Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

55 This appendix provides detailed information about incorpo- rating reliability performance measures into the key decision points of the PlanWorks (formerly known as Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships [TCAPP]) planning and programming framework. PlanWorks provides a representation of the key decision points (KDPs) that are used as a model in the overall transpor- tation planning and programming process, primarily for major capital investments. These KDPs are organized around four phases of transportation planning and project development. • Long-range planning; • Corridor planning (including subarea and other similar planning efforts); • Programming; and • A merged environmental review and permitting (ENV/PER) process. While the PlanWorks process focuses on major capital invest- ments, the assumption of the guide is that the transportation planning process is flexible enough to accommodate new concepts and approaches. From the perspective of SHRP 2 Project L05, two planning efforts are explicitly not addressed: • Operations Planning. SHRP 2 L05 is examining the broad range of strategies that have the potential to improve travel time reliability, including capacity, operations, and travel demand strategies; strategies that address the full range of travel modes; and strategies for both passenger and freight movements. Because PlanWorks has focused on capacity projects, it naturally does not address operations and related strategies, and only tangentially considers transit. Systems operations and management (SO&M) improvements focus in particular on nonrecurring congestion, rather than on the recurring congestion that is the focus of the capacity improve- ments that are typically part of the traditional planning pro- cess. Agencies may wish to directly incorporate operations into the PlanWorks process or set up a parallel process for operations. Either way, it is important for this framework to provide a path to estimating the impact of operations investments on reliability. • Congestion management process. The congestion manage- ment process (CMP) is intended to be a key place for consid- eration of the full range of strategies to address congestion and, by extension, reliability. The CMP is designed to develop and evaluate options for alleviating congestion using an ongoing process that does not necessarily result in a product (unlike a long-range transportation plan or a state or regional transportation improvement program). The framework identifies KDPs used in the CMP, drawing from recent work by the FHWA to provide guidance on the CMP for the trans- portation agencies that are required to use this process. The remainder of this appendix describes in detail the steps for incorporating reliability into planning and pro- gramming. It first describes how institutional arrangements support incorporation and then walks through each of the processes—the four from PlanWorks and the two described here. These latter sections describe how reliability can be incor- porated into relevant key decision points (KDP). Only relevant KDPs are described. How Institutions Help Incorporate Reliability Well-functioning institutional arrangements can ensure that transportation decisions include reliability as a key consider- ation. A variety of participants and stakeholders must work together to plan, design, implement, and manage transporta- tion system investments. When agencies work together to pro- actively develop a set of transportation system management and operations (TSM&O) strategies for various scenarios (e.g., a multivehicle accident, severe weather, or a large sport- ing event), and they also have the coordination mechanisms in A p p e n d I x B Incorporating Reliability into PlanWorks

56 place to successfully implement, monitor, and adjust these strat- egies as necessary, it is more likely that customer expectations for a reliable transportation system will be met. Understanding the institutional arrangements needed to incorporate reliability into the planning and programming process requires identifying the groups and organizations that should participate in the process and defining the specific roles they play at various stages of the process. Note that coordina- tion with key legislative decision makers and policy makers also can help to incorporate reliability into transportation policy at the federal or state level. The actors are organized into three categories: • Owners include those responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining the transportation system. Own- ers make decisions about funding system improvements that can affect reliability, and they are responsible for engaging stakeholders in the planning process. These may include DOTs, transit agencies, and other public entities, as well as private transportation owners, operators, and service providers. • Influencers are those whose actions are intended to affect either the reliability of the transportation system or user behavior, or both. Emergency responders, towing companies, and information service providers fall into this category. In addition, major employers and major event organizers (e.g., sporting events, conventions, concerts) make decisions regarding the timing of the ingress and egress of the workers and patrons who have a significant influence on the reliabil- ity of the transportation network. Influencers should be included in the planning process, because they have firsthand knowledge of the causes of reliability problems. • Users include the customers who create demand for trans- portation facilities and services and who experience the impacts of changes in reliability. A broad definition of “users” can include drivers of passenger and commercial vehicles as well as fleet dispatchers, freight forwarders, and logistics providers who determine where and when freight moves. Given the intermodal, interconnected nature of the trans- portation system, it is critical that these groups communicate and share information among each other. Each agency or organization brings something different to the table— perspective, expertise, and the mechanisms to change or enforce policies and regulations, implement operational strategies, and make investments and improvements that can affect reliability. The ways in which these groups interact has an impact on the quality of the collaboration and subse- quently the effectiveness of the outcomes. Specific informa- tion for the actors within each of these groups, how they affect reliability, and why it is important to include them in a collaborative planning process is provided. Owners State Departments of Transportation State DOTs are the owners of much of the transportation infra- structure that is the focus of this guide. State DOTs plan, build, operate, and maintain state highway systems and the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, and in various states, the state DOT also may be responsible for operating and maintaining county and local roadways, passenger rail, freight rail, transit, airports, and seaports. The DOT’s role in improv- ing reliability is to manage and operate the transportation sys- tem, to fund and oversee transportation system improvements, including both TSM&O strategies and capital improvements, and to measure and track systemwide reliability performance. As owners of the system and statewide planning responsibili- ties, it is the DOT’s responsibility to coordinate with the other stakeholders. By coordinating with the DOT, MPOs and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to share local knowledge about appropriate strategies for improving reliability, poten- tially gain additional access to expertise and travel time data, and coordinate on drafting goals and objectives. State DOTs have multiple functions that often are divided among divisions or offices within the organizational frame- work, and sometimes responsibilities are divided among a central office and various regional or district offices. It is best not to consider state DOTs as a single, monolithic participant in improving reliability, but as a group of participants and stakeholders with a variety of functions. The following is a representative list of offices that reflects the range of functions of a typical state DOT. • Policy and Long-Range Planning Office 44 Role in planning process: The policy and long-range plan- ning office owns the statewide long-range plan (LRP) that sets policy objectives for the entire state and includes reliability as a goal and/or objective. In addition, the pol- icy office requests funding increases to support the goals and objectives. The office uses reliability performance measures to support these requests. 44 Role in improving reliability: The policy and long-range planning office develops, tracks, and reports reliability performance measures; prepares forecasts of population, employment, and other factors that drive travel demand; estimates future reliability deficiencies based on travel demand forecasts; and coordinates planning activities with other owners, influencers, and users. In addition, the office conducts trade-off analyses of operations, manage- ment, and capital strategies. This office often includes the data collection section, which houses travel time data for reliability analyses. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) As a system owner and owner of the LRP, the policy office is responsible for

57 coordinating with all stakeholders to ensure that reli- ability is appropriately included in the plan. (MPO per- spective.) MPOs should coordinate with the policy and planning office to develop goals and objectives that reflect regional reliability deficiencies and share local knowledge of reliability deficiencies and strategies to improve reliability. • Programming Office 44 Role in the planning process: The programming office owns the programming process and is responsible for coordinating input for the development of the statewide or metropolitan region transportation improvement program (STIP or TIP). 44 Role in improving reliability: The programming office develops investment policies and evaluation criteria for prioritizing transportation improvement strate- gies, including operations and capital strategies aimed at improving current and future reliability. Sometimes, sepa- rate finance and budget offices coordinate with the state legislature and other executive branches to allocate fund- ing to transportation overall and to specific transportation programs affecting reliability. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) As a system owner and the owner of the programming process, the pro- gramming office is responsible for coordinating with a specific group of key executive stakeholders to ensure that funding decisions support statewide goals and objectives and provide a set of future investments that can be delivered within available resources. (MPO perspec- tive.) MPOs must coordinate with programming offices to ensure consistency of investments across the trans- portation network. • Operations Office 44 Role in the planning process: The Operations Office is responsible for the day-to-day operation and manage- ment of the transportation system (e.g., responding to incidents and other day-to-day challenges) and typically owns the operations planning process. 44 Role in improving reliability: To coordinate a state’s opera- tions strategies, including intelligent transportation sys- tem (ITS) and TSM&O strategies, on the state-owned elements of the transportation system; to operate or over- see contracted operations of freeway service patrols that respond to and quickly clear disabled vehicles from a road- way before they create significant reliability problems; and to coordinate with local signal timing agencies with respect to arterial operations. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) As a system owner and the owner of the operations planning process, the opera- tions office is responsible for coordinating with statewide and regional planning and operations stakeholders to support goals and objectives and to build support for appropriate funding levels. (MPO perspective.) MPOs can share travel time data and analysis; ensure that opera- tional strategies are considered in their plans; and ensure that their strategies are accurately reflected in statewide plans. • Mode-specific offices (e.g., public transportation, rail, aviation, maritime, nonmotorized transportation, freight) 44 Role in the planning process: These offices typically develop modal plans that support the long-range transportation plan and provide detailed feedback about mode-specific deficiencies. 44 Role in improving reliability: To provide a focused per- spective on mode-specific reliability needs or improve- ments; to develop a deeper understanding of the needs of specific user groups; to play a role in operating the modal systems through coordination with modal entities (e.g., ports, airports, freight operators); and to work with high- way planners and operators to manage demand among all modes. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) The modal offices develop focused plans and studies that ensure that reliability is incorporated into planning, design, con- struction, operations, and maintenance of nonhighway infrastructure. They also consider the role of highway infrastructure in supporting the reliable movement of people and goods by all transportation modes. (MPO perspective.) To ensure that demand is properly managed, to share region-specific information, and to gather state- wide perspective for certain user groups. • Maintenance Office 44 Role in the planning process: The maintenance office devel- ops and enforces standards for the condition and design of roadways (e.g., pavement, markings, signs, signals), bridges, and other state-owned infrastructure. 44 Role in improving reliability: Infrastructure in poor con- dition can affect the reliability of the system, causing an increase in scheduled maintenance, delay, crashes, and other issues. The maintenance office is responsible for using available funding to maintain a state of good repair throughout the system. Further, the maintenance office may determine standards for things like access manage- ment and curb cuts that can have significant impacts on the reliability of a roadway. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) Maintenance proj- ects can improve system reliability but maintenance typi- cally competes with operations and capital for overall transportation funding. Close coordination among the maintenance offices and other DOT offices can help the programming office develop an overall transportation program that effectively supports all statewide goals and objectives. (MPO perspective.) MPOs typically do not coordinate directly with maintenance offices.

58 • Design and Construction Office 44 Role in the planning process: To implement the physical sys- tem improvements planned by other offices. Design and construction offices often are not responsible for making system improvement decisions (i.e., which investments to make), but they make many decisions about the design and scope of a project that ultimately influence reliability. 44 Role in improving reliability: To ensure that improvements are designed to address reliability, as appropriate, and to improve construction scheduling and work zones around construction areas to improve system reliability. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT/MPO perspective.) Design and construction offices ensure that design and construc- tion practices support statewide and regional goals and objectives; provide information to engineers, design- ers, and DOT staff responsible for construction sched- uling so they understand the impacts of their decisions on reliability; and provide them with the information and tools to make both strategic and tactical decisions that improve reliability. • Safety Office 44 Role in the planning process: In some states, safety offices are freestanding, and in others, safety responsibilities may be part of an operations, maintenance, or design division or office. The safety office is often responsible for devel- oping the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the Highway Safety Program (HSP) in accordance with the statewide long-range plan. 44 Role in improving reliability: To reduce vehicle crashes and fatalities. Crashes are a common source of nonrecurring congestion that can have a significant impact on trans- portation system reliability. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT/MPO perspective.) The safety office ensures that reliability is considered as a goal of safety improvements and that safety is considered when addressing reliability. • Commercial Vehicle Permitting Office 44 Role in the planning process: The commercial vehicle per- mitting office may be a part of operations offices or may be freestanding. Commercial vehicle permitting offices are not responsible for making system improvement but their decisions do influence reliability. 44 Role in improving reliability: To ensure that overdimen- sional loads use appropriate routes (avoiding bridge strikes that can affect system reliability) and that all com- mercial vehicles are operated in a manner that will not impact safety, systems operations, or reliability. 44 Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) The commercial vehicle permitting office ensures that the permitting deci- sions support statewide and regional goals for improving reliability. (MPO perspective.) MPOs typically do not coordinate directly with vehicle permitting offices. For many DOTs, some or all of these functions are located or also exist within regional or district offices. These offices, being closer to the infrastructure that is owned and operated by the DOT, play a critical role in ensuring that reliability is taken into account in the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system. Compared to cen- tral office staff, regional and district staff also tend to have stronger relationships with the regional and local agencies that are responsible for ensuring the reliability of nonstate transportation assets. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) • Role in the planning process: MPOs rarely own specific infra- structure, but do “own” several planning processes, includ- ing the regional LRP; the regional TIP; air quality planning process; the CMP; and often corridor plans discussed in this guide. • Role in improving reliability: To plan and program projects that improve reliability; to coordinate capital, operations, and management projects to address regional congestion; to track reliability on a regional level and perform tradeoff analy sis of operations, management, and capital projects through corridor planning and congestion management processes; and to develop regional operations plans to help ensure that the set of operational and management strategies deployed in their region address reliability. • Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) MPOs can develop an in depth perspective on user understanding of reliability deficiencies and potential strategies within their region. DOTs must coordinate with MPOs to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives outlined in the statewide LRP. Also, STIPs typically are constructed by compiling strate- gies identified in regional plans and TIPs; coordination among these plans is critical to ensure proper representa- tion from operations, management, and capital projects. Other Regional and Local Agencies • Role in the planning process: Other regional and local agencies include local municipal planning and zoning departments (which set local development policy and make land-use decisions that affect transportation system demand and oper- ations), highway and public works departments (which often operate traffic signals and plan, design, operate, and maintain local roadways that feed or act as alternate routes to parallel, state-controlled arterials and freeways), public trans- portation departments (which plan, design, operate, and maintain transit vehicles and transit infrastructure), indepen- dent toll road operators, and departments responsible for air- ports, seaports, and other transportation infrastructure and services not under the control of state DOTs. Local and

