Regional Concept for

Transportation Operations

A Primer

abcd

The Blueprint

 for Action
Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality 

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

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

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

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HOP-07-122 

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

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

June 2007 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations: The Blueprint for 

Action 

A Primer 

6. Performing Organization 

Code 

7. Authors 

Jocelyn Bauer, Michael Smith, and John Mason 

8. Performing Organization 

Report No. 

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

1710 SAIC Drive 

M/S T1-12-3 

McLean, VA 22102 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-01-C-00180 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

Final Report 

August 2004 – June 2007 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

HOP 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Mr. Wayne Berman, Contracting Officer’s Task Manager 

16. Abstract 

A Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO) is a management tool to assist in planning 

and implementing management and operations strategies in a collaborative and sustained manner. 

Developing an RCTO helps partnering agencies think through and reach consensus on what they want 

to achieve in the next 3 to 5 years and how they are going to get there. The purpose of this document is 

to explain what an RCTO is, the development of its elements, and its applicability. 

17. Key Words 

regional concept for transportation operations, 

planning, regional operations, transportation 

systems management and operations, planning for 

operations, operations objective, operations 

strategies, regional ITS architecture

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public from: The National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this 

report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) 

Unclassified 

21. No of 

Pages 

35 

22. Price 

N/A 

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

1: INTRODUCTION

 1.1 Using Management and Operations Strategies to Address Customer Demand...................... 1-1

1.2 Moving Toward Common Ground to Advance TSM&O.............................................................. 1-1

1.3 A Tool for Developing Regional TSM&O Strategies.................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Primer Overview....................................................................................................................... 1-3

2: WHAT IS AN RCTO?................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Benefits of an RCTO ................................................................................................................ . 2-2

2.2 Foundations in Systems Thinking............................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 RCTO Scope .............................................................................................................................. 2-3

3: UNDERSTANDING THE RCTO IN CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 The RCTO and the Transportation Planning Process ............................................................. 3-1

3.2 How the RCTO Relates to the Regional ITS Architecture ........................................................ 3-6

3.3 How an RCTO Relates to a Concept of Operations ................................................................... 3-7

4: DEVELOPING AN RCTO ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

 4.1 Motivation ................................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2 Operations Objective................................................................................................................ 4-4

4.3 Approach................................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4 Relationships and Procedures ................................................................................................ 4-8

4.5 Physical Improvements........................................................................................................... 4-12

 4.6 Resource Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 4-14

5: KEYS FOR ADVANCING AN RCTO.............................................................................................................. 5-1

6: GETTING STARTED ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Building the Momentum for Operations Partnering ............................................................. 6-1

6.2 Identifying the RCTO Focus...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Developing the RCTO............................................................................................................... 6-1

7: SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. 7-1

CONTENTS

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 1 - 1 

1.1 USING MANAGEMENT AND 

OPERATIONS STRATEGIES TO 

ADDRESS CUSTOMER DEMAND

I

n every sector of our economy we see rising customer 

expectations and growing demand as the public becomes more aware of what is possible with advanced 

technology. Efforts to meet these expectations lead to 

increased complexity, cross-functional systems, and institutional relationships that transcend single entities. We 

see this in health care, homeland security, public safety, 

energy distribution, financial systems, and global supply 

chains. Similarly, increased demand on the transportation 

network and service expectations coupled with limited 

funds, time, and access to land has led to an emerging 

trend in transportation. Several regions across the U.S. 

have begun to make a shift toward optimizing the use of 

existing infrastructure across modes and jurisdictional 

boundaries through the application of transportation systems management and operations (TSM&O) strategies. 

TSM&O strategies enable transportation practitioners to 

provide higher levels of customer service in the near-term 

without incurring the high cost associated with major 

infrastructure projects. Examples of TSM&O strategies 

include multi-State traveler information systems, electronic transit payment services, traffic signal coordination, and 

traffic incident management. Benefits can be seen in the 

Denver metropolitan area where the Denver metropolitan 

planning organization and traffic signal operating agencies 

have worked together since 1989 to reduce traveler delay 

and air pollution. Multiple jurisdictions participating in an 

arterial emergency response team in the Phoenix metropolitan region save time and money by calling on the team 

to manage traffic during major incidents. 

TSM&O strategies have benefits for both transportation 

planners and operators. By working toward optimizing 

the transportation system with management and operations 

strategies, transportation planners are better able to demonstrate to the public and elected officials that progress 

is being made on reducing congestion in the short-term 

with lower cost techniques. Similarly, operators are able 

to make their limited staff time and other resources go 

further by collaborating with planners and other operators 

to pro-actively address operations from a regional perspective. Transportation operations improvements made in one 

jurisdiction are reinforced by coordinated improvements 

in neighboring areas enabling travelers to move seamlessly across the region without encountering, for example, 

inconsistent traveler information, toll collection technologies, or traffic signal timing. Overall, by working together 

to address transportation issues of regional significance 

with management and operations strategies, operators and 

planners are able to have a greater impact on the performance of the transportation system in the region than they 

would by working alone. 

1.2 MOVING TOWARD COMMON 

GROUND TO ADVANCE TSM&O

Effective planning and implementation of TSM&O strategies requires planners and operators to make a fundamental cultural shift that allows them to meet on common 

ground. Management and operation of the transportation 

system is generally left to individual operating agencies 

1 INTRODUCTION

• Traffic incident management

• Traveler information services

• Traffic signal and arterial management

• Transit priority systems

• Freight management

• Road weather management

Examples of TSM&O Strategies
1 - 2 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

(e.g., local departments of public works, transit agencies, 

State departments of transportation) within the region 

and is often performed on an ad hoc basis without a view 

toward the transportation system on a regional level. 

TSM&O requires operators to broaden their traditional 

perspective to one where individual facilities are viewed as 

interconnected pieces of a regional system and neighboring jurisdictions and agencies work together as partners 

in providing transportation services to customers. This 

transition necessitates new action: anticipating needs 

rather than only “putting out fires,” managing the system 

on a 24/7 basis rather than only during the peak period 

commutes, measuring system performance rather than only 

agency output, and reaching outside of your agency to coordinate your piece of the system with other jurisdictions 

and modes rather than working in functional stovepipes.

For transportation planners, the shift to TSM&O requires 

planners to expand their traditional focus on long-range infrastructure projects to include managing and operating the 

existing and planned infrastructure. This means engaging 

operations managers on a regular basis to address management and operations needs through regional strategies and 

establishing specific goals, 

objectives, and performance 

measures for the performance of the transportation 

system. Additionally, a shift 

toward TSM&O requires 

full consideration of management and operations 

strategies in the investment 

decisionmaking process.

1.3 A TOOL FOR DEVELOPING 

REGIONAL TSM&O STRATEGIES

Successfully managing and operating the regional transportation system depends upon deliberate, sustained collaboration 

among operators, planners, and other key stakeholders to 

establish direction and decide how to move forward. Meaningful and realistic objectives are necessary to guide the 

effort. As Lewis Carroll wrote, “If you don’t know where you 

are going, any road will take you there.”1 By establishing 

specific and measurable objectives, partnering agencies can 

choose the best “road” to follow. Lacking shared objectives 

to guide operations efforts, agencies risk unnecessary duplication with neighboring agencies, limited progress due to funding or staffing shortages, inconsistent traveler information, 

and underutilized or incompatible technologies.

Deliberate, sustained collaboration among participating jurisdictions is evident in a number of regions across the United 

States. In the National Capital Region more than 30 participating agencies from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and 

Virginia have established a formal partnership to implement 

and use the Capital Wireless Integrated Network (CapWIN). 

CapWIN enhances information sharing and communications among public safety and transportation agencies as they 

coordinate their efforts during special events and incidents. 

In Detroit, Michigan transportation and public safety professionals have met regularly since 1992 as an incident management committee wherein the participants jointly plan and 

implement initiatives such as a freeway courtesy patrol and 

an incident management center. Although the group retains 

its incident management title, it has expanded in scope to 

freeway operations and arterial traffic management. 

A common thread among these partnerships and others like 

them is the agreed objectives and the strategies for achieving 

them, including institutional relationships and performance 

expectations. This thread is the concept for how they want 

to improve regional transportation system performance by 

working together. A Regional Concept for Transportation 

Operations (RCTO) formalizes this thread by providing a 

framework that guides collaborative efforts to improve system 

performance through management and operations strategies. 

As Lewis Carroll wrote, “If 

you don't know where you 

are going, any road will take 

you there.” By establishing 

specific and measurable 

objectives, partnering 

agencies can choose the 

best “road” to follow.

�

�

� �

1 Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, New York : Grosset & Dunlap, 1946.
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 1 - 3 

The fundamental thinking behind an RCTO is not new. The 

RCTO brings together systems engineering concepts and the 

experience of successful transportation operations partnerships. The idea of an RCTO came out of a broad-based 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) working group on linking planning and 

operations in 2000 and 2001. The working group consisted 

of operations, planning, and public safety officials in local, 

regional, State, and Federal agencies. The idea was advanced 

in 2003 when a special policy committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) supported and endorsed it and 

recommended further development and demonstration.

1.4 PRIMER OVERVIEW

This primer will introduce transportation operators and 

planners to the Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, a blueprint for action. The primer will describe an 

RCTO and its essential components, explain its potential 

role in the transportation planning process, and illustrate 

its development through examples. Additionally, the 

primer will highlight the benefits gained from partnerships 

that develop an RCTO and the keys for success as partners 

work toward an RCTO.
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 2 - 1 

tan planning organizations, 

and public safety entities. 

Depending on the scope of 

the RCTO, non-traditional 

participants such as freight 

operators, tourism bureaus, 

and economic development 

agencies may need to be 

engaged. Well-respected 

leaders who are willing to champion the common goals of 

the partners and guide the development of the RCTO are 

necessary for its success. It may be most effective to have 

a leader involved with transportation planning as well as 

a leader from the operations community in order to bridge 

the two communities and bring an understanding of both 

planning and operations to the task of developing an RCTO. 

Frequently, collaborative operations efforts have a hosting 

organization. The selection of host depends on the composition of the partners, the operations focus of the collaboration, and available time and skills among the participants.

A sample is given below of transportation-related participants who could be involved in developing an RCTO:

• Traffic operations engineers and managers. 

• Transportation planners.

• Transit operations managers.

• Police and fire officials.

• Emergency medical service (EMS) officials.

• Emergency managers.

• Port authority managers. 

• Bridge and toll facility operators.

ARegional Concept for Transportation Operations 

is a management tool to assist in planning and 

implementing management and operations strategies in a collaborative and sustained manner. Developing 

an RCTO helps partnering agencies think through and reach 

consensus on what they want to achieve in the next 3 to 

5 years and how they are going to get there. The RCTO 

formalizes the collaboration and defines its direction for the 

future, essentially “getting everyone on the same page.” By 

implementing an RCTO, partners put into action within 3 to 

5 years operations strategies that will be sustained over the 

long term. The 3- to 5-year timeframe allows time for many 

management and operations strategies to be implemented 

while keeping the RCTO tool 

responsive to current system 

performance needs. Additionally, the timeframe offers 

a middle ground between 

operators who are focused 

on day-to-day activities and 

planners who are looking out 

20 to 25 years.

