach, regionalcoordination, or therelationship with capitalprograms)

T Has there been any

discussion of expandingexisting M&O projects toaddress additionalmanagement issues orinclude additionaljurisdictions?

T Are there any M&O

programs that arerecognized by thebroader public as beingsuccessful transportationprograms? If so, is thissuccess used to promoteregional M&O?
3 - 4 | Getting More by Working Together
Resources | 4 - 1

KEY WEB SITES

FHWA: Systems Management and Operations Planner’s

Resource

www.plan4operations.dot.gov

The Institute of Transportation Engineers: Transportation

Systems Management and Operations

http://www.ite.org/management/index.asp

FHWA: Regional Transportation Collaboration and

Coordination

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/RegionalTransOpsCollaboration/

note.htm

FHWA: ITS/Operations Resource Guide

http://www.its.dot.gov/guide.html

ITS Joint Planning Office Electronic Documents Library

http://www.its.dot.gov/itsweb/welcome.htm

National Associations Working Group for ITS

http://www.nawgits.com/

FHWA: Office of Operations

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/index.asp

FHWA: Office of Planning

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htm

ITS America

http://www.itsa.org

ONLINE TOOLS

National ITS Architecture

http://itsarch.iteris.com/itsarch/

Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Analysis

System (IDAS)

http://idas.camsys.com/

FHWA Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) Research

Program

http://www.dynamictrafficassignment.org

DYNASMART-P software package

http://www.dynasmart.com

ONLINE FORUMS

Talking Operations Forum

http://www.ntoctalks.com/talkingops/index.cgi

ITS Technology Forum

http://www.ntoctalks.com/itsforum/index.cgi

ITS America Transportation Systems Operations and

Planning Forum (membership forum)

http://www.itsa.org/new.nsf/vLookupForumIntro/

Transportation+System+Operations+and+Planning!OpenDocument

4 RESOURCES
4 - 2 | Getting More by Working Together

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 7th Street S.W. (HOP)

Washington, DC 20590

Toll-Free "Help Line" 866-367-7487

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

EDL Document No.: 14071

Publication No.: FHWA-HOP-05-016