59 regional agencies work closely with legislative branches of local government, including city councils, county leg- islatures, and planning boards and others responsible for permitting and approval processes. • Role in improving reliability: To implement strategies to improve reliability at smaller geographic levels than state or regional agencies. • Why coordinate? (DOT perspective.) Regional and local agencies can provide feedback about system deficiencies. System owners also play a critical role in delivering trans- portation systems and service and in providing a reliable transportation system. (MPO perspective.) These groups can provide MPOs with developing corridor plans or by working through congestion management processes to provide a geographically or modally detailed perspective on needs and potential strategies for improvement. Transportation Authorities • Role in the planning process: A second category of system owners, authorities may include some transit agencies, port authorities, airport authorities, toll road and bridge authorities, and other quasi-public entities that often have their own funding sources, regulations, procedures, stan- dards, and so on. These agencies may conduct independent planning for the facilities they own, as well as participating in larger-scale planning that includes their facilities and those of others. • Role in improving reliability: To plan and program projects on their infrastructure and to implement operational, manage- ment, or capital improvements to improve reliability. • Why coordinate? (DOT/MPO perspective.) Many of the functions listed above may be duplicated in larger authori- ties, again necessitating separate outreach and coordination efforts involving specific offices that are responsible in some way for reliability. As is the case with state DOTs, it may not be sufficient to depend on a single contact within a single office at an authority to be responsible for reliability- related planning, programming, design, operations, and maintenance decisions. 44 At a transit authority, for example, bus or rail operations and dispatching personnel are concerned with reliability (typically measured in terms of on-time performance), as well as vehicle maintenance staff (mean time or distance between failure of equipment), planners (determining where route and schedule changes might improve reliabil- ity), and so on. Airport and port authorities are concerned with reliability not only on their facilities but also on multi modal access routes outside their boundaries. For longer-distance trips involving multiple transfers en route, users consider the reliability of a complete end-to-end trip. Thus, reliability directly affects an airport’s or seaport’s competitiveness, and the operators of these facilities should be involved in discussions and decisions that affect transportation system reliability. Private Sector Transportation System Owners and Operators • Role in the planning process: Private system owners and oper- ators include the companies that own and operate most of the country’s freight rail network, private intercity and com- muter bus operators, passenger and freight airlines, and com- panies that own, lease, and/or operate airport and seaport terminals and other infrastructure. • Role in improving reliability: To plan and program projects on their infrastructure and to implement operational, manage- ment, or capital improvements to improve reliability. • Why coordinate? (DOT/MPO perspective.) Deterioration in transportation system reliability now increasingly impacts private sector transportation system owners and operators directly, even though they often do not control the sources of congestion and uncertainty. For example, a seaport terminal operator may have the ability to control the speed and reli- ability of transferring freight from a ship to a drayage vehicle to a container stack to a long-haul truck, but once that truck passes through the port gate, congestion and a lack of reli- ability on regional highways can influence shipping and logistics firms’ decisions about whether to route shipments through that port or a competing port up the coast. 44 The private sector has formed closer relationships with the public and quasi-public entities listed above because capi- tal to fund improvements has become scarce, and it has become apparent that the private sector can no longer afford to simply budget for transportation system conges- tion and pass costs along to customers. Private sector own- ers and operators often have a seat at the table in statewide planning efforts, and, increasingly, they are invited to par- ticipate in MPO planning and programming decisions as active stakeholders. Influencers Towing Companies and Emergency Responders • Role in the planning process: Towing companies and emer- gency responders, including fire, police, and emergency medi- cal services can provide feedback to DOTs and MPOs through their planning processes. In addition, DOTs and MPOs can develop goals and objectives to improve utilization of these entities to improve reliability. • Role in improving reliability: To improve incident response times, to improve the operating procedures to ensure safety at an incident site (e.g., an operating perimeter that results in closed lanes, closure of the entire roadway, and possible

60 closure of adjacent transportation facilities like rail lines), and to improve the time needed to clear an incident. • Why coordinate? Emergency responders and towing com- panies have staff on-site at traffic management centers to facilitate coordination with other participants in operating the transportation system. Further, these entities provide services that improve reliability. Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies • Role in the planning process: Regulatory and enforcement agencies may include federal, state, and local police; commer- cial vehicle inspection and permitting agencies (who may be part of state DOTs or local agencies); the Federal Motor Car- rier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the National Transpor- tation Safety Board (NTSB), and regulatory and enforcement arms of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and other federal and state government agencies. These agencies are often involved in policy and planning decisions at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. • Role in improving reliability: To prevent incidents that can cause nonrecurring congestion. • Why coordinate? (DOT/MPO perspective.) The regulatory and enforcement agencies ensure coordination among state, regional, and federal goals, objectives, and standards. Information Service Providers • Role in the planning process: Information service providers is a broad category that may include state 511 and highway advisory radio systems; variable message screens and moni- tors installed on roadways, in passenger terminals, and on vehicles; public address systems in passenger terminals and onboard vehicles; news media ranging from television sta- tions to radios to privately maintained traffic information websites; and private “concierge” style services like on-call. Information service providers may colocate with operations and emergency response staff at traffic management centers, or they may have direct data feeds provided by public- and private-sector system operators. The services can be funded in the programming process or on an ad hoc basis. • Role in improving reliability: To influence transportation system reliability by informing passengers and transport- ers of freight about incidents and recurring congestion so that the entire transportation system is used more effi- ciently. Passengers and freight sometimes have flexibility to reroute around an incident or retime a trip to avoid con- gestion and improve the likelihood that a trip can be made more reliably. • Why coordinate? Information service providers ensure that travel time data recorded by service providers is included in the state and regional transportation planning process and ensure that strategies to influence demand through manage- ment include provisions for information dissemination. Users Passenger and Commercial Vehicle Operators • Role in the planning process: Passenger and commercial vehicle operators are the most direct users of the transpor- tation system. Agencies plan the systems to provide access and mobility to serve commerce, commuting, and per- sonal travel needs. They typically have no formal role in the planning process but are given an opportunity to pro- vide feedback as plans are developed. • Role in improving reliability: To make real-time decisions about departure times, route choices, mode choices, and operational practices (e.g., aggressive or defensive driving techniques) that can have immediate impacts on trans- portation system reliability. Also, to make longer-term housing, warehousing, and modal decisions that can have a lasting and long-term impact on system demand and reliability. • Why coordinate? Passenger and commercial vehicle opera- tors are users with reliability needs. It is also useful for all users to understand their role in meeting the overall goals and to be vested in them. Fleet Managers and Dispatchers • Role in the planning process: Although not directly operating transportation vehicles, fleet managers and dispatchers are nonetheless an important subset of users. Managers and dis- patchers for companies such as Wal-Mart, JB Hunt, or taxi companies make fleetwide decisions about warehouse loca- tion, routing, and scheduling to meet the needs of their cus- tomers. They typically have no defined role in the planning process. • Role in improving reliability: To impact reliability and respond to events that affect reliability in real time by rerout- ing trucks, transit vehicles, taxis, and other vehicles that have the flexibility to avoid congestion and to maintain the reli- ability of trips across a fleet. The perceptions or observations of their customers regarding the reliability of travel times can directly affect their firms’ bottom lines. • Why coordinate? Fleet managers and dispatchers are users with reliability needs. Further, since system reliability affects these companies’ bottom line, they are likely to have a more fully developed understanding of systemwide reliability issues and needs. They may also have information or data they are willing to provide to the planning process.

61 Freight Logistics Coordinators and Brokers • Role in the planning process: Freight logistics coordina- tors and brokers make decisions about how, where, and when freight moves around the globe. They have no defined role in the planning process. The private sector lobbies state and federal legislators directly to make pol- icy changes and obtain transportation funding earmarks for independent projects that may or may not be linked to a broader set of strategies to improve systemwide reliability. • Role in improving reliability: Like fleet managers and dis- patchers, they do not directly use the system, but their deci- sions about routes, modes, and departure and arrival times can be influenced by and, in turn, influence, transportation system reliability. • Why coordinate? Freight logistics coordinators and brokers are users with reliability needs. Further, since system reli- ability impacts these companies’ bottom line, they are likely to have a more fully developed understanding of systemwide reliability issues and needs. Shippers and Receivers of Freight • Role in the planning process: Shippers and receivers of freight include manufacturers and food processors that depend on a reliable transportation system to access supplies and raw materials and to distribute finished products to customers; warehouses and distribution centers that receive bulk ship- ments and ship out truckloads of goods to retailers; consum- ers who order goods on the web, over the phone, or by mail; and service-oriented businesses who depend on timely and expedited shipments of small parcels and letters. They have no defined role in the planning process. Most often, their involvement is limited to the reliability-related education and outreach that public sector agencies undertake as part of long-range planning, corridor planning, and other planning processes. Otherwise, the private sector lobbies state and fed- eral legislators directly to make policy changes and obtain transportation funding earmarks for independent projects that may or may not be linked to a broader set of strategies to improve systemwide reliability. • Role in improving reliability: Reliability often is priced into the services offered by carriers like the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx, with greater reliability or cer- tainty in delivery times costing much more than bulk mail shipments. Thus, with the exception of some retail- ers and manufacturers that ship large volumes of freight and can negotiate directly with transportation providers (or those who own their own fleets and make their own operational decisions), reliability often affects shippers and receivers of freight in ways that are difficult for them to perceive. • Why coordinate? Coordination must be done in a way that protects proprietary information and competitive position, but, like fleet managers and dispatchers, shippers and receiv- ers of freight are customers with reliability needs. Further, since system reliability impacts these companies’ bottom line, they are likely to have a more fully developed understanding of systemwide reliability issues and needs. Long-Range planning Introduction The long-range transportation plan, in any of its several forms and formats, sets the direction for transportation investment in the state or region for at least the next 25 years. Reliability must be addressed in the long-range planning process to ensure that it is included in other transportation planning documents and processes (i.e., programming, cor- ridor planning, the congestion management process, and operations planning). To determine how reliability impacts travel in the state or region, consider the influence of the dif- ferent causes of unreliable travel on system users. Unreliable travel is caused by • Traffic incidents (crashes, turned-over truck trailers); • More demand for travel than available capacity to handle that travel (common in urban areas); • Demand variability (seasonal travel); • Special events (e.g., concerts, seasonal events, fairs, festivals); • Traffic signals (controls); • Inclement weather (e.g., fog, snow, wind, rain, freezing conditions); and • Work zones. Table B.1 summarizes the steps for incorporating reliability into the long-range planning process. LRP-1: Approve Scope of LRTP At this KDP, develop a common understanding and reach agreement on the LRP process, including stakeholders to engage; roles and responsibilities; tools and data sources to be used; timeframes; and a public involvement plan. To develop a scope that includes reliability, use the following work steps. • Gather scoping input from operations managers and planners. Develop the scope of the LRP in consultation with trans- portation system owners responsible for managing and operating the system by gathering feedback from stand- ing committees, especially committees who are responsi- ble for operations and management decisions. If standing

62 Table B.1. Incorporating Reliability into Long-Range Planning Key Decision Point (KDP) Description How to Incorporate Reliability LRP-1: Approve scope of LRTP process Set the stage for LRTP; assess data, decisions, and relationships needed for entire process. Consider reliability as an issue. At this KDP, planners will identify how reliability should be included in the scope of the LRTP development, which has implications for data and stakeholder involvement. Some analysis may be required to help determine how reliability should be addressed. LRP-2: Approve vision and goals Community values articulated into transport- specific vision and goals. Consider reliability as an issue. At this KDP, an analysis of reliability and information from stakeholders and the public can help an agency determine whether reliability should be a goal or objective for the transportation system. LRP-3: Approve evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures Develop evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures for the LRTP in order to compare scenarios to each other and to the vision and goals. Identify reliability measures. At this KDP, transportation plan- ners will identify the appropriate reliability measures to use in evaluating long-range plan scenarios. These measures will depend on the goals and objectives set in LRP-2. LRP-4: Approve transportation deficiencies Identify transportation deficiencies within the planning area that should be addressed in the LRTP. Use reliability measures to estimate deficiencies. At this KDP, planners will classify corridors or locations now and in the future where travel time reliability fails to meet acceptable thresholds using the performance measures identified in LRP-3. LRP-5: Approve Financial Assumptions At this key decision information from the programming/fiscal constraint phase is introduced into the LRTP process. Consider reliability in the programming phase, and use reliabil- ity to support the long-range fiscal constraint analysis to be conducted in this KDP. LRP-6: Approve strategies Develop and evaluate groups of strategies relative to stated needs. Consider operations strategies. At this KDP, planners should ensure that the full range of strategies, including operations, is considered in developing plan scenarios. LRP-7: Approve plan scenarios Identify plan scenarios for testing and com- parison in order to select a preferred plan scenario for the region. Include reliability strategies in trade-off analysis. At this KDP, planners will make use of reliability and other performance measures to help compare and package scenarios that include a range of strategies (both short- and long-term). This step requires significant analytic capability to analyze the impacts of scenarios on travel time reliability. LRP-8: Adopt preferred plan scenario Evaluate proposed scenarios in order to identify the locally preferred scenario that addresses the deficiencies while supporting the vision and goals. Include reliability strategies in trade-off analysis. At this KDP, planners will refine and expand the analysis conducted in LRP-7 to develop a preferred scenario. This scenario would logically include both long- and short-term improvement measures. LRP-9: Adopt finding of conformity by MPO Air quality conformity analysis is done within the air quality process to validate the preferred scenario. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP. LRP-10: Adopt LRTP by MPO At this key decision a final plan is adopted by the MPO board. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP. LRP-11: Adopt conformity analysis This is a legally required decision consisting of the federal approval of conformity of the LRTP. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP. committees have not been formed, reach out to the man- agement at regional or state offices of operations, traffic management centers, and other operations system owners. Ask them how they feel reliability impacts mobility for the region’s users. • Determine the form of your plan. Long-range plans typically set strategic and investment priorities through vision and goal statements for the transportation system; identify needs and deficiencies in the system; and, in some cases, identify strategies and specific projects. States and MPOs use the LRP process to focus regional and statewide trans- portation investments on projects that support the needs of the users and improve mobility, maintain and preserve the system, improve safety, improve the vitality of the economy, and protect the environment. LRPs provide an opportunity to balance the improvement of travel time reliability, one