An RCTO focuses on operations objectives and strategies 

within one or more management and operations functions 

of regional significance such as traveler information, road 

weather management, or traffic incident management. 

The topic of an RCTO is determined by the collaborating 

partners who are interested in advancing TSM&O in their 

region and it is driven by operations objectives that reflect 

regional expectations and opportunities. The partners may 

be motivated by a growing awareness of diminishing levels 

of service, a mandate from officials, a recent natural disaster, 

a special event, or shortage of resources. 

Within any given region, there may be multiple RCTOs 

that focus on different operations functions or services. For 

the purposes of an RCTO, a region is considered to be any 

multi-jurisdictional area defined by the collaborative partners. That area may or may not coincide with the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). 

Participants in developing 

and implementing an RCTO 

may be managers and decisionmakers from local, State, 

or regional transportation 

agencies responsible for dayto-day operations, metropoli2 WHAT IS AN RCTO?

For the purposes of 

an RCTO, a region is 

considered to be any multijurisdictional area defined 

by the collaborative 

partners.

An RCTO is a management 

tool to assist in planning and 

implementing management 

and operations strategies 

in a collaborative and 

sustained manner.

T h e R C T O f o s t e r s 

o b j e c t i v e s - d r i v e n 

collaboration by focusing 

the partners on a specific 

operations objective and 

strategy to achieve it.
2 - 2 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

2.1 BENEFITS OF AN RCTO

An RCTO imparts several important benefits to operators and planners who are part of a collaborative effort to 

advance TSM&O strategies in a region: 

• Increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the partners 

by forcing them to collectively think through what they 

want to accomplish and how they will work together to 

reach that operations objective in the near future. 

• Guides the collaborative effort by bringing together 

varied transportation operations perspectives, priorities, 

and cultures from different agencies and jurisdictions.

• Presents a mutual direction for one or more aspects 

of transportation systems management and operations 

based on a holistic view of the region.

• Creates operations objectives and performance 

measures that can be used in the transportation planning 

process.

• Facilitates coordinating priorities, leveraging resources, 

and alleviating duplicative efforts.

• Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the partners in 

the collaborative effort.

• Garners commitment from agencies and jurisdictions 

for a common regional approach to transportation 

management and operations. 

• Provides an opportunity 

to strengthen the linkage 

between regional planners 

and managers responsible 

for transportation 

operations by offering 

a coherent operations 

strategy for consideration 

in the planning process.

• Establishes credibility with decisionmakers and the 

public by demonstrating that multiple agencies are 

standing behind the same operations objective.

2.2 FOUNDATIONS IN SYSTEMS 

THINKING

The RCTO promotes a more systemic and sustained approach to collaboration. Consistent with well established 

systems engineering principles, the RCTO elevates the 

focus from agencies’ individual responsibilities to a global 

view of the region’s transportation system. By considering the interconnections within the region’s transportation 

system, partners develop higher level operations objectives 

that address those systemic issues that cut across multiple 

agencies and jurisdictions. The RCTO is a living guide 

that partners update and amend as circumstances and priorities evolve in the region 

and among partners. While 

it may require some initial 

investment in operations 

infrastructure, an RCTO 

is more than a “project” 

because it effects lasting 

changes in how partners 

work together to improve 

system performance. 

In this sense, the RCTO encourages sustained collaboration:

• An RCTO requires developing and sustaining working 

relationships between agencies that transcend particular 

individuals. 

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

participants that is stimulated through the development of 

the RCTO.

• The result of developing an RCTO is not a collection of 

projects stapled together, but a coherent collaborative 

strategy that sets the future direction for operations in the 

region. 

The RCTO is a living guide 

that partners update and 

amend as circumstances 

and priorities evolve in 

the region and among 

partners.

The RCTO elevates the 

focus from agencies’ 

individual responsibilities 

to a holistic view of the 

region’s transportation 

system. 

As a trailblazer in coordinating regional operations, the 

Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) Committee spearheaded the 

development of a concept for advancing coordinated operations in the Phoenix metropolitan region in 2002. Over 

the next year under the leadership of MAG, the concept 

took the shape of a Regional Concept of Transportation 

Operations, a product that helped inform what is referred 

to as a Regional Concept for Transportation Operations in 

this primer. The members of the MAG ITS Committee 

are representatives from Federal Highway Administration, 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona 

Department of Public Safety, Valley Metro, Arizona State 

University and twelve MAG member agencies. Additionally, stakeholders such as police, fire, and public safety answering point managers helped develop the MAG RCTO. 

Eleven initiatives were selected for the MAG RCTO 

including a regional traffic signal optimization program, 

transit signal priority, and travel information.

Contact Sarath Joshua: sjoshua@mag.maricopa.gov

Maricopa Association of Governments Regional 

Concept of Transportation Operations
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 2 - 3 

• Although the time horizon for an RCTO is only 3 to 5 

years, the RCTO establishes collaborative activities that 

typically must continue beyond that timeframe in order to 

maintain the operations objective. 

• An RCTO creates a precedent in the region for how 

to organize multiple participants interested in working 

together to improve transportation management and 

operations. 

• Once developed, an RCTO can serve as a template for 

further collaboration on other aspects of transportation 

operations. 

2.3 RCTO SCOPE

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

dimensions: functional, institutional, and geographic. 

The functional dimension defines the operations areas 

addressed within the RCTO, the institutional dimension 

defines the partnering entities engaged in the developing 

and carrying out the RCTO, and the geographic dimension 

defines the region (i.e., political boundaries) for which 

the RCTO is developed. Each dimension is shaped by the 

collaborative activity among transportation operators from 

multiple jurisdictions. 

Operations functions that tend to be of regional significance and could benefit from an RCTO include:

• Congestion management.

• Traffic incident management.

• Traveler information.

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

tolls).

• Emergency response and homeland security.

• Traffic signal coordination.

• Road weather management.

• Freight management.

• Work zone traffic management.

• Freeway management.

FUNCTIONAL SCOPE

An RCTO can address a 

single TSM&O area (e.g., 

traffic incident management, 

traveler information services, 

or electronic fare payment), 

a collection of related areas 

(e.g., congestion management 

for arterials and freeways), 

or capabilities that cut across 

several functions (e.g., areawide communications, surveillance and control, or vehicle 

detection and location). The 

functional scope of an RCTO may change over time in response to changes in the collaboration between participants. 

For example, an RCTO can help expand collaboration on 

incident management to include emergency management. 

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

The geographic and institutional scope of the RCTO may 

coincide with the jurisdictions 

and agencies represented in 

an MPO. However, an RCTO 

may be developed for a 

multi-state corridor, adjoining transportation management areas, neighboring local 

jurisdictions within an MPO 

area, or any other self-defined 

multi-jurisdictional area. Many non-urban or rural areas 

may find significant benefit in creating an RCTO as they 

often do not have a regional planning process or metropolitan planning organization to bring focus to the region.

INSTITUTIONAL SCOPE

An RCTO’s institutional scope 

may range from corresponding 

agencies in neighboring jurisdictions that collaborate around 

a function that falls within their 

individual responsibilities, to 

all of the transportation and 

public safety agencies within 

an MPO area that collaborate 

on multiple functions throughout the metropolitan region, 

to a collection of agencies that 

span several States along a major interstate corridor. 
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 3 - 1 

credibility with elected leaders whose support may be 

crucial in advancing operations. RCTO partners can 

ground their work in formally established regional needs, 

goals, and objectives. Additionally, they can increase the 

stability of their partnership by selecting the MPO to be an 

impartial and long-term host for the collaborative development and implementation of their RCTOs. RCTO partners 

may also be able to influence the selection of performance 

measures and data collection procedures used during 

regional planning to better track the progress toward the 

RCTO operations objective. 

Opening funding avenues for operations from sources such 

as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 

Improvement Program, Surface Transportation Program 

(STP), and State, regional, or local tax programs is a 

compelling reason to link regional operations activities 

to the planning process. The ability of RCTO partners to 

apply and receive funding in the near term depends on the 

flexibility of the planning organization to allocate funding 

for management and operations projects. All projects need 

to be part of the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) 

in order to be eligible for funding through the metropolitan planning process. In many regions, obtaining funding 

within one to two years is very difficult because all available funding is designated for specific projects many years 

Within any region, there are many existing 

processes and structures that will influence the 

contents of an RCTO, how it is developed, and 

the role it will play in the management and operation of 

the region’s transportation system. This section discusses 

how the RCTO may relate to three of those processes or 

structures: the transportation planning process, the regional 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) architecture, and a 

concept of operations. 

3.1 THE RCTO AND THE 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 

PROCESS

Connecting the RCTO to the transportation planning 

process offers benefits for planners who are interested in 

advancing cost-effective strategies to improve regional 

transportation system performance and operations-oriented 

partners who are seeking regional support for their joint efforts. An RCTO is one opportunity among several to link 

transportation planning and investment decisionmaking to 

TSM&O as illustrated below. 

By linking to the planning process, partners can gain 

recognition within the region for operations and increase 

3 UNDERSTANDING THE RCTO IN CONTEXT

Transportation

Systems

Management and

Operations

Regional

Transportation

Planning and

Investment

Decisionmaking

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Regional Management and Operations Projects

Regional ITS Architecture

Institutional Arrangements

Funding and Resource Sharing

Congestion Management Process

Performance Measures

Data Sharing

Linkage Opportunities

Transportation Planning Process

Requires Coordination Among

Day-to-Day Operations Managers

Requires Coordination

Among Decisionmakers

Figure 1: The RCTO is one of several opportunities to link planning and operations.2

2

 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Getting More By Working 

Together Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations 

(Washington, DC, 2004) .
3 - 2 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

in advance. In those cases, partners may choose to work to 

establish funding options for future management and operations projects while implementing an RCTO in the near 

term that relies on available resources and technology.

In some regions, such as the Denver, Colorado area, funding pools or programs have been included in the transportation improvement program (TIP) for ITS or arterial 

traffic signal systems. This allows agencies to apply for 

and obtain funding in the near term for specific projects 

within those areas that have recently been defined. In 

the Phoenix, Arizona area, a collaborative regional traffic 

signal optimization initiative in the region’s RCTO was 

funding through the Maricopa Association of Governments 

(MAG) with CMAQ funds that became available for programming during the TIP closeout process. The success of 

the initiative caused the MPO to become very supportive 

of the regional signal timing program and it will likely 

become a permanent part of the MPO work program.3 The 

Maricopa County Department of Transportation in Arizona 

provides Highway User Revenue Funds through its TIP to 

support an arterial incident management initiative outlined 

in the region’s RCTO. Additionally, the Hampton Roads, 

Virginia region decided that more flexibility was needed 

in funding ITS and operations projects so it created a 

line item in the metropolitan transportation plan for these 

projects. Agencies can apply for CMAQ and regional STP 

funds for management and operations projects in the near 

term during the development of the TIP.4 

While linking the RCTO to the planning process can assist 

operations-oriented partners in advancing their collaborative efforts, it can also be useful for planners as they 

incorporate operations into the process. An RCTO can 

help planners address the requirements within the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to link operations to 

the planning process. SAFETEA-LU contains the following requirements:5

In 1989, traffic engineers in the Denver area concluded 

that there was a need for interjurisdictional timing and 

coordination of traffic signals. The engineers selected 

the region’s MPO, Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), to develop a regional program 

because DRCOG was an agency that was regional in 

nature and viewed as having the capabilities to facilitate 

cooperation between multiple jurisdictions. DRCOG 

and the traffic signal operating agencies worked together to begin a small signal timing and coordination 

program funded by an energy grant. The program provided for one traffic engineer to assist in signal timing 

and coordination in the region and no capital improvements.

Although the benefits were modest, the first few years 

of the program proved its worth to the region and 

impressed the DRCOG Board of Directors. When the 

Denver region began to receive CMAQ funds due to the 

adoption of the United States Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, more funding became 

available for traffic signal improvements. In 1994, the 

Traffic Signal System Improvement Program (TSSIP) 

was officially adopted and an annual budget of $1 million was provided in the TIP. As of 2005, the program 

budget was approximately $3.7 million per year.

Contact Jerry Luor: JLuor@drcog.org

Denver Traffic Signal System Improvement 

Program led by DRCOG

3

 Joshua, Sarath, Maricopa Association of Governments & Faisal Saleem, 

Maricopa County Department of Transportation. (2005, August 22). Personal 

interview.

4

 Ravanbakht, Camelia, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. 

(2007, January 5). Personal interview. For more information, contact 

Camelia Ravanbakht at cravanbakht@hrpdcva.gov.

5

 Each requirement is contained in SAFETEA-LU, Title III Public 

Transportation, Section 3005 Metropolitan Transportation Planning and 

Title VI Transportation Planning And Project Delivery, Section 6001 

Transportation Planning. The first requirement is also in Title III Public 

Transportation Section 3006 Statewide Transportation Planning.
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 3 - 3 

Promote Efficient Management and Operations: The 

planning process must “promote efficient system management and operation.” 

Contain Management and 

Operations Strategies: 

A metropolitan region’s 

transportation plan must 

contain “operational and 

management strategies to 

improve the performance of 

existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular 

congestion and maximize 

the safety and mobility of 

people and goods.” 

Develop a Congestion Management Process: A metropolitan region must develop a process that effectively 

manages congestion through management and operational 

strategies for new and existing transportation facilities 

through the use of travel demand reduction and operational 

management strategies. This process must be cooperatively developed with some non-traditional planning partners, 

namely system operators (e.g., transit, toll authorities, private providers) and implementers (e.g., State departments 

of transportation, local governments, and transit agencies) 

in order to fully utilize system capacity on all modes of 

transportation. 

An RCTO can also serve as a mechanism to translate 

relatively high-level concepts for management and operations defined within the planning process into specific, 

coordinated strategies for operations that can be acted on. 

Multiple opportunities exist to use an RCTO to advance 

operations in connection with transportation planning. 

Five scenarios were selected to demonstrate how an RCTO 

could link to the planning process.

Scenario 1:

A regional need has been identified as part of the congestion 

management process6 to reduce non-recurring congestion 

along five corridors within the jurisdictions of two counties, a 

city, and the State department of transportation (DOT). Unsure 

of how best to address this need, the MPO turns to a regional 

operations committee with representatives from each impacted 

jurisdiction. The committee takes this need and develops an 

RCTO by agreeing on a measurable operations objective and 

a specific approach to reducing congestion in that area. This 

short-term management and operations strategy may then be 

included in the regional plan and compete for funding.

An RCTO can serve as a 

mechanism to translate 

re l a t i v e l y h i g h - l e v e l 

concepts for management 

and operations defined 

within the planning process 

into specific, coordinated 

strategies for operations 

that can be acted on. 

Scenario 2:

An objective pertaining to management and operations is 

adopted as part of the metropolitan transportation plan,7 but 

specific strategies to achieve this objective are lacking. The 

objective states “by 2012, transfers between transit services 

will be seamless.” A group of transit operators with a history 

of collaboration take this objective and define their approach 

(a universal payment system and coordinated scheduling) 

and what will be needed to accomplish this. They provide 

their strategy and project description as input into the plan. 

Scenario 3:

The high-level management and operations strategy, road 

weather management, has been named in the metropolitan 

transportation plan to address mobility problems in the 

region during winter months, but it is unknown how this 

strategy translates into specific, coordinated activities. A recently formed partnership between road operating agencies 

works to formulate a specific operations objective for winter 

road travel and an approach to meeting it as part of an 

RCTO. The partners then use information from their RCTO 

to develop project descriptions to apply to CMAQ funding. 

Scenario 4:

A funding pool for traffic signal systems has existed in the 

region’s TIP for the past 6 years. Every 2 years, the MPO issues a call for traffic signal system projects and local agencies 

develop applications and compete for funding for projects 

that enhance their jurisdiction. Recently, the manager of 

traffic engineering from one city brought together colleagues 

from each jurisdiction in the region to develop an RCTO for 

a common operations objective and coordinated approach to 

traffic signal management across jurisdictions. Based on the 

approach and resource needs established by the signal group, 

a series of region-wide applications were sent in for the traffic 

signal systems funding pool. 

Scenario 5: 

Funding for three separate road pricing projects along corridors within a major metropolitan area was just granted in 

the most recent TIP. Three project teams were established and 

each began initial planning for their project. From a regional 

perspective, the MPO recognized the need for a consistent 

approach to road pricing in order to better serve customers. 

The MPO convened a regional road pricing committee so that 

regional leaders could work together with the road pricing 

project teams to establish an ongoing dialogue and an RCTO 

for coordinated road pricing. 

6

 Alternatively, the regional need could be identified during development of 

the regional ITS architecture.

7

 It is expected that management and operations objectives will become 

part of the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) as planning further 

incorporates operations approaches.
3 - 4 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

As shown in the above scenarios, products of the planning 

process may provide an opportunity to use an RCTO to 

advance planning for operations. In the diagram below, these 

products of the planning process are illustrated with arrows 

moving from the planning process to be used as input to the 

RCTO. In return, the RCTO can offer several important inputs to the planning process as shown by the arrows pointing 

from the RCTO toward the planning process.

Operations Funding

Program or Pool

Regionally Significant Projects

Project Specifications

High-level Strategies

Short-term Strategies

Operations Objectives

Regional Needs

Objectives and

Performance Measures

Metropolitan Transportation

Planning Process

Regional Concept for

Transportation Operations

Regional 

Vision and 

Goals

Alternative

Improvement

Strategies

Evaluation and

Prioritization of

Strategies

Development of 

Transportation Plan

Development of

Transportation Improvement

Program

Project Development

Systems Operations

Motivation

Operations

Objective

Approach

Relationships and 

Procedures

Resource

Arrangements

Physical

Improvements

Figure 2: The RCTO can be used to translate outputs of the planning process into specific operations objectives, 

short-term strategies, and project specifications to be included in the MTP and TIP.8

8

 Diagram for the transportation planning process was derived from The 

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues, FHWA and 

Federal Transit Administration (Washington, DC, 2004).
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 3 - 5 

3.2 HOW THE RCTO RELATES 

TO THE REGIONAL ITS 

ARCHITECTURE

Like the blueprint for a house, a regional ITS architecture 

creates a picture of ITS deployment and use in a region as 

envisioned by a broad base of stakeholders. An architecture serves as a guide to agencies as they build upon and 

expand their ITS capabilities. According to SAFETEALU, ITS projects funded through the Federal Highway 

Trust Fund must conform to the National ITS Architecture 

and applicable standards. A regional ITS architecture tailors the National ITS Architecture to the region’s specific 

needs and interests. An ITS architecture defines existing 

or desired sensor, computer, electronics, and communications technologies and the interconnections and information exchanges between these systems. In addition, the 

architecture describes the regional needs, ITS services that 

can address these needs, and the envisioned operational 

roles of agencies responsible for these systems. 

The RCTO and the regional ITS architecture serve related 

but distinct purposes for stakeholder agencies in the region. It is important to understand both how they differ in 

function and how they can work together within a region 

to produce an even greater level of transportation system 

performance. 

The primary purpose of developing a regional ITS architecture is to “illustrate and document regional integration 

so that planning and deployment can take place in an orga9

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Regional ITS Architecture Guidance: 

Developing, Using, and Maintaining an ITS Architecture for Your Region 

Version 2.0 (Washington, DC, 2006).

nized and coordinated fashion.”9 The purpose of an RCTO 

is to provide a group of collaborating agencies a common 

operations objective and a collaborative strategy to achieve 

that operations objective. The ITS architecture establishes 

common parameters for ITS but it does not include an 

implementation strategy that is part of an RCTO. 

Other major distinctions between the regional ITS architecture and the RCTO include:

• The focus of the architecture is on ITS whereas the 

RCTO focuses on transportation management and 

operations strategies that may or may not necessitate the 

application ITS. 

• Unlike the unlimited temporal scope of the architecture, 

the RCTO has a 3- to 5-year timeframe for achieving 

the operations objective. 

• Funding arrangements included in the RCTO are not 

part of a typical architecture. 

• The functional scope of the RCTO (e.g., arterial 

management, transit services) may be narrower than the 

scope of the architecture which looks across a range of 

user services. 

• The institutional scope may also differ considerably 

since the partnering agencies involved with an RCTO 

may be just a couple of counties or all relevant agencies 

within multiple transportation management areas; 

however, frequently there will be overlap between 

Paul Casertano, a senior planner with the Pima Association of Governments in Tucson, Arizona characterized 

their ITS architecture as broadly defining what the 

operations agencies in the region do with technology 

and what they would like to do. He explained that, in 

contrast, their RCTOs defined in specific terms what 

they were committed to achieving operationally in the 

short term, how they were going to work together, and 

how their collaborative effort was going to be shaped. 

Developing an RCTO allowed the ITS and operations 

stakeholders in Tucson to “drill down” on one or more 

user services brought out during the development of the 

ITS architecture. 

A Planner’s Perspective on the Distinctions 

between the RCTO and ITS Architecture
3 - 6 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

the individuals and agencies involved in the ITS 

architecture and in an RCTO. The developers of an 

RCTO must also include individuals within partnering 

agencies with the authority to commit resources (e.g., 

staff time, funding, equipment). 

A regional ITS architecture and an RCTO should make use 

of each other to advance their common goal of optimizing 

the transportation system. During the development of the 

architecture, collaborative relationships between stakeholder agencies are formed that may serve as the foundation for RCTO partnerships. The regional needs and user 

services identified in the architecture may motivate the 

creation of an RCTO to address those needs. Likewise, the 

operational concept, functional requirements, and system 

interfaces may inform the approach taken in an RCTO to 

achieve a common operations objective. An important interface between the ITS architecture and the RCTO is data 

collection for performance measurement. In order to track 

progress toward their operations objective, RCTO partners 

will likely need to use ITS that may already be specified in 

the regional ITS architecture. 