63 of several dimensions of mobility, against improvements in other areas. How reliability will be incorporated will depend on the form of the plan. Typical forms include the following: 44 Policy Plan: Every long-range plan includes the elements of a policy plan. Develop a clear set of priorities for your state or region by articulating a vision and goals that address reliability. In addition, your agency might develop reliability performance measures, identify reliability defi- ciencies, and approve strategies for improving the defi- ciencies, reaching your goals, and achieving your vision. On rare occasions, your agency might perform a more rigorous scenario analysis to support your goal-setting activities. 44 Program-Level Investment Plan: The program-level invest- ment plan includes the elements of a policy plan and results of a funding program-level trade-off analysis. To develop a program-level investment plan, define a scope, approve a vision and goals, measure reliability perfor- mance, measure reliability deficiencies, develop strategies relative to reliability needs, compare scenarios based on those strategies, and adopting a fiscally constrained pre- ferred scenario. Note that the strategies and scenarios in a program-level investment plan will relate to policy-level decisions that support setting program funding levels; these analyses include tradeoffs among different programs based on overall policy direction. 44 Strategy-Level Investment Plan: The strategy-level invest- ment plan includes the elements of a policy plan and results of a project-level tradeoff analysis. To develop a strategy-level investment plan, you will need to define a scope, approve a vision and goals, measure reliability performance, measure reliability deficiencies, develop strategies relative to needs, compare scenarios based on those strategies, and adopt a fiscally constrained pre- ferred plan scenario. Note that the strategies and sce- narios in a strategy-level investment plan will relate to project-level decisions based on project prioritization. Each form of the plan builds on the steps of other, more general plans. All forms of the LRP have aspects of a policy plan, and all strategy-level investment plans have aspects of a program-level investment plan. But not all plans require the same level of detailed analysis. For example, a program- level investment plan will not typically include project-level prioritization. LRP-2: Approve Vision and Goals At this KDP, develop a set of values articulated as vision and goal statements, building on input from key stakeholders, including reliability-specific vision and goals. No matter how formal your vision, answer these four questions: Where are we now? Where are we going? Where do we want to be? How will we get there? To identify how reliability should be included in the vision and goals, follow these work steps. • Answer “Where are we now?” If they are available, use existing reliability performance measures to develop reliability trend charts that indicate how reliability has been changing over time. For the best assessment of travel time reliability trends for your state or region, look to your own or third-party direct-observation travel time data first to generate the most accurate picture of travel time variability (for more detail on data collection methods, see Chapter 6 of the technical refer- ence). If you have travel time data but no reliability measures, store these data for later use in developing performance mea- sures. In addition, use existing measures of the key sources of reliability deficiencies (e.g., crashes, incidents, special events, incident response time, weather) to support your reliability findings. • Answer “Where are we now?” with stakeholder input. Gather feedback from key stakeholder groups regarding the current state of reliability in your system. Use information-gathering methods to present the stakeholders with the following questions as guidelines. 44 Director, DOT design and construction office: Do your design and construction practices affect the reliability of the system? 44 Transportation authorities: How reliable is travel in your facility? How does unreliable travel affect the competitive- ness of your facility? 44 Private sector transportation system owners and opera- tors: How does congestion and reliability in one metro area compare to others that you operate in? How does congestion/reliability in an area affect when you operate, make deliveries, and so forth? 44 Emergency responders: What do you see as the underlying cause of unreliable travel? What types of traffic/congestion problems do you encounter responding to calls? How consistent are response times? 44 Passenger and commercial vehicle operators: How much time do you allot for travel to work each day? What are your best and worst travel times? How often do you encounter unexpected congestion? 44 Fleet managers and dispatchers; freight logistics coordi- nators and brokers; and shippers and receivers of freight: How does system reliability affect your shipping, ware- housing, and logistics decisions? How does this uncer- tainty affect business planning and operations? • Answer “Where are we going?” Gather “business as usual” reli- ability projections from existing performance reports, needs assessments, congestion management plans, corridor plans, operations plans, or other modal or subarea plans to support

64 discussion with your stakeholders. If none exists, then gather existing projections of the key sources of reliability deficien- cies (e.g., crashes, incidents, special events, incident response time, weather). The result will help stakeholders imagine how reliable travel will be in the future and help them to develop a clear understanding of reliability goals moving for- ward. Use existing analysis and established performance measures to begin the iterative long-range planning process. • Answer “Where do we want to be?” Answer this question to draft the vision and goal statements. Within the project team, define goals for improving reliability in the region or state. This could be qualitative, for example, “reliable connectivity for people and goods” or “freight trucks should have reliable travel through urban areas.” Use the answers from the “Where are we going?” exercise to frame the reliability issue moving forward. In the same way, defining goals will turn into setting targets through iteration. For example, use deficiencies to update the qualitative goal of “reliable connectivity for peo- ple and goods” to the quantitative target of “buffer index of X or better on all roadways carrying X vehicles per day and Y tons of freight per day” by considering financial constraint and available strategies for improving reliability. Provide additional context for target setting by identifying examples of how other regions or states have achieved “good” reliabil- ity even in a congested environment. • Refine vision and goals statements. Refine your vision and goal statements from the “where do we want to be?” ques- tion to help focus future reliability investment. For example, determine if your agency should focus reliability investment on interstates or major arterials. Similarly, should your agency focus on key corridors connecting population and economic centers and traffic generators? On priority routes? On freight routes? On key commuter routes? Making these difficult decisions will help to draft clear vision and goal statements that will provide the first steps toward improving reliability of the system. • Build consensus around your vision and goals through imple- mentation of your public involvement plan. Craft simple, consistent messages from your historical and projected reliability trends to inform stakeholders of future trends and policy choices for improving reliability. Outreach should actively inform and engage stakeholders by providing information about possibilities for the future. Inform your stakeholders with visuals of trends and engage them with tai- lored questions about reliability needs. Help them balance reliability needs against the needs of other goals such as safety, economy, preservation, and environment. Ultimately, gather an understanding of how much the stakeholders value reliability and how strongly these values should be written into the LRP vision and goal statements. Conduct reliability- focused stakeholder outreach consistently throughout the long-range planning phase. LRP-3: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures At this KDP, develop reliability evaluation criteria, methods, and performance measures to support comparison of groups of projects and policies to the vision and goals and to one another. The evaluation criteria, methods and measures used in long-range transportation planning lay a consistent frame- work for measuring reliability in corridor planning, the con- gestion management process, programming, and operations planning. • Develop a weighting scheme. Later in the development of a strategy-level investment plan, you will weight and balance the performance measures. In this step, develop the scheme to support later efforts. The long-range plan will identify per- formance measures for each goal area. In this step, develop an approach for ensuring that each performance measure is given its proper level of importance when compared across all performance measures. This will be used in subsequent KDPs to evaluate and prioritize strategies and scenarios. Options for balancing performance measures against one another include 44 Scoring. For each project, estimate all performance mea- sures. Approaches to scoring performance measures include 4 Straight scoring. All projects are given a score ranging from –X to +X based on how much the project degrades or improves reliability. 4 Normalized scoring. All projects are given a score of 0 (for the project with the smallest improvement in reliability performance) to 100 (project with the largest improvement in reliability performance). 44 Combining. Score each project based on a combination of performance measures. Approaches to combining measures may include 4 Weighting goal areas. Each goal area is given a weight. For example, for five goal areas with 100 points to spread among them, equally important goals would result in equal goal area weights of 20 points each. How- ever, if improving reliability is critical for your state or region, weight the reliability goal area with 40 points, leaving 60 points for the remaining four goal areas. 4 Weighting performance measures. Each performance measure is given a weight. Divide up 100 points among the performance measures to identify which area of performance is most important. 4 Weighting both goal areas and performance measures. Multiply the goal area weight by the performance measure weight to develop a composite weight that identifies the importance of a performance measure within a goal area and the importance of the goal area in the plan as a whole.

65 44 Include monetized benefits and costs. Convert reliability benefits to monetized benefits using a value you esti- mate or a national average of 80% of the value of average travel time. Then determine how best to combine these costs with your weighting and scoring scheme. Benefit and cost measures can be incorporated and weighted similar to other performance measures, can be used as another dimension (e.g., combined project score on the x-axis and benefit-cost on the y-axis), can be treated as informational, or can be used to rank projects on their own. This information can be used to develop a benefit- cost ratio. Cost effectiveness can estimated more simply by dividing project scores by cost. • Collect travel time data. Collect existing travel time data from the appropriate department within your agency or ask your data provider to provide test samples of the real travel time data. • Select a preliminary reliability performance measure. Select among different types of reliability performance measures, including measures that compare to average conditions (travel time index), free-flow conditions (buffer index or planning-time index), worst case conditions (99th percentile travel time or failure indices), or distribution of congestion sources. Reliability comparisons to average or free-flow con- ditions tend to match users’ expectations for travel time reli- ability more closely than others and can help stakeholders instinctively understand how to interpret the data. • Validate performance measures, estimation methods, and data sources. Develop a sketch-planning or post-processing tool from post-processing methods, or acquire an off-the-shelf post-processing tool, such as IDAS, that meets the needs of the study outlined above. Estimate the preliminary perfor- mance measures and bring the draft results to the scoping team to get a feel for how to communicate the results and how quickly they understand the measures. Also discuss with your internal data providers the efficacy of tracking all of these measures year to year going forward; consider whether the technology or process for collecting, processing, and reporting travel time data will be changing in the future and how that will impact your estimates. • Refine the scope of the performance measures. Use the results from the preliminary performance measure analysis to refine the scope of your measures in support of the vision and goals. Estimate the refined measures for the region or state. For example, develop maps showing ranges of reli- ability and identify the types of roadways where the users are experiencing reliability problems. Develop a list of the primary geographical problem spots (e.g., interstates, arte- rials, urban, rural); the primary travel patterns (e.g., major origin–destination [O-D] pairs, subareas); the primary causes of unreliable travel (e.g., incidents, weather); and the primary impacted stakeholders in your region (e.g., commuters, freight trucks, transit) based on the qualitative feedback you received through the scoping, vision, and goal setting exercises. For example, if travel on the interstates in your urban areas is becoming increasingly unreliable for freight trucks due to wintry conditions and the businesses are threatening to relocate out of the area, focus on measuring reliability of the key freight corridors. Or, if a particular origin–destination commute pat- tern is becoming increasingly unreliable due to increasing demand, you might focus on measuring the percentage of these trips that arrive late. In their 2011 Congestion Report, Washington State DOT reports that 17 of the 36 high-demand commutes in Puget Sound saw modest changes (less than or equal to 2 min) in 95% reliable travel time between 2008 and 2010. Fourteen commutes saw reliable travel times worsen between 3 and 10 min, while reliable travel times improved on five commutes ranging from 3 min to 11 min. LRP-4: Approve Transportation Deficiencies At this KDP, identify reliability deficiencies within the plan- ning area that should be addressed in the LRP. Transportation deficiencies occur when the current or future system is expected to experience reliability problems. The steps to incorporate reliability into this KDP include the following: • Set thresholds for identifying reliability problem spots. Use the refined performance measures to test different thresholds for identifying reliability deficiencies. Identify the deficien- cies for each threshold and coordinate with stakeholders to determine whether it matches their judgment of how reli- able travel is in the region. It can be extremely helpful to show options as a set of maps that highlight the unreliable travel trouble spots. For example, if you are measuring the areawide buffer index for all traffic at the segment level, you could identify any segment with a buffer index over 40% as unreliable; rank the segments by buffer index; or categorize as reliability tiers such as 0% to 10% as reliable; 10% to 30% as moderately unreliable; and 30% plus as unreliable. The thresholds also can be different for urban and rural; for different functional classes; or for different modes. • Identify current and future deficiencies. Once you have settled on thresholds, apply them to your systemwide estimates of reliability for the current year to identify existing trouble spots (again, this should reasonably match professional and stakeholder judgment) and, for future years, to identify where future reliability trouble spots are likely to arise. • Develop weights for your performance measures. Given the scheme developed in LRP-2, consider how the stakeholders feel about reliability as an issue in your region and how to

66 balance the reliability needs across modes. Convene work- ing groups to discuss how important improving a reliabil- ity measure is compared to the other measures you have selected for the other goal areas. The result will be a project score that includes reliability. • Set performance targets. Set reasonable targets based on deficiency thresholds and financial projections. Targets for improving reliability should be realistically achieved given the expected investment level. For example, a target would be “Improve reliability in urban areas by 10% by 2030.” Useful references for setting targets include (1) NCHRP Report 666: Target Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Trans- portation Agencies, and (2) PlanWorks (formerly TCAPP) LRP-5 (not discussed in this guide), which describes how to set fiscal constraints in long-range plans. LRP-6: Approve Strategies At this KDP, develop strategies to address the deficiencies. A strategy can be a specific tactic or policy used by an organization. • Collect capital and operational strategies and policies from CMP, corridor plans, and operations plans. Review all relevant preexisting plans to ensure inclusion of the full range of capi- tal, operational, and management improvement projects and policies. Many relevant strategies to improve reliability will be identified in the CMP. Consider describing operations strategies, for long-range planning purposes, as project groups rather as than unique projects to allow for flexibility in deployment. For example, an operations strategy might be to “optimize arterial signal timing.” • Coordinate with operations staff to ensure all strategies not listed in these plans are included. Since much of operations planning is often done on an ad hoc basis, coordinate with the office of operations, TMCs, and others responsible for implementing operations strategies to complete the list of potential strategies. • Develop new strategies. Work with your stakeholders using the methods described in the institutional arrangements chapter to gather ideas for new strategies not already iden- tified in previous planning studies. For example, hold a high-level meeting with your technical advisory group to develop some high-level policies; and glean ideas from other stakeholders through working groups and other pas- sive comments. Strategies can include capital and opera- tional strategies and policies. Otherwise, discuss with your stakeholders the laundry list of potential strategies. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies. Use the scoped approach for estimating reliability to evaluate how strategies will improve reliability. Calculate the improvement in reliability performance measures by using one of several approaches for estimating the effectiveness of reliability strategies. Agencies may require project sponsors to estimate effectiveness or to estimate benefits using region- or state- specific before-and-after studies, national estimates, or sketch planning or model post-processing techniques. • Develop monetized benefits for the strategies. Convert the reli- ability effectiveness estimates to benefits in dollars to facili- tate benefit-cost analysis. In general, one hour of delay caused by unreliable traffic is worth approximately the same dollar value as recurring delay (results of several research studies suggest the value of unreliable travel time is approximately 80% of the value of average travel time). Use the same value of time for nonrecurring delay as for recurring delay in your benefit estimation. • Develop costs for the strategies. These costs can include per lane-mile costs, per project costs, right-of-way costs, and operating and maintenance costs. Ensure that project spon- sors that submit projects into the universe of projects use this cost-estimating technique. Doing so will allow you to make apples-to-apples comparisons of projects. LRP-7: Approve Plan Scenarios At this KDP, identify plan scenarios for testing and compari- son in order to select a preferred plan scenario. The scenarios are designed to address the approved deficiencies using the approved strategies. This begins the iterative analysis that is conducted for a full understanding of the trade-off decisions necessary to identify the preferred plan scenario. Scenarios should be identified in terms that can be easily understood by decision makers, planning partners, and stakeholders. The steps for incorporating reliability into this KDP include the following: • Develop scenarios or packages of projects and policies. Group mutually supportive strategies into logical packages or “sce- narios.” Scenarios might include things like the “operations and management scenario” in which capital improvements are kept to a bare minimum but all recommended operations strategies are implemented; the “operations and capital strat- egy mix scenario” in which there is a balanced approach to implementing capital and operations strategies, perhaps rep- resented through a percentage distribution of funding (e.g., the scenario is to have 30% of funds allocated to operations); a more mode-specific scenario that packages critical projects together along key freight corridors; or an area-specific scenario that packages urban or rural projects together. Build these logical groupings with projects, policies, or both. Iterate and refine the packages as you conduct your analysis. • Prioritize projects within each scenario. Select a prioritized list of projects from the complete list of projects within