Beyond being a source of ideas for the RCTO, any applicable ITS architecture should be consulted by RCTO 

partners to ensure conformity if their approach utilizes 

ITS. An RCTO can be a useful tool to put into action 

the user services defined in an architecture that require 

multi-agency collaboration to implement and sustain. In 

summary, the RCTO and the regional ITS architecture can 

work in conjunction within a region to increase transportation system performance.

3.3 HOW AN RCTO RELATES TO 

A CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS10

The formation of a concept of operations is one of the first 

steps in the systems engineering process. In general, the 

concept of operations is a description of a system’s major 

capabilities. It contains user-oriented operational descriptions, operational scenarios, and a description of a system’s 

operating environment including facilities, equipment, 

hardware, software, and people. It “tells the story” of the 

system – how the components will operate together to 

accomplish a specified mission.11 It is easy to see the parallels between a concept of operations and an RCTO when 

one thinks of the partners and their resources as “components” and their operations objective as their “mission.” 

This is the reason for the similarity between the names 

“Regional Concept for Transportation Operations” and 

“concept of operations,” although differences do exist. 

A concept of operations gives a description of how a 

specific system works so that system developers can create functional requirements, system specifications, and 

design documents. In contrast, an RCTO is not intended to 

describe the detailed functioning of a single system. The 

focus of the RCTO is on achieving an operations objective 

that is independent of the possible systems used to achieve 

it. The RCTO is much broader and can address operations 

issues that are not related to the development of specific 

systems. Once an operations objective is set for an RCTO, 

the partners decide how the operations objective will be 

reached which may include elements such as an area wide 

communications infrastructure, common operating procedures, standard equipment specifications, and resource 

arrangements. However, the strategy defined in the RCTO 

would not be sufficiently detailed to serve as the foundation for the design of a system, unlike a concept of operations. The development of a concept of operations may 

follow the development of an RCTO if the partners decide 

that a system should be part of the RCTO’s approach.

The idea for MAG’s Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) surfaced during the MAG ITS 

Committee’s 2000 update of the region’s ITS strategic 

plan. During the update process, the committee was 

focused on infrastructure, and then they encountered 

instructions for an operational concept in the ITS Architecture. The Committee members decided to more fully 

address that in a separate effort and included the RCTO 

as an action item in the strategic plan.

Updating Strategic ITS Plan Motivated the 

Creation of MAG RCTO

10 Related concepts of operations are described in L. Neudorff, J. Harding 

& L. Englisher, Integrated Corridor Management Systems Concept of 

Operations for a Generic Corridor, Report Number FHWA-JPO-06-032 

(Washington, DC: April 2006) and Smith, B., et al, Regional, Statewide, 

and Multi-State TMC Concept of Operations and Requirements, FHWA 

TMC Pooled Fund Study, project in progress retrieved on September 

29, 2006 from http://tmcpfs.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/cfprojects/new_detail.

cfm?id=84&new=0.

11 American National Standards Institute and American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics, Guide for the Preparation of Operational 

Concept Documents, ANSI/AIAA G-043-1992 (1993).
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 1 

In summary, a Regional Concept for Transportation Operations contains six key elements as follows:

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

RCTO based on regional needs, goals, or operational 

concerns.

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

performance.

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

operations objective will be achieved.

• Relationships and Procedures: Institutional 

arrangements, MOUs, protocols, information sharing, 

etc.

• Physical Improvements: Facilities, equipment, 

systems, etc.

• Resource Arrangements: Sources and use of funding, 

staff, equipment, etc.

The following diagram illustrates how an RCTO could be 

developed. There are three distinct phases. As shown, the 

motivation element is not created during the development 

of the RCTO. It is an issue observed by the partners that 

prompts the initiation of the RCTO and is then recorded. 

The first phase is largely driven by values and needs, and 

At the core, an RCTO defines what the participants 

would like to achieve and how they are going to 

achieve it. This core takes form in six standard elements that serve as a framework for developing an RCTO 

for a specific region. Central to the RCTO, the operations 

objective defines the desired outcome, the “what,” in specific and measurable terms. The motivation supports the 

operations objective by grounding the collaborative action 

in regional needs, agency goals, or operational concerns. 

The other five elements - approach, relationships and procedures, resource arrangements, and physical improvements 

- work in concert to define “how” the partners will attain 

the operations objective. While the approach is the overall 

scheme for the collaborative effort, the remaining elements, 

relationships and procedures, resource arrangements, and 

physical improvements, translate the approach into the 

specific, tangible elements 

that are required to achieve 

the operations objective. 

The requirements should be 

described in sufficient detail 

for decisionmakers to make 

informed commitments 

regarding resources and 

institutional arrangements.

4 DEVELOPING AN RCTO

Figure 3: Development of an RCTO. 

The requirements should 

be described in sufficient 

detail for decisionmakers 

t o m a k e i n f o r m e d 

commitments regarding 

resources and institutional 

arrangements. 

Motivation Operations 

Objective Approach Resource 

Arrangements

Relationships 

and Procedures

Physical 

Improvements

Feedback

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Feedback
4 - 2 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

it consists of forming the operations objective which establishes the desired outcome. The second phase identifies 

possible approaches to achieving the operations objective 

and culminates in the selection of a particular course of 

action. The third phase translates the approach into more 

specific, tangible elements that guide joint or coordinated 

actions including system design, resource allocation, and 

inter-agency and multi-jurisdictional agreements. 

 This process is inherently iterative in nature in that a 

number of operations objectives may be considered for 

addressing the need (i.e., motivation) and similarly a 

number of approaches may be considered for achieving 

the operations objective. Once the approach is selected, it 

is further specified in terms of the physical, relational, and 

resource elements of the RCTO. However, this may lead 

to revisiting the approach and even the operations objective once the full implications of the approach are specified 

in greater detail.

Three RCTO examples are used throughout this section to 

illustrate each element. The examples do not prescribe a 

specific way to form an RCTO, but rather show how a region may choose to develop each element. Each example 

is inspired by a real-life collaborative effort in the United 

States, although the situations have been modified for the 

purpose of demonstrating an RCTO. 

• Example 1 is based on the collaborative operations 

activities of the Southeast Michigan Snow and Ice 

Management partnership in which four road agencies 

and a transit agency came together to implement a 

coordinated snow and ice removal system.12 

• Example 2 is motivated by the Hampton Roads, Virginia 

incident management RCTO working group and the 

activities of the Hampton Roads Planning District 

Commission ITS Committee.13 

• Example 3 is inspired by the High Plains Corridor 

Coalition, a collaborative effort between the Nebraska 

Department of Roads and the Colorado and Kansas 

Departments of Transportation to develop a webbased traveler information network to coordinate and 

disseminate traveler information regarding adverse 

weather conditions and incidents impeding travel on 

common interstate highways.14

4.1 MOTIVATION

The decision to undertake an RCTO requires the commitment of agencies and individuals who want to work 

together to improve upon the way they currently “do business” so that they can better address common challenges. 

The starting point for each RCTO is unique and depends 

on the current state of collaboration between the interested 

participants. An RCTO may be created by agencies that 

have come together for the first time with the sole purpose 

of addressing a mutual concern through an RCTO. Alternatively, an RCTO may be begun by participants who have 

already been meeting regularly to exchange information 

and update each other regarding their individual activities 

but now want to take their collaborative relationship to the 

next level and take collaborative action toward achieving a 

set operations objective. Additionally, partners who have 

been jointly operating may want to advance or expand 

their existing effort through an RCTO.

In general, the starting point for an RCTO is an identified regional need, goal, or widely acknowledged regional 

operations concern. The motivation captures why the partners have decided to undertake this common effort, why 

their action is needed, and why the focus of the RCTO is 

important to the region that they collectively serve. This 

may originate from a political directive, regional crisis, a 

spike in accident rates, or a basic desire to provide good 

service. Additionally, the motivation for an RCTO may 

come out of the long-range planning process in which 

operations needs are derived from regional plans or the 

development of a regional ITS architecture or ITS strategic 

plan. It may also spring from a grassroots initiative among 

operators in the region who wish to improve transportation 

systems performance throughout the region. Frequently 

the motivation provides the linkage between regional plans 

and day-to-day management and operation of the transportation system and serves as the primary catalyst for 

collaboration. It grounds the effort in the public’s interest 

as embodied in regional plans and agency responsibilities 

and priorities. 

Although the motivation may be clear in the minds of the 

participants as they begin developing an RCTO, by making this explicit, the partners can use it as a guide amid 

inevitable challenges encountered during the implementation. 

12 For more information, see http://www.rcocweb.org/home/semsim.asp or contact 

Dennis Kolar, Road Commission for Oakland County, at dkolar@rcoc.org.

13 For more information, contact Camelia Ravanbakht, Hampton Road 

Planning District Commission, at cravanbakht@hrpdcva.gov.

14 For more information, contact Jaimie Huber, Nebraska Department of 

Roads, at jhuber@dor.state.ne.us.
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 3 

A major snowstorm in December of 

2005 overwhelmed Able City’s and 

Baker County’s capabilities to clear 

snow emergency routes and other 

major arterials within their respective 

jurisdictions. In response, Marlin and 

Quincy counties volunteered staff and 

equipment to assist. Because of this unprecedented level of 

cooperation, Able City and Baker County were able to resume 

transit and other public services far earlier than anticipated, 

saving residents and businesses of Able and Baker thousands 

of dollars in potentially lost wages and revenue. This event 

heightened awareness among the four agencies of the need 

for a regional concept for winter road maintenance.

During this time, Baker County was finishing a study focused 

on the application of automatic vehicle location (AVL) on 

maintenance vehicles as a means to improve fleet management and resource allocation. When Baker County shared 

the results of this study with the Marlin and Quincy counties 

and Able City, the transportation department managers of the 

four agencies recognized this as an opportunity to leverage 

Baker County’s study and develop a coordinated approach 

to winter road maintenance in the region. This approach 

would help the four agencies address their respective goals 

for effective and efficient snow removal.

Motivation Example 1: Tri-County Winter Maintenance RCTO

The Janesville region faces unusual 

transportation challenges that stem 

from its coastal geography. Three rivers 

divide this region and flow into the Foster Bay which separates the peninsula in 

the north from South Janesville where 

most of the population lives. One bridge and two bridgetunnels allow traffic to pass between the peninsula and the 

southern land. Because even minor incidents on a bridge 

or bridge-tunnel can trigger severe congestion and delay 

for travelers, the Janesville Planning District Commission’s 

(JPDC) developed a regional goal to improve traffic incident management. The JPDC Intelligent Transportation 

System (ITS) Committee put special emphasis on that goal 

during the 2004 update of the regional ITS architecture and 

strategic plan. As part of the update, the ITS Committee 

held joint workshops with the public safety community 

where a common vision for regional incident management was established. The vision states “In 2026, surface 

transportation managers are prepared with systems and 

operational procedures for handling day-to-day incidents 

on the transportation grid that enable quick response and 

quick clearance. Effective coordination and data-exchange 

between transportation officials and emergency managers 

and responders are routine.”15 To bring about this vision, 

the ITS Committee initiated a 7-year project to develop an 

integrated communications system between the State and 

local police and State and local departments of transportation in the Janesville region. 

Less than a year into the communications project, a multiple 

car accident on a major commuter bridge-tunnel caused over 

8 hours of delay for most commuters. In response to numerous complaints from the public, Janesville MPO Board 

tasked the State department of transportation and JPDC to 

act to ensure more efficient and coordinated incident clearance in the near term and to put into practice the region’s 

goal for improved traffic incident management. 

The Janesville Planning District Commission and the 

State DOT brought together the JPDC ITS committee and 

an existing incident management committee to agree on 

strategies for incident clearance. A Joint ITS/IM Committee was formed.

Motivation Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

15 PB Farradyne for the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, 

“Hampton Roads ITS Strategic Plan” (Chesapeake,Virginia, 2004).
4 - 4 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

4.2 OPERATIONS OBJECTIVE

The operations objective expresses the desired outcome 

that can be achieved by the partners through operations 

strategies. In the context of an RCTO, it is multi-jurisdictional in nature and cannot be achieved by a single entity 

or jurisdiction. In conjunction with deciding on an operations objective, performance measures are developed by the 

participants to assess whether or not the operations objective 

has been met. There are two types of operations objectives: 

user-oriented objectives and operator-oriented objectives.

USER-ORIENTED OBJECTIVES

The operations objective is preferably described in terms 

of system performance outcomes as experienced by users, 

given that the fundamental purpose of management and operations improvements is to better serve the transportation 

system user through increased system performance. Operations objectives focused on outcomes to the user include 

“improved mobility and travel opportunities, individual 

travel times and trip time reliability, or travel costs.”16

OPERATOR-ORIENTED OBJECTIVES

If an outcome-based operations objective is not feasible 

for the partners due to factors such as lack of operations 

data or lack of consensus among decisionmakers around an 

appropriate system-level performance operations objective, 

the partners may develop an operations objective in terms 

In June of 2005, the Warren State Department of Transportation was forced 

to close a 20-mile section of Interstate 

40 due to wild fires. The manager of 

the Warren Transportation Management 

Center (TMC) wanted to be able to warn 

long-distance travelers of the closing in 

Grover State where drivers have an opportunity to choose an 

alternate route. The TMC manager placed a call to the Grover 

ITS Program Specialist to inquire about deploying a Warren 

DOT portable variable message sign in Grover. Since this 

would be difficult institutionally, the Grover specialist posted 

messages on her signs about the fire in Warren. 

Travelers in this primarily rural multi-State region have few 

alternate routes available to them and even fewer are accessible to commercial vehicle operators who have difficulty 

taking detours on smaller, State routes. In many cases, 

alternate routes for major highway routes must be chosen 

in a previous State. Additionally, the multi-State region 

frequently experiences severe winter storms that force extended road closures. Interstate travelers caught unaware 

by a road closure have often complained to the State DOTs 

that they need road condition information on the other side 

of the states’ lines. 

The variable message sign request from Warren State provided the catalyst for the ITS and operations managers of 

Cantwell, Warren, Byrd, and Grover States to come together 

to better coordinate traveler information on adverse weather 

conditions and incidents impeding travel on their common 

interstate highways. 

Motivation Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

of the performance of the system managers or operators. 

These operations objectives refer to indicators such as 

percentage of traffic signals retimed, number of variable 

message signs deployed, or incident response time. 

Key criteria17 for an operations objective include:

• Specific: It provides sufficient specificity to guide 

formulation of viable approaches to achieving the 

operations objective without dictating the approach. 

• Measurable: It is measurable in terms that are 

meaningful to the partners and users. Tracking progress 

against the operations objective provides feedback 

that enables the partners to assess the effectiveness of 

their actions. An operations objective is chosen that is 

measurable within the partners’ means. 

• Agreed: Necessary for the development and 

implementation of the RCTO, partners come to a 

consensus on a common operations objective.

• Realistic: The participants are reasonably confident 

that they can achieve this operations objective within 

resource limitations and institutional demands. Because 

this cannot be fully evaluated until the approach of the 

RCTO is defined, the partners may need to iteratively 

adjust the operations objective once the approach of the 

RCTO is determined. 

• Time-bound: Partners specify when the operations 

objective will be achieved. This promotes efficiency 

and accountability. 

16 Turner, S. M. & Stockton, W. R., A Proposed ITS Evaluation Framework 

for Texas, (Texas Transportation Institute, 1999).

17 Objective criteria are adapted from the Government Communication 

Office, United Kingdom. Retrieved on October 2, 2006 from http://engage.

comms.gov.uk/knowledge-bank/strategic-planning/aims-and-objectives/

making-your-objectives-smart.html.
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 5 

By 2009, the partnering agencies, 

Baker, Marlin, and Quincy counties, and 

Able City will achieve and maintain an 

average time to clear of no more than 

5 hours on all emergency snow routes 

and priority arterials. In addition, the 

average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

per snow event for all partner agencies combined will decrease by 10 percent by 2009 compared to the 2000-2005 

average per snow event of 1790 miles. 

The partners will measure improvements in efficiency by:

• Time to clear snow emergency routes and priority 

arterials within the combined jurisdictions of the 

partner agencies. The 2005 Northern Ketchikan 

Association of Governments Regional ITS 

Architecture contains the list of designated emergency 

routes and priority arterials.

• Winter maintenance VMT by all partner agencies 

(average VMT per snow event).

The average time to clear emergency snow and priority 

routes within Baker, Marlin, and Quincy counties, and 

Able City was 7.5 hours per storm from the fall of 2000 to 

the spring 2005. 

A snow event is defined by snow accumulation of 4” or 

more in 12 hours, or 6’’ in 24 hours.

Operations Objective Example 1: Tri-County Winter Maintenance RCTO

• The partners will reduce the 

annual average recovery time to 

30 minutes or less by 2009 for 

minor incidents in the Janesville 

region. This requires a decrease in 

recovery time of 10 minutes from 

the 2005 average of 40 minutes per 

incident.

• The partners will reduce the annual average recovery 

time to 60 minutes or less by 2009 for major incident 

in the Janesville region. This requires a decrease in 

recovery time of 15 minutes from the 2005 average of 

75 minutes per major incident.

For roads that are not instrumented with traffic speed detectors, the partners will work to achieve a secondary set of 

operations objectives: 

• Reduce the annual average roadway clearance time 

to 25 minutes or less by 2009 for minor incidents 

in the Janesville region. This requires a decrease in 

clearance time of 10 minutes from the 2005 average of 

35 minutes per minor incident.

• The partners will reduce the annual average roadway 

clearance time to 50 minutes or less by 2009 for 

major incident in the Janesville region. This requires 

a decrease in clearance time of 15 minutes from the 

2005 average of 65 minutes per major incident.

Major incidents are defined as incidents that require 

emergency medical services and cause multiple lanes to 

be closed. Minor incidents are all other incidents such as 

stalled vehicles or non-injury crashes.

Recovery time is defined as the time between the awareness 

of an incident and the restoration of impacted roadway/

roadways to within the average non-incident range of speed 

for those roads and time of day.

Roadway clearance time is defined as the time between 

awareness of an incident and restoration of lanes to full 

operational status.

Operations Objective Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

The partners will decrease traveler 

delay associated with road closures 

and restrictions, major incidents 

and disasters, and weather and storms on I-40, I-50, 

I-46, I-35, and I-55 within the four-State area by 20 

percent by 2011. 

Operations Objective Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO
4 - 6 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

4.3 APPROACH

The approach describes how the operations objective will 

be achieved. It provides the needed transition from an 

operations objective to what is required to achieve it. The 

approach is not a collection of tasks, but a cohesive design 

containing elements that support each other to bring about 

a common outcome. 

The approach may be based on an expansion of capabilities or services that one of the partners currently offers, 

adoption of best practices from similar regions, institutional arrangements that enable mutual support and cooperaThe partnering agencies will work 

together to become more efficient and 

save money on winter road maintenance throughout the region. The effort 

will focus on 1) obtaining and sharing 

real-time information on the status of 

winter maintenance trucks and 2) providing mutual assistance as needed. Partner agencies will 

approach regional snow maintenance through increased 

collaboration and targeted utilization of technology and 

communications systems to coordinate partner operations. 

They will increase efficiency by reducing miles traveled 

by trucks and decreasing the time to clear snow and ice 

from the roads. This will save on the cost of fuel, vehicle 

maintenance, and overtime paid to drivers.

Currently, each jurisdiction acquires and maintains its own 

equipment without regard to other jurisdictions. Further, 

each jurisdiction plans and executes its snow removal program independently and is largely unaware of either road 

conditions or equipment status in other jurisdictions. 

The partners will jointly procure an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system that allows them to observe snowplow 

activity throughout the region and gather real-time information on pavement conditions. With this data, partners can 

improve real-time management of their fleets and request 

winter road maintenance assistance from other partners as 

needed. For example, during a snow clearing effort, Baker 

County may view on the common AVL system that a Marlin 

County snow plow is close to the Baker/Marlin border, an 

area where Baker County roads still need to be plowed. 

Baker could request assistance from Marlin County. 

Additionally, the AVL system includes a mobile weather 

monitor that will allow fleet managers to assign tasks in 

real-time to their drivers based on the temperature readings 

from the plows.

A radio communications backbone will allow the in-vehicle computers to continuously send location and weather 

data to a common server. The data will then be put onto 

the Internet where only partnering agencies can receive 

it. Work stations at each partnering agency will display a 

map-based interface that maintenance managers will view 

to identify weather threats, track snowplow locations, and 

route diversions. Each maintenance vehicle will appear on 

the map with a color-coded trace indicating where plows 

have been.

Approach Example 1: Tri-County Winter Maintenance RCTO18

18 Approach based on information from the SEMSIM website (http://www.

rcocweb.org/home/semsim.asp) accessed on January 9, 2007.

tion, enhanced information sharing among partners, or 

implementation of new systems and related user services. 

Developing an approach allows the partners to agree on an 

overall strategy for achieving the operations objective so 

that they can determine what is needed to implement it, the 

relationships and procedures, the resource arrangements, 

and the physical improvements.

The remaining elements of an RCTO lay out the requirements of achieving the operations objective in sufficient 

detail for decisionmakers to make informed commitments 

regarding resources and institutional arrangements. 
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 7 

There are several strategies that can 

improve roadway recovery time after 

incidents, but the partners have chosen 

to focus their efforts on quick clearance, 

an area where they believe they can realize the greatest improvement. Quick 

clearance is defined by the Federal Highway Administration 

as the process of removing wreckage, debris, or any other 

elements that disrupt the normal flow of traffic or force 

lane closures, and restoring the roadway capacity to its 

pre-incident condition. Improvements in quick clearance 

have been shown to provide significant benefits to traffic 

flow impacts and safety. Public safety and transportation 

partners will work together on quick clearance through 

education and knowledge sharing, policy and procedure 

development, and expanded service.