67 each package based on the fiscal constraint. Develop a composite score for each strategy by combining effective- ness of the strategies (e.g., how much the strategy is expected to improve the buffer index) and the perfor- mance measure weights (e.g., improving the buffer index by 10% is worth three points). Develop a composite score for each strategy by summing the score for each strategy across all measures for all goal areas. It can be useful to combine a benefit-cost estimate along with the composite score when selecting from among the universe of projects within each scenario. • Evaluate the effectiveness of each scenario. At this stage, the degree to which each individual strategy will improve reli- ability is known and these projects can be prioritized based on each strategy’s own performance. In this step, sum the performance scores for all projects within a given scenario, and then compare across scenarios to select the scenario with the best overall score. Also, consider analyzing the combined impacts of all strategies within the scenario to eliminate any double counting or to capture the way that projects, when combined, can improve reliability more than each could independently. • Develop benefits for reliability projects. For each operations and capital strategy, estimate reliability benefits. The most expensive and technical approach is to conduct several before-and-after studies to identify the range of travel time reliability benefits you should expect to get when imple- menting an operations or capital strategy. As another option, use sketch-planning results from other national research studies, including SHRP 2 L03, to develop an order-of-magnitude estimate of reliability improvement from specific strategies. As the final option, allow applicants to submit reliability benefit estimates themselves when pro- posing a project (in this case, consider developing estima- tion guidelines to strive for consistency of results). Use the guidance from the case studies report on the value of travel time reliability savings to convert the travel time reliability benefits into dollars to allow comparison with other strate- gies. In general, improving the reliability of travel time by one minute is worth approximately the same as improving travel time by one minute. • Identify funding by program area. Identify the percentage of the total budget to allocate to improve reliability, keeping in balance with other programmatic goals. Use the vision and goal statements to set this percentage. Perform program- level trade-off analysis to answer the question “If funding increases in the reliability program, how will that impact the performance of the other programs (e.g., safety, preserva- tion, and economic development)?” This is a high-level dis- cussion that requires the executive decision makers from the various system owner stakeholders to have decision-making power, so employ a standing executive committee or an executive committee that you have formed for the purposes of the LRP process to make these decisions. It is possible to arrive at these conclusions through open discourse, but it will be useful to quantify the consequences of the program decisions. To quantify the consequences of program-level funding, develop curves for each program area that relate funding to performance. LRP-8: Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario At this KDP, compare the impacts of proposed scenarios and vet with stakeholders and decision makers in order to identify the locally preferred scenario that addresses the deficiencies while supporting the vision and goals. The steps for incorporating reliability into this KDP include the following: • Determine the preferred scenario. Communicate the impact of the various packages of strategies to the many stakehold- ers and gather input to gain a consensus on the preferred scenario. From a reliability perspective, ensure that reliabil- ity performance and ranking is broken out for interested stakeholders and decision makers to understand how reli- ability impacts contribute to total project and scenario per- formance. It is important to understand that the quantitative evaluation in the KDPs above is not intended to be a black box that provides a final answer; it is intended to help inform better decision making. If reliability is a strong concern in a region or state, decision makers may want to consider sce- narios with strong reliability impacts as potential preferred scenarios. Other concerns, such as geographic and social equity, funding availability, and synergies with already pro- grammed improvements which cannot be easily quantified, can be considered by decision makers and stakeholders at this point. programming Introduction Programming is the process of selecting specific transporta- tion projects for development or construction over the next four or more years. Often similar types of projects are grouped into program areas that correspond to an agency’s vision and goals or to the funding sources used to implement the proj- ects. The list of projects in these program areas collectively make up an MPO’s TIP or a state DOT’s STIP. Allocation of funds programs. Federal and many state trans- portation funding sources include rules and restrictions defin- ing how the funds can be applied to projects. For example, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds can be spent only on projects intended to improve air quality in a metro region. The current federal High- way Trust Fund (HTF) includes multiple funding programs,

68 each with its own rules. Fundamental to a performance-based approach is the recognition that agencies should first identify projects that are consistent with their goals and performance targets, and then determine the appropriate funding source for those projects. Unlike a traditional programming and budget- ing process that identifies funding sources first, this approach first identifies the set of projects that best help the agency meet its goals or targets. Relationship of KDPs for TIPs and STIPs. States and MPOs follow similar programming processes. In both processes the agency evaluates, prioritizes, and selects projects using the agency’s vision and goals, performance evaluation criteria, and available programmatic funding levels. The STIP includes the projects in an MPO TIP along with projects serving non- metropolitan areas. The KDPs listed in Table B.2 describe the complete programming process for both MPOs and states, Table B.2. Incorporating Reliability into the Key Decision Points for Programming Key Decision Point (KDP) Description How to Incorporate Reliability PRO-1: Approve revenue sources Establishes the revenue basis for the fiscal constraint of the long-range plan and funding sources for the TIP. Identify operations funding sources. At this KDP, identify dedicated sources for funding for operations projects and make overall budget requests using reliability performance measures as supporting evidence. Operations strategies typically have no dedicated source of funding; establishing a dedicated source may be valuable to ensure that the full range of strategies is addressed. PRO-2: Approve methodology for identifying project costs and criteria for allocating revenue Establishes a consistent methodology for estimating project costs for both the long- range transportation plan and the TIP. It also documents the specific requirements and restrictions associated with each funding source. Consider operations strategies. At this KDP, transportation planners should ensure that the full range of strategies is included. This step requires understanding what funding sources can be used for operations strategies and having approaches available to support projects using a combina- tion of funding sources and understanding different imple- mentation timeframes. PRO-3: Approve project list drawn from adopted plan scenario or solution set Establishes the list of projects drawn from the long-range plan or corridor-planning pro- cess that will be considered for funding in the TIP. Consider operations strategies. At this KDP, planners should ensure that all strategies, including operations, are consid- ered in the project evaluation. This may mean evaluating how projects are scoped (i.e., does a project include the right set of strategies for the location) and ensuring that operations strategies are considered for programming more generally. This step may be linked to a long-range plan or an operations plan. PRO-4: Approve project prioritization The approved project list is prioritized using the methodology previously developed. Project prioritization includes reliability measures. At this KDP, transportation planners will include reliability and other per- formance measures to help compare and rank projects. PRO-5: Reach consensus on draft TIP Identify projects from the prioritized list based on funding restrictions and agreements, actual available revenue, and project readiness. Include operations stakeholders in outreach. Include opera- tions stakeholder. These stakeholders will know the details and intricacies of available revenue sources and how ready certain things are for implementation. PRO-6: Adopt TIP by MPO Address comments on the draft TIP and produce a final TIP. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP. PRO-7: Approve TIP by gov- ernor and incorporate into draft STIP The Governor or designee should ensure that the TIP meets other state and federal requirements so that the TIP can be incor- porated into and be in agreement with the STIP. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP. PRO-8: Reach consensus on draft STIP Release draft STIP for public comment. Include operations stakeholders in outreach. Include opera- tions stakeholders because these stakeholders will know the details and intricacies of available revenue sources, how ready certain things are for implementation, and how one strategy can be packaged with something else for construction. PRO-9: Approve STIP with respect to conformity and fiscal constraint Validate that the approved TIP/STIP meets requirements related to air quality confor- mity and fiscal constraint, where required. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP.

69 starting with the MPO approving revenue sources and finish- ing with approval of the STIP. In reality, states and MPOs both will make key decisions at PRO-1, -2, -3, and -4, whereas only the MPO will make TIP-specific key decisions (PRO-5, -6, and -7) and only the state will make STIP-specific key decisions (PRO-8, -9). The outcome of the programming process is a STIP or TIP. These programs typically are updated on an annual cycle to include additional needs identified in corridor plans, conges- tion management plans, operations plans, and other subarea or modal plans; projects are scoped and designed; and revenue sources fluctuate. Reliability is most usefully considered within the programming process as a potential means to help prioritize potential future investments at the project level, but it can also be useful when identifying potential funding streams or making legislative budget requests. Table B.2 summarizes the steps for incorporating reliability in the programming process. PRO-1: Approve Revenue Sources At this KDP, establish the revenue basis for operations funding sources for the TIP or STIP and the fiscal constraint of the LRP, for plans requiring fiscal constraint. The steps for incorporating reliability into this KDP include the following: • Identify dedicated sources for operations funding. Identify existing dedicated sources of funding for operations proj- ects and consider creating new revenue sources to support an operations and management program area. Examples of dedicated funding for operations projects might include earmarks from the general fund or dedication of specific funds from any discretionary source of funding (e.g., a sur- face transportation program). Examples of new revenue streams for operations projects might include sales tax, tolling, or other user fees. Use reliability performance mea- sures to help support requests for increasing tax rates or other initiatives. For example, voters have approved the tax increases in metropolitan regions because MPOs have suc- cessfully demonstrated the expected investments from, and the benefits of, a new sales tax. • Determine the overall size of your legislative budget request. To set the budget, the governor’s and budget offices will likely provide broad direction; will adopt an official revenue fore- cast; will submit recommendations for an upcoming bud- get; will submit recommendations to the governor; and eventually will have the budget adopted by the legislature. To include reliability performance in a legislative request, build a curve that shows the cost of improving reliability by com- paring the cost of reliability on the y-axis with reliability performance on the x-axis. Build the curve based on indi- vidual strategies or based on the scenarios (complementary packages of strategies) identified in LRP-7. An iterative process, resulting from PRO-2A, will help add context to the budget request by identifying the right mix of capital and operations investments to improve reliability and identify- ing any federal and state funding constraints. Supporting legislative budget requests with performance measures has been shown to be effective in Utah and Kansas where the DOTs have received more funds than they had originally asked for due to their clear description of needs. PRO-2: Approve Criteria for Allocating Revenue Approve Criteria for Allocating Revenue Because they often are short-term investments with limited capital components, operations activities are often funded out- side the STIP or TIP. While the capital investments needed to support operations (such as roadway sensors, message signs, and other ITS investments) do end up in a STIP or TIP, other aspects do not (e.g., service patrols, ongoing maintenance of ITS infrastructure, and others). Combine information on both capital and operations to have a complete perspective of the investment priorities of the transportation agency and the expected future performance of both types of investments. In many states, operations and maintenance activities are funded from completely separate budgets, but for thinking about reli- ability performance, it will be useful to evaluate these various funding sources together and to identify the appropriate split between actual capital and operations investments to achieve a level of future performance. Perform the following steps: • Review program area funding guidelines. Review the LRP to identify how much funding should be allocated to the pro- grams that will support improving reliability. For example, the LRP might have identified that reliability improvement represents a significant need in your area and set a target over the long term that the agency should invest 40% of the total budget on strategies to improve it. In this way, the LRP defines the policy direction of the programming process. • Identify discretionary funds to support the mainstreaming of operations funding. Many states have constitutional or leg- islative restrictions that control how the state distributes certain funding sources—such as gasoline taxes, vehicle license fees, and others. Review all funding sources to iden- tify whether the funds are flexible and can be used on oper- ations strategies or on projects that include operations improvements. • Develop a process for matching funding sources to goal areas. Develop a crosswalk of funding programs to the goal areas defined in LRP-2 and explicitly include reliability or opera- tional improvements among them. For example, the High- way Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds can only be spent on safety projects while the surface transportation

70 fund typically can be spent on multiple types of improve- ment. In this case, the safety program maps to the safety goal area only, but the surface transportation fund will map to the safety goal area as well as the reliability and operations, preservation, and economic development goal areas. • Develop a process for matching funding sources to strategies. Use the crosswalk of funding sources to goal areas to dis- tribute funds to specific projects supporting that goal area. For example, large comprehensive improvement projects might include safety, preservation, capital, and operations strategies. These projects would be eligible for funding through several different pots of funding. Develop a frame- work for allocating the eligible funding sources, based on their restrictions, to different project components. Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs This part of PRO-2 requires establishing a consistent method- ology for estimating project costs for the TIP and STIP. The results of the costing analysis will provide a starting point for building long-term revenue forecasts that allow for adding fis- cal constraint in the LRP process. This should occur prior to the identification of specific deficiencies and potential solu- tions so that criteria are not targeted toward particular proj- ects. The steps include the following: • Develop cost estimates for reliability projects. Determine whether to perform costing in-house using sketch planning- level techniques to ensure consistency among reliability strategies or collect project costs as assessed by project sponsors using statewide or regionwide costing guidelines. For each strategy, define costs in specific terms, such as dol- lars per lane-mile (for linear operations projects, including managed lane projects) or dollars per unit (for stand-alone operations projects, including ramp meters). If collecting project costs as assessed by project sponsors, communicate the cost-estimating techniques to the MPOs in the state or to the towns in the region so that projects entering the TIP and STIP process are comparable. Estimate all costs as the net present value (NPV) to ensure that capital projects, which typically take several years to complete, compare on equal footing with operations projects, which typically can be completed relatively rapidly. • Track the cost of operations projects. Track the aggregate cost of proposed operations and management projects across the entire program. Since many operations strategies currently are implemented on an ad hoc basis, coordinate closely with the implementing agencies in your state or region (TMAs, towns, and the state operations offices) through a standing committee if one exists, or through several conversations. Collect information on the design, scope, and cost for each project in a consistent manner. Construct a database of projects and costs. Update the database periodically, as new operations projects are constructed. PRO-3: Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario At this key decision point, establish the list of projects drawn from the LRTP/RTP, corridor, CMP, and operations planning processes for consideration for funding in the TIP/STIP. The steps include the following: • Collect the universe of projects. The LRP will have identified an approved list of strategies as part of the preferred plan scenario identified in LRP-8. This list represents the long- term strategy of the agency and is the starting point the programming process. The program will begin with these and add additional considerations, such as whether a proj- ect is shovel-ready, for example. In addition, because the LRP is developed once every four or five years and the TIP/ STIP must be produced annually, it is important to update and refresh the list of strategies before beginning the pro- gramming process. Develop a complete list, or universe, of strategies by compiling the strategies identified in the LRP adopted plan scenario with those identified in the CMP, corridor, and operations planning processes. While all MPOs develop strategy-level investment plans, states have more discretion and can develop policy plans, program-level investment plans, or strategy-level invest- ment plans. A state that developed a policy plan will not have a priority strategy list from which to draw; a program-level investment plan may provide “buckets” of strategy types or funding allocations. In these cases, the state might build the universe of projects based on those identified in the CMP, corridor, and operations planning processes; these should be consistent with policies and goals set forth in the LRP. PRO-4: Approve Project Prioritization At this KDP, the approved project list is prioritized using the methodology previously developed in LRP-3. Using the LRP as the basis for priority strategies and performance measures in the programming process saves time (much of the analysis already has been completed in the LRP) and promotes consis- tency among statewide and regional planning efforts (while measures and projects change, the consistent starting point keeps final measures similar). The project list should include associated costs, sequencing, and applicable revenue consider- ations for immediate programming as funds become available. By strengthening the link between a state’s or region’s vision, goals, objectives, performance measures, and prioritization cri- teria, your agency can demonstrate that investment decisions