Education and Knowledge Sharing

Cross-agency training.

The partners will develop and implement a joint transportation and public safety training program that involves both 

classroom instruction and exercises. The multi-agency 

aspect of the training will allow traffic management personnel, law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency medical, 

and towing and recovery to share practices and clarify roles 

and responsibilities. The classroom training will increase 

knowledge of current quick clearance laws, policies, and 

agreements. The exercises will provide practice in traffic 

incident removal procedures applicable to a wide range of 

incident types. 

Post-incident debriefing.

Partners will establish regular post-incident debriefings 

between the key players from multiple agencies. The 

debriefings will give the responders a chance to review 

what went well and what needs improvement with regard 

to incident management. 

Public information campaign on MOVE IT law. 

The traveling public can play a key role in reducing traffic 

delays due to minor, non-injury incidents. The MOVE IT 

law in the State of Burke declares that drivers must move 

their vehicles from an active traffic lane in cases of minor, 

non-injury incidents. The public is not widely aware of 

this law and in order to bring about greater compliance, the 

partners will undertake a public information campaign.

Policy and Procedure Development

Traffic fatality certification policy.

Currently, a body at the scene of a traffic fatality in the 

State of Burke cannot be moved until the medical examiner 

from the Burke State Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 

(OCME) arrives on the scene. There have been several occasions in the past few years in which the medical examiner 

has been unable to arrive at the scene of an accident within 

the first 3 hours, significantly prolonging the traffic impacts 

of an incident. In order to make this process more efficient, 

some States have developed traffic fatality certification policies. The partners aim to develop a policy that will allow 

law enforcement personnel to relocate accident victims in 

special circumstances. 

Regional towing request procedure.

The partners will develop a common towing request procedure such that qualified towing and recovery operators are 

requested in an equitable and efficient manner. This will 

facilitate fast and predictable response times. 

Procedures for early identification of equipment needs 

and mobilization of equipment.

A standard procedure regarding classification of equipment needs and mobilization will be documented and disseminated to all traffic incident responders. The partners 

recognize that an unnecessary source of delay and cost in 

the incident clearance process is lack of knowledge about 

towing and recovery equipment needs and equipment 

mobilization. 

Expanded Service

Arterial incident action team.

The partners will implement an arterial incident action team 

similar to the existing Burke Highway Helpers program. 

The arterial patrol will assist in traffic management allowing 

first responders focus on their incident clearance responsibilities. A similar arterial incident management team, 

Regional Emergency Action Coordinating Team, operates in 

the Phoenix metropolitan area and a recent study estimated 

a benefit to cost ratio for the service at 6.4:1.19

Approach Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

19 Battelle Memorial Institute for the Maricopa County Department of 

Transportation, Regional Emergency Action Coordination Team (REACT) 

Evaluation (Phoenix, Arizona, 2002).
4 - 8 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

The partners will work to decrease 

interstate traveler delay by providing 

timely and accurate traveler information on road conditions and recommended alternate routes. The partners’ 

collaborative effort will be focused on 

exchanging information between the 

partnering DOTs that will affect travel along the I-40, I50, I-46, I-35, and I-55 corridors. Shared information will 

help operations staff in the partnering States make educated 

decisions when disseminating traveler information based 

on the conditions and actions of the other states. 

The partners will approach this effort by establishing 1) 

shared procedures, 2) an electronic, multi-State contact list, 

and 3) a web-based traveler information system. 

1. The partners will establish procedures for sharing 

information and standardized regional traveler 

information messages. 

2. The partners will also create a shared electronic 

contact list with current information on who to call 

during major incidents or emergencies. Partners will 

have the capability of updating the shared list almost 

instantaneously. 

3. To facilitate information sharing among the partnering 

states, the partners will build a web-based system 

that will integrate and disseminate highway condition 

information to travelers and partnering operations 

staff. Travelers will be able to view alerts and road 

conditions over the Internet via a color-coded map of 

the 4-State area. In addition to the map, operators will 

be able to view other agencies highway traffic cameras 

and road weather information system (RWIS) data 

through a protected portion of the Internet site. This 

system will take the information that is already entered 

by the State DOTs into their individual systems and 

transfer it into a common web-based system.

Approach Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

4.4 RELATIONSHIPS AND 

PROCEDURES

The relationships and procedures of an RCTO define how 

the partners will work together to achieve the operations 

objective. This includes multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional working agreements, institutional arrangements, 

memorandums of understanding (MOUs), and interoperability standards. While the actual agreements may not be 

present in the RCTO, the RCTO gives a detailed description of agreements that will be created during the implementation. This is a crucial element of the RCTO as much 

of what it will take to achieve the operations objective 

depends on relationship building and information sharing. 

The relationships and procedures in an RCTO should reflect the fact that although agencies and jurisdictions retain 

control of their operations, they may have responsibilities 

for operating and managing their systems and services in 

ways that provide for a more collective regional benefit. 

The relationships and procedures will typically include 

agency or individual responsibilities for implementation of 

the RCTO as well as ongoing management and operations 

resulting from the RCTO. 

The relationships and procedures may address: 

• How will stakeholders achieve coordination, integration 

and/or interoperability for optimum performance? 

• How is information obtained, managed, and shared? 

• How do agencies and systems work together in specific 

situations? 

• How can the RCTO leverage the regional ITS 

architecture?

• How will data be collected for measuring progress 

toward the operations objective?

• Who are the champions who will be responsible 

for leading individual aspects of the RCTO 

implementation?
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 9 

DRCOG approaches this program as a partnership among 

DRCOG and the traffic signal operating agencies. Regular 

updates are made every few years through a collaborative dialogue led by DRCOG. Operating agencies work 

with each other to implement the projects defined in the 

program. In addition to coordinating TSSIP, DRCOG is 

responsible for conducting timing and coordination tasks 

on a project-by-project basis for those projects identified in 

the TSSIP and as requested by individual operating agencies. Through these tasks, DRCOG identifies corridors to 

retime, develops and fine-tunes timing plans, and documents improvements and benefits. In turn, the operating 

agencies are responsible for maintaining and operating 

their signals, maintaining the timing, and reviewing and 

approving plans.

Denver Traffic Signal Program 

Relationships and Procedures

The MAG RCTO initiative areas were divided between 

existing committees and working groups. One or two 

individuals volunteered to champion each initiative. Each 

champion was responsible for reporting back to the ITS 

Committee periodically with an update on the initiative. 

Faisal Saleem, ITS Coordinator for Maricopa County, is 

the champion for the travel information initiative which is 

being pursued under the umbrella of AZTech, a partnership of Federal, State, local, and private entities that work 

together to address a variety of regional transportation 

issues. Saleem led the formation of an advanced traveler 

information system (ATIS) committee of 15 to 20 stakeholders. The committee adopted the RCTO’s quantitative 

goals for traveler information and developed a baseline for 

travel time for the freeways and major arterials. Every 

month the committee updates its travel time information 

collected by the participating agencies and work on related 

initiatives. 

Contact Faisal Saleem, faisalsaleem@mail.maricopa.gov

Champions Identified in the MAG RCTO to 

Advance Implementation
4 - 10 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

Part A: Implementing the RCTO

A steering committee composed of the 

transportation department directors 

from each partner agency will provide 

direction for the collaborative effort and 

make recommendations to the city and 

county officials for resource investment. 

A users committee will be formed by staff from each agency 

to discuss and resolve implementation and usage issues. 

Committees will meet on at least a monthly basis and will 

work to maintain and advance the collaboration past the 

implementation phase of the AVL system.

Part B: Day-to-day operations

Legal. 

The partnering agencies recognize the need for each 

agency to limit liability that may be incurred when maintenance is performed by a partner agency outside of its 

home jurisdiction. The agencies will develop an agreement that allows an agency to be assisted by a partner 

agency without being subject to unreasonable liabilities.

Information sharing.

Participating partners will make available in real-time location and status information of their winter maintenance 

vehicles and roadway conditions via established protocols. Frequency, content, and format will be determined 

as the system is developed.

Performance measuring.

Partners will collect and share performance data on the 

time to clear and maintenance vehicle miles traveled. 

Time to clear extends from the initiation of winter maintenance operations in anticipation of snow event until 

all emergency snow routes and priority arterials in the 

partners’ jurisdiction are clear. Clearance will be measured by visual inspection by the partnering agencies. 

Partners will send performance data electronically to the 

lead agency, Marlin County Department of Transportation. Additionally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for 

maintenance vehicles per snow event will be emailed to 

Marlin County DOT which will aggregate VMT across 

the region and track performance trends. 

Procedures for mutual assistance.

Mutual assistance may occur when one jurisdiction seeks 

assistance that requires equipment owned and operated by one jurisdiction to operate within a partnering 

jurisdiction. Unless otherwise agreed in advance, mutual 

assistance requires consent on a per request basis. Assistance may be requested by a partner in need of additional 

support or may be offered by a partner whose equipment 

is available and positioned to provide service. However, 

unless both parties consent, equipment shall not cross 

jurisdictional boundaries. Consent may be routine (i.e., 

prearranged), conditional (i.e., assistance occurs when 

specific conditions occur), or responsive (i.e., because 

of current conditions, in real-time we will offer or accept assistance). Routine or conditional consent may be 

specified in multi-jurisdictional agreements; responsive 

consent requires a record of the consent. 

Cost recovery for assistance.

The partners will reimburse one another for the cost of 

providing assistance. The partners will agree on a formula to provide appropriate compensation based on staff 

time, chemical use, and vehicle mileage. Mileage will 

be tracked on the AVL system. Staff time and chemical 

use will be reported to the lead agency, Marlin County 

Department of Transportation, by the assisting agency. 

At the end of each month, Marlin County DOT will settle 

the accounts, bill partners as needed, and then reimburse 

partners with outstanding costs. 

Relationships and Procedures Example 1: Tri-County Snow Maintenance RCTO
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 11 

Towing and recovery working group.

Representatives from the partner agencies and the region’s towing and recovery 

operator community will form a working 

group to develop regional towing and 

recovery procedures. The group will 

develop the zone-based towing procedure and early identification of equipment needs and mobilization of equipment 

procedures. The working group will be led by a representative 

from the Foster Police Department and a public safety agency 

will be designated as the lead for each zone. The group will 

meet on a bi-monthly basis until the procedures have been 

established and documented. After that time, representatives 

from the lead agencies for each zone will give status reports to 

the JPDC ITS/IM Committee as needed. Updates to the procedures will be handled by the zone leaders with input from 

the Joint ITS/IM Committee on an as needed basis.

Zone-based towing procedure. 

The partners will develop a common procedure for handling 

towing and recovery needs. The region will be divided into 

at most five districts and each district will create a list of 

pre-qualified towing and recovery operators that will be used 

to contact a tow operator at the time of an incident. Due to 

the geography of the region, a single tow list would not be as 

efficient. Responsibility for implementing and maintaining 

this list will be given to the local police departments and State 

police. When an incident occurs, the local dispatcher will 

call the first operator on the list to the incident scene and then 

move it to the end of the list. 