71 are truly driven by policies and strategic plans. The steps include the following: • Develop project evaluation criteria. Refine project evalua- tion criteria by beginning with the performance measures and weights identified in the LRP-3, adding any practical considerations for implementation listed later in this step. • Evaluate and prioritize projects. Ensure that the universe of projects is evaluated for reliability improvements and that the costs and implementation horizons for operations proj- ects are accurately reflected. All operations and capital proj- ects should indicate some reliability benefit. Further, ensure that operations projects are given accurate “readiness” scores, since these projects typically can be completed much more quickly than large capital projects. Develop project scores by applying weights to the evaluation criteria and prioritize projects based on the project score in the fashion described in LRP-3. • Apply funds to strategies. Distribute funds to the final list of prioritized strategies using the process described in PRO-2A. For each strategy, identify the appropriate funding source and level. • Identify practical considerations for implementation. Balance the priority strategies based on the timing and availability of funding (especially considering that certain pots of money can only be used for certain types of projects); opportunities related to other projects (for example, if a major resurfacing is already programmed for next year and a managed lane is one of the priority strategies, then include the priced dynamic shoulder lane with active traffic management technologies along with the resurfacing project, making those items a pri- ority, although they may not have performed as well as other solutions); and geographic equity or other political consider- ations that are not captured in the measures and cannot be accounted for in the weighting scheme. • Ensure consistency of overall spending with the targets set in the LRP. Sum the total funding for the reliability goal area over the four- or five-year horizon of the TIP or STIP and ensure that it is consistent with the targets for reliability spending set out in LRP-7. If it is not consistent, revise the list of priority strategies and identify larger or different pots of funding for operations projects. Also, consider ways to influence the project universe in the appropriate direction. PRO-5–8: Reach Consensus on Draft TIP/STIP In these KDPs, include operations stakeholders in outreach efforts, because these stakeholders will know the details and intricacies of available revenue sources, how ready certain things are for implementation, and how one strategy can be packaged with something else for construction. Corridor planning Introduction Corridor planning complements the federally required plan- ning process by focusing on the transportation needs and improvement strategies of a specific corridor or area. Plan- ning processes, such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), encourage the use of corridor planning to assist in scoping, project and cumulative assessments, and alternatives analysis. When these elements are performed to NEPA stan- dards as part of a corridor-planning process, it can greatly streamline the NEPA process itself. The purpose of corridor planning is to identify and implement a set of mutually sup- portive strategies to maintain and address access, mobility, reliability, safety, economic development, and environmental quality throughout the corridor. While reliability is often just one of several performance areas considered during the devel- opment of a corridor study, there are a variety of ways to incorporate reliability into each stage of the corridor-planning process. Table B.3 summarizes how to incorporate reliability into the corridor-planning process. Corridor planning allows for a comprehensive assessment of all modes as well as the impacts of growth patterns and local land use decisions on traffic conditions and travel demand. It is also relevant for multiple types of investments, including noncapital-intensive strategies (such as operational improve- ments, access management, or land use policies) as an alterna- tive to expensive transportation capital investments. When considering reliability, agencies should consider the potential for multimodal solutions alongside a full suite of operational improvement strategies. From a reliability perspective, corridor planning should encompass a comprehensive understanding of the transporta- tion dynamics and interacting influences within the corridor. These could include the impacts of variables such as traffic inci- dents (crashes, overturned truck trailers), demand exceeding capacity, demand variability (seasonal travel), special events (e.g., concerts, seasonal events, fairs, festivals), traffic signals (controls), inclement weather (e.g., fog, snow, wind, rain, freez- ing conditions), work zones, and other similar phenomenon on nonrecurring congestion and travel time reliability. As such, incorporating reliability into corridor planning requires the involvement of nontraditional stakeholders [e.g., law enforce- ment, emergency services, private towing and recovery entities, and traffic management center (TMC) operators] and spe- cial interest operators in the corridor (e.g., military, freight delivery), in addition to the transportation system owners, transit operators, residents, businesses, and land owners that are traditionally involved in the corridor-planning process. Developed through a collaborative process, the recommended strategies for the corridor should balance reliability alongside other corridor needs and objectives.

72 COR-1: Approve Scope of Corridor-Planning Process At this KDP, assess what travel time data, reliability decisions, and reliability-related relationships need to be considered, acquired, or made throughout the corridor-planning process. Some lightweight analysis may be required to help determine at a sketch planning level the types and extent of reliability issues in a corridor. The steps within this KDP are likely to be performed in an iterative fashion. • Establish the geographic boundary of the corridor and identify all relevant modes. Corridors are often defined around specific routes. However, reliability within a cor- ridor may be influenced by the availability of parallel routes or investments in alternative modes. The reliability of highly constrained corridors can sometimes be improved by adjusting the operations of parallel routes, encouraging the segregation of use types (e.g., local versus through traf- fic), or other investments that are not on the corridor itself. Similarly, improving transit service is another approach to managing travel time reliability in a corridor and may reduce (or create) the need for other types of investments. For these reasons, include in the study area all facilities and modes that can reasonably be anticipated to impact the operations of the corridor. The corridor should be defined as several sections or segments that are adjacent and travel in approximately parallel directions (e.g., free- way and arterial street, arterial street and rail line). From Table B.3. Incorporating Reliability into the Corridor-Planning Process Key Decision Point (KDP) Description How to Incorporate Reliability COR-1: Approve scope of corridor-planning process Assessment of what data, decisions and rela- tionships need to be considered, acquired, or made throughout corridor planning. Consider reliability as an issue. At this KDP, planners will identify how reliability should be included in the scope of the corridor-planning process, which will have implications for the data and stakeholders to be involved. Some light- weight analysis may be required to help determine if reliability should be addressed. COR-2: Approve problem statements and opportunities Define the full range of deficiencies and opportunities within a corridor. Use reliability measure to estimate deficiencies. At this KDP, planners will evaluate the travel time distribution for the corridor and examine locations where travel time reliability exceeds a threshold value. COR-3: Approve goals for the corridor Adopt the comprehensive set of goals for the corridor. Consider reliability as an issue. At this KDP, an analysis of reliability and gathering of information from stakeholders and the public can help an agency determine what level of reliability to target for the corridor. COR-4: Reach consensus on scope of environmental review and analysis Determine the data, decisions, and level of analysis needed for the environmental review. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP. COR-5: Approve evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures Define a methodology that includes criteria to enable a comparison and selection of solu- tions that address the corridor’s opportuni- ties and deficiencies and that address the approved goals. Identify reliability measures. At this KDP, transportation plan- ners will identify the appropriate reliability measures to use in evaluating corridor scenarios. This step will also involve setting targets for reliability and other measures. COR-6: Approve range of solutions sets Determine a range of solutions for the identified problems and opportunities. Consider operations strategies. At this KDP, planners should ensure that the full range of strategies, including operations, is considered in developing corridor scenarios. COR-7: Adopt preferred solution set Select a preferred solution set from the full range of solutions. Trade-off analysis includes reliability. At this KDP, planners will make use of reliability and other performance measures to help compare proposed solution sets for the corridor. This step requires significant use of analytic capabilities to pro- vide a robust analysis of the impacts of various scenarios on travel time reliability. COR-8: Approve evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures for prioritization Identify the evaluation methodology, criteria, and performance measures for prioritizing the implementation of the solution set for the corridor. Project prioritization includes reliability. At this KDP, trans- portation planners will identify and include reliability and other performance measures to help compare and rank projects. COR-9: Adopt priorities for implementation Recommend phasing and priorities for imple- menting the solutions for the corridor. No additional actions related to reliability need to be taken in this KDP.

73 a transit perspective, transit operating on dedicated right- of-way has the potential to have a bigger influence on reli- ability than transit operating in mixed traffic. Be sure to include all transit facilities that serve the approximate ori- gins and destinations of the primary freeway or arterial route under consideration. At the early stages of a corridor-planning process, the study will benefit from broad inclusion of facilities, modes, and geography. Use relatively straightforward and simplistic analysis to narrow the scope of the study, as opposed to excluding reasonable alternatives or stakeholders at the beginning. Defining the facilities to be included will limit the scope of transportation data collection and strategy analysis. • Identify the relevant stakeholders and transportation providers responsible for management and operations within the corri- dor. As described previously, the key stakeholders required to incorporate reliability into the corridor-planning process can be categorized into three categories: owners, influencers, and users. Traditional stakeholders in the corridor-planning process include system owners and operators (state DOTs, MPOs, local transportation departments, transit agencies) and users (residents and businesses). When incorporating reliability, however, include influencers as stakeholders as well, including law enforcement, emergency services, pri- vate towing and recovery entities, and private TMC opera- tors. Emergency responders influence reliability through their incident response times, the operating procedures they use to ensure safety at an incident site, and the time needed to clear an incident. Regulatory and enforcement agencies work to prevent incidents that can cause non- recurring congestion. Private TMC operators can influence reliability by informing passengers and freight carriers about incidents and recurring congestion so that they may choose to reroute around an incident or retime their trip to avoid congestion and improve the likelihood that the trip can be made more reliably. The appropriate method of communication and engage- ment varies based on the stakeholder’s role as an owner, influencer, or user in specific corridor-planning processes. • Assess the degree to which reliability affects mobility in the corridor and its causes. Engage a steering committee, if one exists, in the scoping process by asking committee mem- bers to characterize existing reliability in the corridor. Is travel time reliability an issue? Has reliability in the corridor changed over time? If so, what seems to be the underlying causes of reliability problems (e.g., incidents, weather, infrastructure conditions, special events, variable demand)? While this step will support the scoping process to deter- mine the extent to which reliability should be considered throughout the corridor-planning process, you will solicit feedback from a broader group of stakeholders later on in COR-2 and COR-3. • Scope out appropriate data, analytical methods, and tools necessary to quantify the corridor’s reliability deficiencies. Inventory the data available and identify data gaps to influ- ence how rigorous your reliability assessment can/will need to be. Sketch-planning, model post-processing, simulation or multiresolution, monitoring and management tools and methods, and multi-scenario analysis methods may be used, based on the available tools, data requirements, and the type of analysis being conducted. COR-2: Approve Problem Statement and Opportunities At this KDP, use information from the LRP or CMP, stakeholder feedback, and preexisting data to develop a high-level under- standing of the corridor’s reliability deficiencies and to identify potential strategies that can improve reliability in the corridor. To provide guidance for solution strategies, use additional explanation information as necessary to identify the causes of the reliability problems. For example, do weather conditions play a key role in corridor reliability, or are fluctuations in travel time attributed to other causes, such as demand variability, inadequate base capacity, incidents, traffic signals? The problem statements and opportunities resulting from this key decision are informed by the transportation deficiencies identified in long-range planning. • Review existing studies and historical data to identify locations and/or time periods with reliability deficiencies. To develop a sketch-planning-level understanding of corridor reliability deficiencies at this stage in the process, compile a list of reli- ability deficiencies and strategies identified during previous planning efforts. This would include the CMP, previous corridor studies, the statewide LRP, and the regional LRP. Also use preexisting data, such as transit on-time perfor- mance and traffic/speed data that is collected and analyzed on a regular basis, to assess historical reliability trends and understand how reliability has been changing over time. • Gather feedback on corridor reliability from stakeholders and the public. To supplement the information documented in previous plans, ask stakeholders for their opinions on reli- ability in the corridor. For example, ask shippers how cor- ridor reliability affects their shipping and warehousing decisions. Ask emergency responders what they view as the underlying cause of unreliable travel. Ask TMC managers how the reliability of the system has been changing and what seem to be the underlying causes of reliability defi- ciencies (e.g., incidents, weather, infrastructure conditions, special events). • Assess the underlying cause(s) of reliability deficiencies and identify areas where opportunities to improve reliability exist. Collect and analyze supplemental data such as weather

74 conditions, incident and crash reports, special event sched- ules, construction and maintenance logs, to assess whether reliability in the corridor is largely impacted by weather, incidents, special events, construction, congestion, or other identifiable causes. Use this information to assess opportu- nities to address the underlying causes of reliability in the corridor. For example, if incidents are a problem, there may be an opportunity to improve emergency response and incident clearance times. While this step requires a prelimi- nary assessment of problems and opportunities, you will develop specific strategies to address these opportunities under COR-6. COR-3: Approve Goals for the Corridor At this KDP, gather feedback from stakeholders and the public to determine what level of reliability to target for the corridor. Ensure that reliability goals are compatible with the comprehensive set of goals for the corridor, as goals will guide the selection of a set of solutions that address the corridor’s opportunities and deficiencies. The steps include the following: • Engage stakeholders in building consensus around their expectations for reliability in the corridor. To understand stakeholder expectations, present to them the historical reliability data compiled in COR-2, supplemented with maps and other visualization tools as necessary, and ask them to describe what “acceptable reliability” would look like to them. For example, ask shippers to describe what a reliable shipment route looks like or how often they expe- rience delay in a month. Ask commuters how much travel time variability they are willing to tolerate on a day-to-day basis. Use existing reliability data to convey existing issues and to determine whether stakeholder perceptions of reli- ability deficiencies and their causes are consistent with the technical analysis conducted in COR-2. Ultimately, build consensus around stakeholder expectations and how much they value reliability compared with other needs in the corridor. Establish a reliability goal for the corridor that reflects this input. • Incorporate reliability into the goals for the corridor. The pro- cess of establishing goals creates an opportunity for stake- holders to balance reliability needs against the other goals for the corridor. Goal setting at this stage is driven largely by the LRP, previous sketch-planning analysis, anecdotal evi- dence and stakeholder input, and community priorities. Travel time reliability may be a goal in and of itself, or reli- ability may be captured under a larger goal, such as “improve multimodal mobility.” Goals provide the foundation on which objectives, performance measures, and targets are established. COR-5: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures At this KDP, identify the appropriate reliability measures to use in evaluating corridor scenarios. This step also will involve setting targets for reliability and other measures. The steps include the following: • Develop reliability performance measure(s) appropriate for the corridor. As a starting point, consider reliability perfor- mance measures that have been established at the state or regional level, if any, particularly through the LRP or CMP processes. Ensure that measures reflect the goals and objec- tives established for the corridor, are feasible with existing data and analysis tools (recognizing that some corridor- specific data may be collected to support the corridor study), are sensitive to the likely impacts of the capacity or operational projects under consideration, are understand- able and resonate with the intended audience, and capture all modes operating in the corridor. In some cases, a steer- ing committee may be responsible for approving the final list of measures. Different measures are used at different levels within transportation agencies depending on how reliability is defined (e.g., overall reliability, delay by source) and the analysis tools selected for analysis (e.g., sketch-planning tools are unable to calculate the same measures as a simu- lation model). While the LRP and CMP consider reliability from a broad, regional perspective, corridor planning allows for a more focused analysis of the key travel markets that utilize the corridor. For example, developing perfor- mance measures at the origin–destination (O-D) level allows a market-based approach to target different activity centers, population groups, and modes operating within the corridor. It also provides a method to test the impact that improvements to transit operations or parallel arterials have on reliability in a given travel market. • Identify methods for establishing targets. The thresholds for performance levels should be determined through the stake- holder feedback compiled during COR-3 as well as an assessment of available resources and other priorities within the corridor. Adjust targets over time to reflect financial and policy changes. Corridor-specific targets can be set for both the short and long term. • Develop or approve reliability targets. Review the targets identified in the LRP and consider whether they are appli- cable for your corridor study or whether you need to further refine them to reflect the corridor-specific reliability issues voiced by stakeholders during the scoping process. • Develop a weighting scheme to balance reliability against other corridor priorities. Consider how the issue of reliability stacks up against other corridor goals based on the stakeholder feedback compiled during COR-3. Convene working groups

75 to discuss how important improving a reliability measure is when compared to the other measures you have selected for the other goal areas. In this step, develop an approach for ensuring that each performance measure is given its proper level of importance when compared across all performance measures. This ultimately will be used in subsequent KDPs to evaluate and prioritize strategies and scenarios. COR-6: Approve Range of Solutions At this KDP, ensure that the full range of strategies, including operations, is considered in developing corridor scenarios. The steps include the following: • Apply performance measures to refine reliability deficiencies. Reevaluate the corridor’s reliability deficiencies compiled in COR-2 using the performance measures identified in COR-5. This is of particular importance if the reliability measures are targeted at identifying or addressing a par- ticular reliability issue. Refine the list of reliability deficien- cies based on this reevaluation to provide stakeholders and planners with the information necessary to begin develop- ing strategies to address these deficiencies. • Compile a list of capital and operational strategies and policies documented in existing plans. The first step in identifying strategies is to compile a list of transportation improvement projects likely to influence reliability in the corridor that are currently underway, programmed, or have a high probabil- ity of moving forward. Pull from the LRP, CMP, operations plans, and other existing planning documents. This set of projects should serve as a baseline for the development of additional strategies. • Engage operations agencies and other stakeholders to add to the list of potential solutions. Coordinate with your internal and external stakeholders to collect additional strategies that influence reliability. Categorize individual strategies by type (e.g., additional capacity, operational improvements, and demand management) to facilitate further screening and to consider possible strategies for all modes represented in the corridor. At this stage in the process, strategies may be conceptual in nature without specifying details. However, identify potential fatal flaws in proposed solutions and the level of support and/or a potential implementing sponsor for the individual solutions. • Develop a comprehensive list and add additional strategies as necessary. Assess whether the range of solutions is broad enough to address the corridor’s reliability goals. Develop screening criteria that can be used to eliminate unreasonable or unattainable strategies that are not worth investing any additional effort in analyzing. At this stage, the screening process will be largely qualitative in nature and will rely on judgment of the corridor-planning team members. COR-7: Adopt Preferred Solution Set At this KDP, use reliability and other performance measures to compare proposed solution sets for the corridor. This step requires significant use of analytic capabilities to provide a robust analysis of the impacts of various scenarios on travel time reliability. The steps include the following: • Develop scenarios or packages of projects and policies. Work with stakeholders to group the strategies into logical pack- ages of mutually supportive solutions. For example, you would not want to include two strategies in the same solution set whose purpose is to solve a particular type of reliability deficiency at the same location, unless they are additive in some way. Develop separate strategy packages to address different funding or growth scenarios, as appropriate. For example, Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT) develops packages of mutually supportive solutions to address urban peak period recurring and nonrecurring delay-related reliability in the Twin Cities. A corridor strat- egy package may include a combination of a managed lane, active traffic management ITS technologies, electronic toll- ing to support congestion pricing, and express bus routing through the managed lane. Such a package’s strategies are complementary and include managed capacity expansion, ITS, operations, and transit solutions. • Evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy or scenario on reli- ability. Apply the technical approach developed in COR-5 for each strategy or bundle of strategies. Strategy evaluation using previously approved methodology should be based on considerations such as: the magnitude of the problem and its need to be addressed (major, moderate, minor); the certainty of need (existing/immediate, forecast and likely to occur, forecast but speculative); the cost-effectiveness of proposed solutions; the level of support for the strategy; the potential availability of adequate funding; and the negative impacts associated with the strategy. Prioritize strategies as high, medium, low, or not recommended based on their anticipated impact on travel time reliability. • Evaluate the trade-offs of reliability against other performance improvements. Apply weighting developed on COR-5 to evaluate reliability against other performance improve- ments such as safety and corridor preservation. Ensure that reliability is addressed to an adequate extent in the preferred solution set based on established goals and objectives. • Develop consensus around a preferred scenario. Document the rationale for eliminating solution sets and why a par- ticular solution set is recommended. Use both qualitative and quantitative support, based on performance targets set previously and the approved goals and objectives for the corridor. Ensure that the established weighting scheme for the priorities of the corridor is supported by the preferred scenario. In selecting the preferred scenario, financial

76 constraints should also be considered: projects that will move forward into either the LRP or STIP/TIP will be sub- ject to the fiscal constraints of those documents. If federal funds will be requested or used to implement the preferred scenario, and NEPA procedures were followed, this scenario may be considered a locally preferred alternative. COR-8: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures for Prioritization At this KDP, consider previous analysis and practical consider- ations to prioritize projects within the corridor solution set for implementation. Having completed the analysis of each strat- egy and solution set in COR-7 and evaluated the trade-offs of reliability against other performance improvements, this KDP considers that analysis to understand priorities in terms of how well they perform. The steps include the following: • Identify practical considerations for implementation as addi- tional criteria for prioritizing implementation. In addition to the performance scores of each project in the solution set, the prioritization of implementation for individual components should include the following: 44 Available financing, especially considering certain pots of money can only be used for certain types of projects; 44 Opportunity associated with other projects (for exam- ple, if a major resurfacing is already programmed for next year, and a managed lane is one of the projects in the preferred solution set, then consider including a priced dynamic shoulder lane with active traffic management technologies onto the resurfacing project, making those items a priority though they may not have performed as well as other solutions); and 44 Geographic equity or other political considerations that are not captured in the measures and cannot be accounted for in the weighting scheme. • Combine all of the performance measures to assess how the solution sets perform. Reexamine the analysis of the individ- ual strategies to determine the performance-based priorities within the solution set, and compare that to the practical considerations above. At this stage, it also may be necessary to break the individual strategies into smaller components based on funding or other practical considerations pre- sented in this report (e.g., phasing), which may in turn require a second performance analysis of the individual components. This reexamination may include a final benefit-cost index, cost-effectiveness index, or other combined score as determined in the methodology in COR-5; if reliability is a major concern in the corridor, the impact on reliability of each strategy should be clearly articulated. • Prioritize projects in the solution set to move forward to pro- gramming. If the steps above adhere to NEPA standards and federal funds will be used, the preferred scenario of projects may be considered a locally preferred alternative, ready to move on to the NEPA phase. • Monitor the effectiveness of implemented strategies. Fol- lowing project completion, collect data to assess whether the implemented strategies addressed the reliability defi- ciencies to the extent expected. Use this information as an input to refine and enhance future LRP, CMP, and corridor-planning efforts in the region. Congestion Management process Introduction All metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000 residents are considered transportation manage- ment areas (TMA) and are required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to develop a congestion management process (CMP). As described in the FHWA Congestion Management Process Guidebook, a CMP is “a systematic and regionally accepted approach for managing congestion that provides accurate, up-to-date information on transportation system performance and assesses alternative strategies for congestion management that meet state and local needs. The CMP is intended to move these congestion management strategies into the funding and implementation stages” (https://www.fhwa .dot.gov/planning/congestion_management_process/cmp_ guidebook/chap01.cfm). The CMP is not included in PlanWorks framework. For consistency, however, a set of KDPs has been identified for a typical CMP. Table B.4 summarizes how reliability can be incorporated into a set of KDPs for the CMP. CMP-1: Approve Objectives for Congestion Management At this KDP, analyze reliability and gather information from stakeholders to help determine how to develop reliability objectives. The steps include the following: • Identify the relevant stakeholders and partnerships. If the region has a robust and ongoing LRP process, many of the groups identified and formulated for the development of the LRP can be maintained and reengaged for the CMP, with particular focus on groups related to operations, sys- tem management, and users who are heavily impacted by reliability issues. Depending on the geographic extent of the CMP net- work, stakeholders and partnerships may include MPOs,

77 local transportation departments, and transit agencies from other areas. Although the CMP is the responsibility of the MPO, the involvement of transportation opera- tions managers is important for evaluating congestion mitigation strategies. Examples of roles for operations staff may include brainstorming mitigation strategies, identifying congestion sources and measurement tech- niques, developing performance measures, and identifying approaches to strategy implementation. The appropriate method of communication will depend on the stake- holder’s role. • Gather information from stakeholders and the public to iden- tify objectives. Ensure that reliability objectives reflect exist- ing visions and goals for congestion and mobility discussed in the LRP, corridor studies, and project related efforts. Develop surveys and engage stakeholders to identify how they feel congestion is managed. Identifying causes of con- gestion and the perceived and real costs of travel time unre- liability can help you to select a CMP network and define performance measures and strategies. Stakeholders may provide feedback related to personal and commercial travel, corridors and regions where travel time is unpredictable, and the associated costs of unreliability. For example, ask key stakeholders how they feel reliability impacts mobility for the corridor’s users. • Identify objective(s) to be included in CMP. Objectives should be focused on the desired outcome of the CMP, as it relates to overall objectives for the region based on other planning activities and on reliability-related feedback from stakeholders and the public. It may not be feasible or desirable to try to eliminate all congestion, and so it is important to define objectives for congestion management that achieve the desired outcome. Reliabil- ity objectives may be tied to overarching operations- oriented objectives for the region, such as reducing incident-based delay, reducing travel delay associated with work zones or weather conditions, reducing emer- gency response times, improving transit system reliabil- ity, or improving access to travel time information. By including congestion management objectives that address reliability, the CMP will identify programs and strategies that more effectively address the causes and impacts of congestion. • Scope out necessary measures, data, and resources needed for approved objectives. An examination of the availability of data sources may require collaboration with data suppliers within the MPO such as traffic counting staff, geographic information system (GIS) staff, and others. CMP-2: Approve CMP Network At this KDP, think proactively about the network where travel is likely to be unreliable. This includes areas of recur- ring congestion (e.g., bottleneck locations where capacity is constricted or where merging and weaving patterns cause conflicts) and nonrecurring congestion (e.g., crash hotspots, special events, or construction). Either type will require analysis at the corridor or facility level to pinpoint problem Table B.4. Incorporating Reliability into Key Decision Points for the Congestion Management Process Key Decision Point (KDP) Description How to Incorporate Reliability CMP-1: Approve objectives for congestion management Objectives should draw from the community values articulated in the regional vision and goals identified in the MPO’s LRTP. Consider reliability an issue. Reliability should be core. At this KDP, an analysis of reliability and gathering of information from stakeholders and the public can help an agency determine if reliability should be a goal or objective for the transportation system. CMP-2: Approve CMP network Define both the geographic scope and system elements (e.g., freeways, major arterials, transit routes) that will be analyzed in the CMP. Consider reliability an issue. Ensure that components of the system that suffer (or are likely to suffer) from reliabil- ity issues are included. At this KDP, planners will think proactively about the network where travel is likely to be unreliable. CMP-3: Approve multimodal performance measures Develop performance measures to identify, assess, and communicate congestion. Identify reliability measures. At this KDP, transportation plan- ners will identify the appropriate reliability measures to use in evaluating congestion. These measures will depend on the goals and objectives set in CMP-1. CMP-4: Approve congestion problems and needs Identify congestion deficiencies and sources within the approved CMP network that should be addressed in the CMP. Estimate reliability deficiencies. At this KDP, planners will classify corridors or locations where travel time reliability exceeds some threshold or target value using the perfor- mance measures identified in CMP-3. CMP-5: Approve strategies Identify and assess groups of strategies relative to stated needs. Consider operations strategies. At this KDP, planners should ensure that the full range of strategies, including operations, is considered.