The partners will decide what qualifications the towing and 

recovery operators must meet in order to be placed on a 

zone’s towing list. These qualifications should minimize time 

to dispatch the appropriate tow equipment to the scene. Factors to be considered include maximum allowable response 

time, insurance, 24-hour availability, and availability of 

heavy-duty tow trucks. 

Traffic fatality certification policy. 

Led by the Burke State Police (BSP), a working group of the 

region’s law enforcement agencies will meet with the Burke 

State Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to develop a policy that will define an alternative method for handling traffic 

fatalities in special circumstances. The policy will likely be 

modeled after Maryland’s practice: law enforcement agencies 

that need to remove a fatal crash victim from the scene of an 

incident must follow these steps: fill out the OCME form, take 

pictures of crash and victim position, and then call the OCME 

24-hour center to request permission to relocate the body.20 

Cross-agency training.

The classroom training and full-scale exercise will be developed by contractors to the Burke DOT. The overall design 

of the training will be guided by a working group composed 

of management-level representatives from each partnering 

agency. The classroom training will be a full day of instruction to be held four times annually. The full-scale exercise 

will last approximately 4 hours and will allow first responders 

to cooperate across agencies while working in a simulated accident scene. A different full-scale exercise will be held every 

18 months. Participating agencies will require their incident 

management personnel to attend training on a yearly basis. 

Burke DOT and BSP will update training materials on an as 

needed basis because of new procedures, policies, or laws. 

Post-incident debriefing practice.

JPDC will take the lead in developing a standard template 

to use for multi-agency reviews of major incidents. JPDC 

will host three to four post-incident debriefing sessions to be 

attended by all key players who participated in responding to 

the incident. Incidents that were not cleared within 30 minutes 

are candidates for a debriefing session. Other criteria will be 

decided upon by the Joint ITS/IM Committee. Requests for 

debriefings will be handled by JPDC. 

MOVE IT campaign working group.

Led by the City of Winchester Department of Transportation, 

a working group of partnering agencies will determine the 

content, design, and distribution strategy of the MOVE IT 

public information brochure. A standard design for a road 

sign to educate drivers on this law will also be developed and 

transportation agency representatives will work within their 

agencies to get support for purchasing and posting MOVE IT 

signs in their jurisdictions.

Arterial incident action team.

The departments of transportation from the cities of Twinfolk, 

Winchester, and Foster will form an arterial incident action 

team. Led by the City of Twinfolk DOT, the team will jointly 

apply for funding, procure the necessary equipment, and provide guidance for the initiative. The City of Twinfolk will be 

responsible for the administration of the team. Joint funding 

will be used to procure equipment and contract with a private 

company to operate the service. 

The action team will assist in traffic incident management 

by setting up emergency lane/road closures, installing and 

maintaining signed detour routes, and providing directional 

information to motorists. The arterial team will be on call 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week and respond to incidents when 

requested by local police, fire, or transportation agencies. 

Relationships and Procedures Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

20 This is a practice developed by the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner (OCME) and described on page 32 of the NCHRP Synthesis 318 

Safe and Quick Clearance of Traffic Incidents by W. Dunn and S. Latoski 

(Transportation Research Board, 2003). 
4 - 12 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

The State departments of transportation of Grover, Cantwell, Warren, and 

Byrd will form a coalition to improve 

coordination on interstate traveler information. The Coalition will be led 

by the Grover DOT and have a tiered 

organizational structure consisting of: 

• An executive committee made up of the four DOT 

directors who will decide on resource commitments 

and the overall direction of the effort. 

• A steering committee established between State DOT 

ITS managers who will manage the effort and provide 

input to the executive committee. 

• A working committee made up of technical staff 

from the four DOTs that work together to develop the 

technical and day-to-day operational aspects of the 

collaboration. 

The partners will establish a common approach for measuring their performance toward their operations objective. 

The roads of interest for this effort, I-40, I-50, I-46, I-35, 

and I-55, have existing traffic detection instrumentation that 

will allow for delay to be estimated during major incidents, 

inclement weather, road construction, and disasters based 

on vehicle speeds and volume. It is not anticipated that 

delay will need to be assessed for every event but that a 

sampling of events will be sufficient. Developing a common performance measurement approach will be one of the 

first efforts of the coalition. A baseline of delay will need 

to be established during the first year of the effort, prior to 

the implementation of the information sharing system and 

procedures.

An interagency agreement will be established to formalize 

the partner agencies’ funding commitments to this effort. 

Common procedures for information sharing on interstate 

road conditions will be developed. The partners have 

agreed to share information on road closures, restrictions, 

major incidents and disasters, and weather. Procedures to 

be developed will cover what information will be shared 

(e.g., road closures, work zone activities, inclement weather, 

detours), how the information will be shared (e.g., format, 

timing, via Internet or cell phone), and who will be responsible within each agency for gathering information. It is 

not expected that agencies will need to collect information 

beyond their current levels with the exception of delay data 

for performance measuring. 

Standard procedures for rapid updating of the electronic 

contact list will also be developed. It is expected that this 

list will be hosted on the coalition’s web-based system. 

The partners will follow a standard systems engineering 

approach to developing the traveler information system. 

This will include the following steps: define requirements, 

perform high-level design, develop installation plan to install the system in each State, complete system integration 

across the 4-State region, and test the system. 

Relationships and Procedures Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

4.5 PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS

The physical improvements defined in an RCTO describe 

the facilities, equipment, and systems that will be put in 

place to achieve the operations objective. Additionally, 

an RCTO shows what investments are needed for these 

improvements and how they fit together to deliver better 

customer service and system performance. Some partnerships may decide to construct an RCTO without significant 

physical improvements. For example, the MAG ITS Committee decided to focus on making operations improvements with their existing ITS infrastructure because they 

already had considerable ITS deployments and additional 

funding was not readily available. 
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 13 

The following table lists the physical improvements needed to implement the snow maintenance system. 

Physical Improvements Example 1: Tri-County Snow Maintenance RCTO

Item Function Estimated Price Quantity

Global positioning 

system tracking 

device

Each vehicle is equipped with 

a tracking device that allows 

satellites to pinpoint its exact 

location.

$400/unit Marlin County: 60

Baker County: 45

Able City: 50

Quincy County: 35

Environmental 

sensors

Mounted on the vehicle, the 

sensors continuously record 

both air and pavement temperatures to help determine if 

salting is required.

$500 for both air 

and pavement sensors

Marlin County: 60

Baker County: 45

Able City:50

Quincy County: 35

In-vehicle Unit Each vehicle is equipped with 

a dashboard-mounted computer 

display, known as an in-vehicle 

unit (IVU), which automatically 

collects data from the various 

sensors on the vehicle, displays 

the information for the driver, 

and sends this data over the 

radio to the data server.

$1000/unit Marlin County: 60

Baker County: 45

Able City:50

Quincy County: 35

900 MHz Radio 

System

Links the in-vehicle unit in 

each vehicle with the data 

server and computer base stations at the garages.

Donated by Marlin 

County Transit

1

Data server To collect the data from the 

radio system and put onto the 

Internet where only partnering 

agencies can receive it.

Donated by Able 

City

1

Software For web-based interface. $20,000 1
4 - 14 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

The necessary physical improvements 

are eight trucks equipped with variable 

message signs, radios, traffic cones, detour signs, and public address systems. 

The signs, cones, and public address 

system allow the drivers to better manage traffic during incidents. The radio communications system will enable drivers 

to communicate with each other and central dispatch. Cost 

per equipped truck is approximately $45,000. 

Physical Improvements Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

The web-based traveler information 

exchange system will require the 

following equipment:

• Web application software. 

• Database. 

• Web server. 

• Internet site. 

• High-speed internet access within State departments of 

transportation.

Physical Improvements Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

4.6 RESOURCE 

ARRANGEMENTS

Resource arrangements identify how resources such as 

funding, staff time, and equipment will be obtained and applied in the collaborative effort to actualize and sustain the 

operations objective. Some of these investments involve 

partner agency budget allocations; others are commitments 

of staffing, equipment, or facilities to support regionally 

significant activities. The resource arrangements element 

may include plans to fund the regional effort by jointly 

applying for funding through the regional Transportation 

Improvement Program or a local, State, or Federal grant. 

In several regions, applications for regional, State, or Federal funds are given greater weight when several agencies 

have joined together. 

Examples of resource arrangements between participants 

of collaborative management and operations efforts provide ideas for how resources could be organized within an 

RCTO:

• The High Plains Corridor Coalition State DOT partners 

formed a Transportation Pooled Fund Study and have 

committed to providing $300,000 each over 5 years. 

• Phoenix International Raceway event management 

stakeholders have partnered to plan and implement 

effective event management strategies to get out timely 

and accurate motorist information, manage traffic, 

and reduce demand. Participants include Maricopa 

County DOT (MCDOT), Maricopa County Sheriff’s 

Office (MCSO), ADOT, the Arizona Department of 

Public Safety (DPS), PIR officials, and M&M Parking 

Consultants. The partners coordinated their ITS 

resources and staff time in order to stage traffic control 

posts staffed by public safety and transportation agencies 

and utilize three control centers, lane reversal, radio, 

freeway VMS, and limited arterial VMS. 

• Funding for Southeast Michigan Snow and Ice 

Management (SEMSIM) has come from Federal earmark 

grants, CMAQ, and funds from each of the four road 

maintenance organizations. SEMSIM uses extra capacity 

in the transit agency’s radio communications system. 
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 4 - 15 

The following illustrates the resource arrangements used to fund the implementation of an RCTO:

The local partnering agencies, with the 

City of Twinfolk DOT acting as the lead 

agency, will apply for CMAQ funding 

to cover the initial equipment costs for 

Arterial Incident Action Team and the 

annual operating costs for Action Team 

over the first 3 years. The funding requested will be approximately $400,000 for the first year and $300,000 for 

the second and third years. The first year will require a 20 

percent match of approximately $100,000 be split evenly 

among the local jurisdictions. They second and third years 

will require approximately $75,000 in matching funds split 

evenly between the local jurisdictions. After the first 3 

years, the local jurisdictions will pool their funds and will 

split the full cost of the team equally.

The City of Twinfolk will enter into a joint purchasing 

agreement with the Burke DOT to acquire the arterial incident action team trucks and equipment. The Burke DOT 

currently holds a contract with a private agency to supply 

trucks for the Burke Freeway Courtesy Patrol. 

Twinfolk, Winchester, and Foster DOTs will develop an 

intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that will allow the 

arterial incident action team to operate within their jurisdictions when requested. IGA will also commit each local 

jurisdiction to share equally the 20 percent match required 

for CMAQ funds.

Burke Department of Transportation will utilize its on-call 

consultant to support the training development of classroom 

instruction and a full-scale exercise. Estimated cost for the 

training development is $200,000. 

Once developed, Burke DOT and Burke State Police will 

contribute two incident management experts from their staff 

to serve as instructors for the full-day classroom instruction 

twice a year. 