78 locations or to identify and evaluate congestion mitigation strategies. The steps include • Use model roadway networks of travel demand models to inform baselines for CMP roadway networks. Looking at model output will provide a good basis of information related to congestion and reliability. When identifying the CMP network, consider the availability of supporting his- torical data. To the degree possible, the CMP network should be multimodal in nature, taking into account the interactions among various modes of transportation and the effect they could have on reliability. Also, consider how corridor-wide land use patterns, employment, transit, and population centers could affect reliability. To construct the network, use available multi-modal data to select roadway segments and elements of the transit system. For example, select highway segments based on the functional classification (e.g., select “all collectors or above”) or based on segments over certain reliability thresholds (e.g., a travel time index above 1.35). • Refine and update the CMP network. Neighboring MPOs may choose to partner in the development of a joint CMP. Extend the geographic extent of the CMP network to include regional metropolitan land use, employment, transit, and population centers. For example, identify employment and commute patterns to identify key inter- regional corridors to include as part of the CMP network that may extend beyond MPO boundaries. • Identify the regional definition of “congested.” Review existing studies for the state and regional working definition of con- gestion and reliability. A well-rounded understanding of congestion will be multidimensional in nature and will include travel time reliability. As described in the introduc- tion, the four dimensions of congestion include spatial (how much of the system is congested); temporal (how long con- gestion lasts); severity (how much delay there is or how low travel speeds are); and variability (how congestion changes from day to day). Ensure that the reliability (variability) component is used to identify corridors and portions of the network to include in the CMP. In regions where the high- way network is very dense, this can help limit data collection and analysis to the most congested facilities. • Define the system elements that will be analyzed under the CMP. The availability and sophistication of model data and analysis of travel patterns and regions will help determine the appropriate system elements to be analyzed under the CMP. Reliability for each included system element will be considered separately depending on the regional definition of congestion agreed upon above. Reliability may be mea- sured differently between different system elements (e.g., freeways, major arterials, transit routes). The reliability of certain system elements may be prioritized based on the severity of the problem, the amount of travel occurring on the element, or the location of the element relative to the entire study region. CMP-3: Approve Multimodal Performance Measures At this KDP, identify appropriate reliability measures to use in evaluating congestion. These measures will directly corre- spond to the reliability-based congestion management goals and objectives set in CMP-1. • Develop performance measures to identify, assess, and com- municate congestion. Use the performance measures devel- oped in the LRP and PRO processes; this will reaffirm the efficacy of public input and provide a basis for further analy- sis. Tailor the LRP and PRO measures for the CMP based on the objectives set in CMP-1. Identify relevant performance measures already used in existing planning efforts as well as any reliability-related measures needed. • The flexibility of these performance measures also is a nota- ble consideration. For example, if actual or desired develop- ment patterns change (from growth and capacity expansion to higher density and multimodal options), will performance measures chosen be aligned with the new direction? Will they capture the impacts of those changes on performance, particularly reliability? • Identify source(s) of data related to performance measures. Work with technical staff to ensure travel time data are available to estimate reliability performance measures. Cur- rent resources should be able to track the performance of each of these measures. If data are not currently available, consider hiring a consultant to collect the data. Other trans- portation agencies may serve as partners in data collection and analysis efforts. • Analyze current conditions. Some agencies report reliability conditions in an annual performance report. If no reports exist, estimate new measures based on techniques described in the technical reference. Current conditions should help to confirm anecdotal information received from stakehold- ers. To the degree possible, collaborate with transportation operators, facility owners, and related agencies to leverage existing data for analysis. This is particularly true of multi- modal data that may be available from transit agencies, bicycle groups, or local governments. CMP-4: Approve Congestion Problems and Needs At this KDP, classify corridors or locations where travel time reliability exceeds some threshold or target value using the per- formance measures identified in CMP-3. Reliability problems

79 can also be reported as a ranking of corridors throughout the region based on reliability results or an analysis of how well the region as a whole is meeting established reliability objectives. The steps include • Review reliability deficiencies and problems from other studies. Compile reliability deficiencies and problems collected from other planning efforts. These will be compared to the analy- sis of current conditions conducted in CMP-3 to ensure all identified deficiencies throughout the CMP network are addressed. • Set thresholds identifying reliability problem spots. Using the performance measures developed in CMP-3, test different thresholds for identifying reliability problems. Identify the deficiencies for each threshold and determine whether it matches stakeholder judgment of how reliable travel is in the CMP network. It can be extremely helpful to show your options as a set of maps that highlight the unreliable travel trouble spots. For example, if measuring the areawide buf- fer index for all traffic at the segment level, identify any segment with a buffer index over 40% as unreliable. Alter- natively, rank the segments by buffer index. A third option is to categorize segments into reliability tiers; for example, 0% to 10% would be characterized as reliable; 10% to 30% as moderately unreliable; and 30% or more would be con- sidered unreliable. The thresholds also can be different for urban and rural areas; different functional classifications; or different modes. • Identify current and future deficiencies. Determine reliabil- ity deficiencies by identifying network segments that exceed reliability performance thresholds. These segments indicate where future reliability trouble spots are likely to arise. These deficiencies will make up a portion of all con- gestion problems and needs identified through other plan- ning efforts, stakeholder input, and analysis of approved performance measures. • Develop weights for your performance measures. Develop a weighting scheme to balance reliability against other per- formance measures. This will ultimately be used in CMP-5 to evaluate and prioritize strategies. • Ensure that problems and needs align with input received from stakeholders and the public. Compare reliability prob- lems and needs to input received from stakeholders from other regional or statewide planning efforts. The alignment of regional goals, input received, and data analysis help to identify and prioritize strategies later in the CMP process. CMP-5: Approve Strategies At this KDP, identify and assess groups of strategies relative to stated needs. Some regions may consider a hierarchy of congestion management strategies based on regional policy goals, in which priority is given to strategies that eliminate or reduce travel first, followed by operations strategies, and then considering capacity expansion as a last resort. • Collect existing strategies and develop new strategies. Strate- gies may come from a variety of different sources, including the LRP, COR, and OPS processes, and should be focused on the problems and needs identified in CMP-4. Work with stakeholders using the methods described in the institu- tional arrangements chapter to gather ideas for new strate- gies not already identified in previous planning studies. For example, hold a high-level meeting with a steering commit- tee to develop high-level policy strategies and to glean ideas from other stakeholders through working groups and other passive comments. Strategies can include capital and opera- tional strategies and policies. Examples of strategies include congestion pricing, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, incident management (e.g., emergency response teams and centralized traffic management centers), and ramp meter- ing, among others. The decision should be made based on group consensus among committee members, and strategies should be consistent with those identified in the long-range planning process. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies. Assess how strate- gies support the congestion management objectives agreed upon in CMP-1. Use the approach for estimating reliability to evaluate how these strategies would improve reliability by calculating the measures selected above. Also consider how reliability-focused strategies contribute to other goals and objectives of the transportation system, such as safety, economic vitality, system preservation, and air quality. • Identify who has jurisdiction over implementation of CMP strategies. This could include state DOTs, transit agencies, and local governments. MPO staff can support implement- ing agencies during the congestion management project design process by providing them with information from their travel demand model. • Rank and select strategies. Ensure support for strategies. Identify potential project sponsors and implementing authorities to inform a prioritization of potential projects. Information from implemented strategies can be helpful in evaluating individual strategies. Tools and methods for assessing strategies include travel demand models, sketch- planning tools, past experience, analytical/deterministic tools (HCM-based), and simulation models. • Convert the reliability effectiveness estimates to benefits in dollars to facilitate benefit-cost analysis. In general, one hour of delay due to unreliable traffic is worth approximately the same dollar value as recurring delay (results of sev- eral research studies suggest the value of unreliable travel time is between 0.8 and 1.5 times greater than the value of average travel time).

80 • Develop costs for the strategies. These costs can include per lane-mile costs, per project costs, right-of-way costs, and operating and maintenance costs. Ensure that project spon- sors that submit projects into the universe of projects use this cost-estimating technique. Doing so will allow you to make apples to apples comparisons of projects. Operations planning Introduction FHWA defines Planning for Operations as “a set of activities that takes place within the context of an agency, jurisdiction, and/or regional entity with the intent of establishing and carrying out plans, policies, and procedures that enable and improve the management and operation of transporta- tion systems” (http://plan4operations.dot.gov/glossary.htm). Operational strategies include many activities such as traffic signal timing, managed lanes, reversible lanes, ramp meter- ing, variable speed limits, active traffic management strate- gies, incident management activities, service patrols and traffic management center (TMC) operations. The use of reliability data while analyzing these activities allows the operations practitioner to evaluate the impacts of the imple- mented strategies or to simulate the effects of strategies prior to implementation. In terms of incorporating reliability into planning and pro- gramming, operations planning may have different compo- nents depending on whether it is being applied within a DOT planning office, a DOT operations office, or an MPO. Conse- quently, the use and application of reliability varies among these different stakeholders. For example, a DOT planning office may adopt travel time reliability as an official measure within its long- and short-term planning processes. As reliability becomes incorporated into the modeling and data collection processes, congestion (including nonrecurring congestion) can be better quantified. As a result, strategies intended to address this type of congestion—such as real-time travel time (traveler informa- tion), managed lanes, ramp metering (traffic management) and incident management applications (incident management)— begin to be included in short- and long-term plans. This section covers operations planning within an opera- tions office. Within an operations office, operations plan- ning can take several forms, including developing the ITS architecture or consideration of performance measures such as reliability to compare and select operations type projects. Operations projects are directly linked to reliability. Opera- tions planning heavily relies on reliability data and systemic improvements to reliability require the implementation of operations strategies. Operations planning also can be a joint effort between operations and planning that encompasses the important institutional underpinnings needed for effective regional transportation systems management and operations. In this context, operations planning includes three important aspects: 1. Regional transportation operations collaboration and coordination activity that facilitates regional transportation systems management and operations; 2. Management and operations considerations within the context of the ongoing regional transportation planning and investment process; and 3. The opportunities for linkage between regional operations collaboration and regional transportation planning. These three elements are fostered and accomplished, at least in part, through the development of the regional ITS architec- ture, including regularly scheduled meetings to maintain, dis- cuss status and update the architecture. In addition, regional planning agencies generally develop regional ITS strategic plans and ITS implementation plans in conjunction with development of the regional ITS architecture. At each level of operations planning (local, regional, state- wide, and multiregion and multistate) agencies have a different method of using reliability data and incorporating reliability into the processes. • Local level: An operating agency such as a state DOT district traffic management center (TMC) or a city TMC will con- duct what often is referred to as operations planning, which is planning for spot improvements using management tech- niques or low-cost geometric changes. This planning is usu- ally done within the agency without outside collaboration and within the agency operations budget. • Regional level: This level of planning is usually within a metropolitan area regional planning agency, often the MPO or occasionally a regional operating agency (e.g., the Free- way and Arterial System of Transportation [FAST] in Las Vegas), or a DOT district or regional office. Regional plan- ning is commonly accomplished through a management and operations committee of the MPO and requires col- laboration among a large number of stakeholders, includ- ing many that are not traditionally part of the MPO process (such as public safety, emergency management, and special events managers). • Statewide level: Planning that is conducted at a DOT cen- tral office that will enable the allocation of funds to main- tenance and/or operations budgets or prioritize operations improvements identified at the district level. • Multiregion and multistate regional operating agencies: Planning that enables coordination, resource sharing and information sharing among a group of operating agencies, authorities and state DOTs (e.g., the I-95 Corridor Coalition).

81 Operations planning is not included in the PlanWorks frame- work, but for consistency, a set of KDPs has been developed for this section. Operations investments typically are short-range, low-capital, often management-focused for a real-time envi- ronment. Operations projects typically are funded through maintenance and/or operations budgets, while capital projects have dedicated funding. The previous sections have identified approaches for integrating operations investments into the planning process; this section focuses on how to plan for oper- ations investments themselves, recognizing that many state DOTs and other transportation agencies likely will continue to separate operations activities from capital investments. The KDPs for operations planning are intended to provide for flexibility in application, allowing agencies to combine them, as they deem appropriate to fit with their planning pro- cess. They capture the range of decisions that take place as part of operations planning. Some of the steps take place only occasionally, such as adopting the ITS regional architecture, while others may be skipped when being developed by a single agency. The goal of the KDPs is to identify problems areas and potential operations solutions, evaluate the potential solu- tions, and adopt a defined solution project or set of projects. Table B.5 summarizes how to incorporate reliability into operations planning. Table B.5. Incorporating Reliability into Key Decision Points for Operations Planning Key Decision Point (KDP) Description How to Incorporate Reliability OPS-1: Approve scope of the operations plan Identify the mode, facility type, network level, range of cost and schedule for the opera- tions plan. Consider reliability as an issue when developing the plan scope. Reliability data will help define the general scope of the problem to be addressed. OPS-2: Approve operations goals, evaluation criteria, methodology, and perfor- mance measures Identify specific goals, performance criteria, methodology and measures that will be used in the operation planning evaluation process. Identify reliability measures when developing methodology and measures. Reliability data will be part of the evaluation criteria for operations projects, the evaluation methodology will assess reliability, and reliability will be a goal and a performance measure. OPS-3: Approve operations problem statements, defi- ciencies, and opportunities Identify specific locations, problem types, and solution opportunities, including identifying a wide range of deficiencies. Estimate reliability deficiencies when defining problem areas. Reliability data will help identify problem locations, duration, and extent. At this step, it is also appropriate to review the status of current operational deployments. OPS-4: Develop a range of solution sets Identify potential solutions that will meet goals of the operations plan. Include reliability in trade-off analysis. Evaluation of solutions will include reliability data and reliability calculations. This step will also require identifying the range of capital, staff- ing, technology, training, and maintenance requirements or operations deployments. OPS-5: Adopt preferred solution set Evaluate the solutions using the performance criteria and methodology and define preferred solutions. Include reliability in trade-off analysis. Evaluation of solu- tions will include reliability data and reliability calculations. This step also includes coordination with other agencies, including developing requirements for copartnering memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with public safety agencies and others for agreement on procedures and protocols. OPS-6: Update the regional ITS architecture (optional) Review the regional ITS architecture to ensure it is compatible with the preferred solution set and update if needed. Consider reliability as an issue when developing the ITS architecture. Data collection and reporting capabilities for reliability data should be included in the regional architecture. The architecture must accommodate providing reliability data to support the KDPs. OPS-7: Develop a project level concept of operations, systems engineering man- agement plan, and configu- ration management plans (optional) Develop project ConOps, SEMP, and CMP if needed. Consider reliability as an issue when developing the ConOps, SEMP, and CMP. ConOps, SEMP, and CMP should include methodology to enable data collection and reporting of reliability. The ConOps must accommodate providing reliability data in to support the KDPs. OPS-8: Assess benefits of implemented projects and provide feedback Evaluate the project after implementation to assess the benefits and impacts. Provide feedback to the problem evaluation step (OPS-4) or the ITS architecture step (OPS-6). Include reliability in the benefits assessment. The benefits analysis will include reliability data and reliability calculations.

82 OPS-1: Approve Scope of the Operations Plan The purpose of this KDP, which is part of the typical planning process, is to identify the modes, facility types, network levels, range of costs and schedules for the operations plan. • Gather scoping input from operations managers and planners. Develop the scope of the operations plan in consultation with transportation system owners responsible for manag- ing and operating the system by gathering feedback from standing committees, especially committees who are respon- sible for operations. If standing committees have not been formed, reach out to the management at regional or state offices of operations, traffic management centers, and other operations system owners. Ask them how they feel reliability affects transportation operations in the region. • Define the study area and scope. Before the planning effort begins, define the study area and scope of the operations plan. This definition of the study should include the following: 44 Mode: highway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian; 44 Facility type: freeway, arterial, managed lanes, bus, rail; 44 Network level: interchange or intersection, segment, corridor, area, region; 44 Range of cost: low-cost, improvements within existing right-of-way only, major reconstruction; and 44 Schedule: short-term (1 to 2 years to completion), mid- term (2 to 5 years), long-term (more than 5 years). Use available reliability data to help in problem scoping and in defining the study parameters. Reliability data will help define the mode and facility type of the problem area and the scale of the problem. Typically, factors such as bud- get and urgency of the need will drive the range of cost and schedule of the project. • Scope out necessary measures, data, and resources needed for approved objectives. An examination of the availability of data sources may require collaboration with data suppli- ers within the MPO such as traffic counting staff, GIS staff, and others. These steps will be different for each of the levels of planning: • Local: Operations divisions typically address smaller, shorter- term projects under the purview of that division (freeways, arterials, or transit). This assumes that the project can be implemented within the existing budget and implemented within the operations division’s resources, so this step normally is skipped. • Regional: Stakeholder participation and coordination is critical to project scoping. Coordination with operators is essential. • Statewide: Identification of funding is a major issue in scoping for statewide plans. The project scope will also determine whether the project must be included in the regional planning process. • Multiregion and multistate: Both stakeholder participation and funding are significant issues. The scoping step will determine which agencies need to be involved in the plan- ning process and what their role may be, as some agencies may be responsible for funding, while others may just need to coordinate with the planning process. OPS-2: Approve Operations Goals, Evaluation Criteria Methodology, and Performance Measures At this KDP, identify specific goals, performance criteria, meth- odology and measures that will be used in an operations plan- ning evaluation process. Once the scope of the project is defined in OPS-1, then the goals of the project, the criteria to be used in the evaluation, the evaluation methodologies, and the measures of performance for the projects must be defined. Depending on the agencies involved and the project scope, these items may have already been defined for operations projects, and therefore this step could be skipped. The steps include • Approve operations goals. Build on input from key stake- holders to identify reliability-specific operations goals. The goals should be consistent with regional goals expressed in regional planning documents. Operations goals can be defined by answering the following four questions: Where are we now? Where are we going? Where do we want to be? How will we get there? Follow the work steps described in LRP-2 to answer these questions. • Approve evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures. Follow the work steps described in LRP-3 to iden- tify the evaluation criteria, methodology, and reliability per- formance measures to be used in the project development. Consider reliability by including reliability data in the evalu- ation criteria for operations projects; identify evaluation methodologies that are capable of assessing reliability; and identify reliability performance measures along with a spe- cific goal and target. While it is important in any of the plan- ning processes (e.g., LRP and COR) that reliability measures be sensitive to all types of potential projects, it is particularly important here that the reliability measures be sensitive to the vast array of operational improvements that are likely to be considered. These steps may be different for each planning level; however, if the goals, criteria, methodologies, and measures are already defined, then this step can be skipped for any of

83 the four levels. Differences at each level may include the following. • Local: This step normally is skipped as goals, criteria, methodologies, and measures typically are in place. • Regional: Some agencies already have established evalua- tion criteria, methodologies, and measures in place for operations projects. • Statewide: Some DOTs already have established evaluation methodologies in place for operations projects. • Multiregion and multistate: Stakeholder participation is important in developing evaluation criteria and methodolo- gies. Different agencies have different goals, criteria, meth- odologies, and measures, and these differences will need to be resolved to conduct project planning. OPS-3: Approve Operations Problem Statements, Deficiencies, and Opportunities At this KDP, you will identify reliability deficiencies that should be addressed by planning for operations. Transportation defi- ciencies are where the current or future system is expected to experience reliability problems. This step is the same as a step in any typical planning process. • Identify reliability deficiencies. Reliability plays a key role in problem identification by enabling estimation of reliability deficiencies on the network. Identify locations of reliability deficiencies using reliability data and the measures identified in OPS-2 to identify problem locations and duration by time of day, length of time, and geographic extent of the problem. These steps are necessary for operations planning at all lev- els but may vary by planning level. • Local: Some agencies have a consistent and ongoing pro- cess for deficiency analysis and use after-action reports by operators and planners who may or may not be involved in the planning process. Many agencies have an ad hoc pro- cess to identify problems. • Regional: The current lack of reliability data (or lack of use of the data) often makes this an ideal—rather than real— step. Other congestion measures are often used in place of reliability to identify problems. Maintenance and operations committees are useful for identifying reliability problems. • Statewide: Planning divisions must work with operations staff to identify problems areas. Operations staff is familiar with geometric or operational deficiencies and can provide valuable input to define the problem type, location, and scope. • Multiregion and multistate: Stakeholder participation is important in identifying common problems and cross- jurisdictional problem areas. OPS-4: Develop a Range of Solution Sets At this KDP, identify potential operations solutions that meet the goals of the operations plan, address the deficiencies iden- tified in OPS-3, exceed the evaluation criteria established in OPS-2, and optimize network performance. This KDP also will require identifying the range of capital, staffing, technol- ogy, training, and maintenance requirements of operations deployments. • Review current operational deployments. The evaluation of operations problems should begin with a review of the sta- tus of current operational deployments to determine their effectiveness and identify the need for technology upgrades and improved systems integration. • Develop a range of solution sets. Identify potential opera- tions strategies that meet the goals of the operations plan. Consult current plans and documents such as the conges- tion management process and the regional ITS architec- ture to identify needs and potential operations strategies. Work with the stakeholders to gather ideas for new strate- gies not already identified in previous planning studies (and eliminate those with fatal flaws from the beginning). Since much of operations planning is often accomplished on an ad hoc basis, coordinate with the office of opera- tions, TMCs, and others responsible for implementing operations strategies to complete the list of potential solution sets. • Evaluate the effectiveness of solution sets. Conduct a trade- off analysis among potential solutions using reliability data and performance measures to assess how each individual strategy will improve reliability. The analysis should review major recurring and nonrecurring congestion problems (e.g., recurring congestion and nonrecurring congestion, bottlenecks, peaking, incidents, weather, safety, construc- tion, special events) and match problems to functional (work, recreation, freight), regional (urban and rural), cor- ridor (thoroughfare, interstate), and network (freeways, arterials, transit) intensity and significance. Prioritize the solution sets based on performance using the prioritization process described in LRP-7. These steps are necessary in operations planning at all levels. Table B.6 provides examples of using reliability data in eval- uating different operations strategies, the potential partners that may use the data, and the products of the analysis. OPS-5: Adopt Preferred Solution Set At this KDP, complete the evaluation of the proposed solu- tions using the adopted performance criteria and methodol- ogy and then identify the preferred solutions that address the

84 deficiencies while supporting the vision and goals. The steps include the following: • Approve preferred solution set. Communicate the impact of the various solution sets (especially relative to reliability) to stakeholders and gather input to gain a consensus on the preferred scenario. Coordinate with other agencies to explore ways to take advantage of economies of scale and to lever- age resources. Develop requirements for co-partnering with public safety agencies and other agencies and come to agreement on procedures and protocols. Develop and implement MOUs or other agreements to document these requirements. • Implement preferred solution set. After the steps are com- pleted and the preferred operations solution project or set of projects is adopted, proceed with implementation in one of the following ways. If the solution is a project that can be implemented by a single agency operations division, then the project will be designed, budgeted, scheduled and implemented within the operations division purview. These steps may be different for each planning level. • Local: Low-cost projects often can be funded and imple- mented within existing budgets and detailed implementa- tion plans may not be required. Since the projects are usually low-cost improvements at this level, the evaluation is simplified. • All levels: While an operations planning process may pro- duce a prioritized list of operational investments, often these investments compete in the broader planning pro- cess, requiring modifications to that process as described in previous sections of this document. This may occur at the program level (i.e., identifying a broad level of funding for operations) or at the project level (i.e., selecting indi- vidual operations investments to be funded). The solution should include capital, staffing, technology, training, and maintenance requirements. Coordination with other key service delivery participants is needed. Funding options should be identified. OPS-6: Update the Regional ITS Architecture (Optional) At this KDP, review the regional ITS architecture to ensure it is compatible with the preferred solution set. Architecture devel- opment and maintenance is not a requirement for operations planning activities since much of the utility of data are inde- pendent of the architecture itself; however, the architecture should include data collection and reporting capabilities to support reliability. If it does not include these capabilities, the regional ITS architecture should be updated in conformance with the National ITS Architecture requirements. This is an occasional step (typically completed once every five years) and thus is normally skipped for all four levels (local, regional, statewide, and multiregion and multistate) Table B.6. Examples of Operations Strategies and Reliability Data Operations Strategy Uses of Reliability Data Example Products Potential Partners Traffic signal timing Input for signal timing tools, monitoring of signal system performance Signal timing analysis, before-and- after studies, performance reports Traffic engineering departments, regional traffic operations agencies, state DOTs Managed lanes Analysis input, performance monitoring, pricing calculation Alternatives analysis, performance reports, real-time pricing State DOTs, toll authorities Ramp metering Analysis input, performance monitoring, meter signal timing Real-time meter signal timing, performance reports State DOTs, toll authorities Variable speed limits Analysis input, performance monitoring, speed limit calculation Speed limits, real-time speeds, performance reports State DOTs, toll authorities Active traffic management Analysis input, performance monitoring, speed limit calculation, lane use calculation Real-time lane usage and speed calculations, performance reports State DOTs, toll authorities Incident management Incident duration analysis, incidents by road segment analysis Incident impact analysis State DOTs, toll authorities, highway patrol, local police, local fire, EMS, HAZMAT agencies Service patrols Incident duration analysis, incidents by road segment analysis Incident impact analysis State DOTs, toll authorities, highway patrol, local police, local fire, EMS, HAZMAT agencies TMC operations Analysis input, performance monitoring Incident impact analysis, alternatives analysis, performance reports State DOTs, toll authorities

85 when conducting typical planning activities. The steps include • Develop and maintain a regional ITS architecture. If a regional ITS architecture is not already in place, develop one in conformance with the National ITS Architecture requirements. This is a requirement for any ITS project to receive federal funds. Update the regional ITS architecture every few years (typically five years) to remain in confor- mance with national requirements. The update should take into account the region’s existing ITS capabilities, proposed projects not currently included in the architecture, and any new services added to the National ITS Architecture that were not originally considered. • Consider reliability as an issue when developing or updating the ITS architecture. To accomplish this, include travel time data collection and reporting capabilities in the regional ITS architecture. OPS-7: Develop a Project-Level Concept of Operations, Systems Engineering Management Plan, and Configuration Management Plans (Optional) This KDP refers to the systems engineering process, which includes developing a project concept of operations (ConOps), systems engineering management plan (SEMP), and a con- figuration management plan (CMP). Conduct this KDP only when a new major ITS project is proposed. Review the adopted solution set and develop systems engineering documents for any major projects that are proposed. Also review the systems engineering documents for any current or future projects to ensure they include methodologies that enable data collection, archiving, and reporting of reliability measures. This is an occasional step and thus normally is skipped for all four levels (local, regional, statewide, multiregion and multistate) when conducting typical planning activities. The steps include the following. • Develop and maintain a ConOps, SEMP, and CMP. Develop a ConOps, SEMP, and CMP for any ITS project that receives federal funds. This provides for the systematic, structured development of complex projects and provides assurance to project stakeholders that the project will operate properly and will be compatible within the existing system environment. At this KDP, ensure that the project is consistent with the regional ITS strategic plan and/or ITS implementation plan. Several agencies, Colorado DOT, for example, have determined that although the SEMP is only required for ITS projects that use federal funds, it should be applied to all ITS projects and/or applications regardless of type of funds and is performed commensurate with the approved risk assessment level of the ITS project and/or application. This helps an agency track all ITS projects within the respective regional ITS architecture and to update those Architectures in an ongoing process. • Consider reliability as an issue when developing the ConOps, SEMP, and CMP for current and future projects. This can be done by including methodologies in the ConOps, SEMP, and CMP that enable data collection, archiving, and reporting of reliability measures. OPS-8: Assess Benefits of Implemented Projects and Provide Feedback This KDP involves assessing the benefits and impacts of proj- ects after implementation, which can lead to the identifica- tion of additional problem areas and new solutions for other problem area studies. The feedback step will improve the operations planning process also. • Assess project benefits. Assess the benefits and impacts of implemented operations projects using reliability data and performance measures. The benefits analysis will be helpful in identifying both recurring and nonrecurring problem areas and determining if additional projects or services are needed. In addition, the benefits analysis could identify solutions for other problem areas and provide data to justify projects and operations funding. • Complete the feedback cycle. Use the benefits results to com- plete the feedback cycle for two KDPs: (1) the evaluation step (OPS-4) for refinements to an analysis of a problem is underway; or (2) the ITS architecture step (OPS-6) when a study is being initiated. These steps are necessary in operations planning at all levels.