The City of Winchester will contribute 40 hours of staff time 

to lead the design and development of a public information brochure on the Move It law. All partnering agencies 

will contribute $1000 to print the brochures. Local law 

enforcement and transportation partners will then contribute 8 hours each to distribute brochures at locations such 

as grocery stores and rest stops during a special awareness 

week to be agreed upon.

Resource Arrangements Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

A joint purchasing agreement will be 

established between the four partnering 

agencies to share the cost of the AVL 

system and its components equitably. 

The partners will divide equally the cost 

of the software and radio communications system, but the cost of the workstations, vehicle transponders, and mobile weather monitors will be prorated based 

on the number of systems purchased by each agency.

The 900 MHz Radio System will be donated by Marlin County Transit for the ongoing use by the partners for the regional 

winter maintenance system. Able City will donate a spare 

data server for the joint initiative that will be housed at the 

Marlin County DOT. Software and hardware maintenance of 

the AVL system will be handled by a contractor. Contractor 

cost will be divided equally among the four partners. 

Resource Arrangements Example 1: Tri-County Snow Maintenance RCTO

The States of Cantwell, Warren, Byrd, 

and Grover will create a pooled fund 

study as part of the FHWA Transportation Pooled Fund Program. Funding 

will be provided in equal amounts by 

the four States and the administration 

of the pooled fund study will be carried out by FHWA. 

The pooled fund study will last over 5 years. In years 1 

and 2, each agency will contribute $100,000 each year for 

implementation costs and in years 3, 4, 5, each agency will 

contribute $50,000 each year for operating costs. 

Resource Arrangements Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 5 - 1 

Identifying a champion for the collaborative effort. 

A champion or set of champions is crucial to the successful development and implementation of an RCTO. An appropriate champion for the collaborative effort has a vital 

interest in the issue and is willing and capable of advocating for the effort. A possible champion for an RCTO on 

traveler information may be a freight operators committee. 

Alternatively, a city council member or senior planner at 

the MPO may rise to champion the cause.

Getting buy-in from agency management and elected 

officials. Developers of an RCTO may have difficulty 

gaining support and agreement from their agencies’ management and elected officials, particularly if implementing 

the RCTO requires substantial contribution of resources. 

Expected benefits to the traveling public (i.e., voters) and 

to the agencies themselves should be used to promote the 

partners’ efforts. A powerful argument for developing an 

RCTO is that it allows agencies to expand their capabilities or increase their efficiency beyond what would be 

possible working alone. 

Overcoming the roadblocks to interagency agreements. 

An RCTO requires agreement between multiple parties 

that each have their own organizational mission, culture, 

and standard operating procedures. If not properly managed, these divergent organizational characteristics can be 

major impediments to the collaboration. 

Securing any necessary funding for implementation. 

For many collaborative efforts, partners will need to 

identify a funding source to accomplish the desired operations objective. Possible funding sources include agency 

budgets, State and local transportation taxes, and Federal 

CMAQ and STP dollars. RCTO partners may want to 

work with their MPO to set up a line item within the plan 

for management and operations projects.

Monitoring performance of the collaboration and its 

impact. An essential part of successfully achieving and 

maintaining an operations objective through collaborative 

action involves monitoring and assessing the collaborative 

Below is a list of strategies for successful development and 

implementation of an RCTO.

Coalescing on a feasible 

operations objective that is 

agreeable to all. 

Because of many competing 

transportation needs within 

a region, reaching a decision to pursue a single operations 

objective through an RCTO can be one of the most difficult tasks for the partners. This challenge typically comes 

early in the development process when the commitment of 

the participants may not yet be solidified. The partnership 

is more likely to be successful if the operations objective 

is manageable and achievable within the short timeframe 

of implementing an RCTO. A well-chosen operations 

objective invigorates the partnership and gives participants 

a central focus to rally around. Early accomplishments 

give the partnership the momentum and support needed to 

tackle increasingly complex issues. 

Sustaining adequate participation. Inevitably the strength 

of the partners’ participation will ebb and flow as agencies 

cope with staff turnover and demands on staff members 

to meet other responsibilities. Additionally, engineers or 

operators accustomed to demand-driven, day-to-day operations may be less motivated to participate in strategic planning activities. Planning for operations requires sustained, 

deliberate collaboration among the participants. Sustained 

participation requires that:

• Partners understand the importance of their individual 

contributions.

• Outcomes of the RCTO are at the forefront of the 

collaborative discussions.

• Every partner anticipants the benefits from 

implementing the RCTO.

• Leaders or champions fully embrace all of the partners 

through regular contact and even holding meetings at 

underrepresented agencies’ locations.

Focusing on an issue that has wide support and visibility. 

The development of an RCTO may be most successful 

when it addresses an issue that is highly visible to the public and elected officials such as quick incident clearance. 

By addressing fundamental needs of a region, RCTO 

partners can gather the momentum and support needed to 

establish an RCTO and carry it out. 

5 KEYS FOR ADVANCING AN RCTO

The MAG RCTO was signed by the MAG Regional 

Council after receiving unanimous approval by city managers and the MPO board, which consisted of mayors and 

agency leaders.

Approval for MAG RCTO
5 - 2 | Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

activities and the impact of these activities on the transportation system and its users. It provides the feedback 

necessary for the partners to gauge the effectiveness of 

their approach and make adjustments accordingly. Only 

through performance measurement can the partners reliably demonstrate the benefits of the effort to the public and 

to decisionmakers who have committed resources to the 

effort.

As part of the RCTO development, the collaborative partners should develop a program to measure both internal 

and external performance regularly. Internal performance 

measures track the performance of the collaboration itself 

and enable partners to determine how well they are carrying out the approach. Sample measures may include 

meeting attendance, amount of funding acquired, number 

of traffic signals installed, and percent compliance with 

new procedures. 

Additionally, the partners need to use external performance measures to determine their progress toward their 

operations objective and the influence their effort has on 

the performance of the transportation system. Sample 

measures include customer satisfaction, incident duration, 

throughput, and delay. 

Committing the resources necessary to develop an RCTO. 

The resources necessary for developing an RCTO consist 

primarily of agency staff time and labor. The commitment of agency staff time to meet and work through ideas 

with other partners is necessary to create the content of the 

RCTO. Staff needs may differ depending on the phase of 

RCTO development. While establishing the operations 

objective and the general direction for the RCTO, senior 

agency management and decisionmakers may be primarily 

relied upon whereas more technically oriented staff may be 

necessary to flesh out the details of the approach, procedures, and physical improvements. 

Documenting a new way of operating. 

The RCTO represents a joint decision on a new way of operating and as such, documentation of the RCTO is needed 

to provide a single source for all partners to refer to as they 

work to achieve and maintain their common operations objective over time. The shape and format of the documentation is not important as long as the essential elements exist 

somewhere within. 

Public safety and ITS stakeholders in Hampton Roads, 

Virginia are developing an RCTO for incident management. The RCTO Working Group chair from the Virginia 

DOT reports quarterly to the MPO on the progress of their 

effort. This includes up-to-date information on delays 

due to incidents. 

Contact Camelia Ravanbakht: cravanbakht@hrpdcva.gov.

Incident Management Accountability in 

Hampton Roads
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 6 - 1 

• Examine the regional needs and desired user 

services identified during the development of the ITS 

architecture and talk to those who were involved in it. 

Key ideas brought out in the architecture may provide 

needed groundwork for taking action with an RCTO.

6.3 DEVELOPING THE RCTO

• Look for similarities between your region and the 

RCTO examples used in this document and consider 

adapting elements to fit your specific situation. 

• Host a peer-to-peer session where leaders of a RCTO 

or strategic operations planning effort in another region 

visit with members of your operations group to share 

their experiences, lessons learned, and create ideas on 

how to develop the RCTO for your region.

An RCTO can be developed in several ways. For 

those ready to explore using an RCTO as a tool to 

develop TSM&O strategies but are unsure of what 

to do next, select one or two of the actions listed below to 

get started. The steps are divided into three general categories of activity: building the momentum for operations 

partnering, identifying the RCTO focus, and developing 

the RCTO. 

6.1 BUILDING THE MOMENTUM 

FOR OPERATIONS PARTNERING

• Hold an executive level workshop to obtain agreement 

that operations strategies are a needed complement to 

capital infrastructure investments.

• Host a transportation operations partnering summit 

where planners and operators from the region come 

together to share successful collaborating experiences 

and identify opportunities to work together on 

operations activities that would be difficult to 

accomplish alone.

• Distribute monthly newsletters to share the current 

status of individual or joint operations efforts in the 

region and provide information on the tangible benefits 

of operations improvements to mobility, safety, security, 

and the environment. 

6.2 IDENTIFYING THE RCTO 

FOCUS 

• Begin by tackling a relatively simple operations 

issue, such as traffic signal timing, in which the need 

for improvement is widely acknowledged and easily 

understood by agencies in the region.

• Identify common operations needs and explore 

ways to take advantage of economies of scale and 

leverage resources. For example, excess capacity on 

communications lines such as fiber could be shared 

with neighboring agencies in return for access to video 

cameras.

• Talk to the MPO staff member heading up the 

congestion management process and find out if an 

RCTO could be a useful tool to further refine and put 

into practice operations strategies identified in the CMP.

6 GETTING STARTED
Regional Concept for Transportation Operations | 7 - 1 

Transportation entities are turning to integrated and 

innovative approaches that reflect regional system 

level thinking, leverage available technology, and 

form new institutional relationships. Because these new 

approaches typically transcend individual agencies, political jurisdictions, and transportation functions, they only 

work when participating agencies share a common vision 

for how transportation system planners, owners, and operators will work together to improve the way the transportation system is managed and operated.

This primer introduces a management tool that offers 

partners a systematic way to organize efforts and resources 

toward common operations objectives. It helps senior 

managers and elected officials focus their interests and 

energies on cost-effective strategies for improving transportation system performance in the region. This tool, the 

Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), 

contains six key elements that guide partners in developing 

and addressing regional transportation needs: motivation, 

operations objective, approach, relationships and procedures, physical improvements, and resource arrangements.

An RCTO can serve as a mechanism to translate relatively 

high-level concepts for management and operations defined within the planning process into specific, coordinated 

strategies for operations that can be acted on. Multiple 

opportunities exist to use an RCTO to advance operations 

in connection with transportation planning. 

An RCTO can increase the efficiency and effectiveness 

of the partners by bringing together varied transportation 

operations perspectives, priorities, and cultures from different agencies and jurisdictions and by helping them to 

think collectively through what they want to accomplish 

and how they work together to reach that operations objective in the near future. It facilitates coordinating priorities, 

leveraging resources, and alleviating duplicative efforts 

and it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the partners 

in the collaborative effort. 

The collaborative effort required to develop the RCTO establishes credibility with decisionmakers and the public by 

demonstrating that multiple agencies stand behind and are 

working toward the same operations objective for improving regional transportation system performance.

7 SUMMARY
Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

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

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No.: FHWA-HOP-07-122