Operational and Institutional Agreements That Facilitate Regional Traffic Signal Operations (2011)

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.

80 APPENDIX C1. SITE SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA Since 2000, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has been using maintenance agreements and perfor- mance standards to ensure that agencies are operating and main- taining their traffic signals to an acceptable performance standard. In July 2000, the state Highway Administrator directed a compre- hensive report to be prepared to assess the state-of-the-practice for operations and maintenance of NCDOT traffic signals. As part of this directive, a course of action was recommended to ensure that traffic signal on state facilities were operated and maintained at a “good level of service.” This course of action has evolved into the Good Traffic Signal Systems Maintenance Program. At the direction of the State Highway Administrator, a NCDOT committee was formed comprised of representatives from NCDOT’s Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, the Chief Engineer’s Office, 14 Highway Divisions, and a cross section of municipalities. The purpose of this committee was to evaluate the process used to reimburse entities for operating and maintaining their traffic signals and to define operating and maintenance standards needed to achieve a good level of service. The committee defined five levels of service. NCDOT also estab- lished the level of service “C” to be the minimum requirement needed to achieve good operating performance. For those agen- cies in the state that are operating and maintaining traffic signal systems, NCDOT established the following minimum criteria for a good level of service: • Agencies are required to have a minimum of 80 percent of their signals operating as part of centrally monitored sys- tem. • Timing plans are to be evaluated every 18 months and improvements are implemented within 6 months of com- pleting the evaluation. • New timing plans are to be implemented annually in corri- dors experiencing significant growth. • Agencies are to actively maintain traffic data collection system with 80 percent of the system detectors being oper- ational and a maximum time to repair not to exceed 60 days. • New intersections are required to have timing plans imple- mented within 30 days of installation. • Agencies are required to perform preventative mainte- nance at every intersection every 6 months. • Agencies are required to staff their central control centers during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and during special events that might significantly alter travel patterns. • Field timing plans are required to operate in a traffic responsive mode, where appropriate. To ensure that signals and timing plans are adequately main- tained, NCDOT has tied the amount that individual entities will be reimbursed by the state to these performance standards. Each local municipality enters into a maintenance agreement with NCDOT that defines the agreed upon level of service standard and the specified reimbursement rate. Local municipalities are required to submit certified quarterly status reports detailing the maintenance activities performed during the quarter. These sta- tus reports include such information on intersection failures, local and system detector failures, the percentage of time the systems were off-line, the repairs that were made and the dates of when the repairs were made, any new or deleted intersections, and all traffic signal timing optimizations performed. If NCDOT determines that a municipality is not maintaining their traffic signals to the specified criteria in the agreement, then NCDOT has the right to enter into a separate maintenance agreement with a private contractor and deduct the cost of the new agreement from the municipality’s funds allocation. Funding Funding for the program is provided from NCDOT’s mainte- nance funds. These funds are general revenue funds and are sub- ject to appropriations by the state legislator. Agencies that agree to operate their traffic signal systems at higher performance standards receive a greater proportion of the overall appropria- tions. The program was phased in over time with annual pro- portions of funding increasing more rapidly for signal systems maintaining a higher level of service. This provided an incen- tive to municipalities to operate their signals at a higher level. Table C1 shows how the allocation of funds changed during the transition phase of the program. The amount of funds paid to each specific municipality is based on the ratio of the number of state system intersections to the total number of intersections in the computerized traffic signal system. NCDOT reimburses the municipality for maintaining the central control system and its associated hardware, CCTV sur- veillance system, and communication infrastructure. The annual reimbursement rate also includes NCDOT’s pro-rated share of the cost for the salary and payroll additives for a System Operations Engineer(s). NCDOT has established the minimum qualifications and performance duties for this position. Agreements Two types of maintenance agreements are used to ensure that traf- fic signals are operating and maintained at predefined level: Sched- ule “C” and Schedule “D.” Both of these agreements define the responsibilities of entities with respect to emergency maintenance, preventative maintenance, bench maintenance, and operational criteria. The Schedule “C” agreement provides reimbursement rates and levels of service for maintenance of traffic signals and associated equipment, while the Schedule “D” agreements pro- vides reimbursement rates and levels of service for operating and maintaining central computer-based traffic signal systems. APPENDIX C2. SITE SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is a pro- gram that provides assistance to Bay Area jurisdictions in their efforts to improve traffic operations on arterial streets by spon- soring various projects that deal with signal coordination and other arterial operations issues. One program developed by MTC APPENDIX C Summary of Site Interviews

81 to provide this assistance is the Program for Arterial Signal Syn- chronization (PASS). Through PASS, MTC provides technical and financial assistance to Bay Area agencies to improve safety and operations of certain traffic signal system and corridors. The goals and objectives of PASS are as follows: • Coordinate local and state-owned signal systems, and retime signal systems in response to changes to the state- owned system. This includes changes resulting from freeway widening, reconfiguration of interchanges or intersections, implementation of ramp metering, or altering the lane configuration on state highways. • Establish and maintain communications between systems owned by Caltrans and local agencies. This could entail pro- visions of GPS units, signal interconnect cable, or other technology to enable two-way communications and coordi- nation, as well as retiming the signals once the new com- munications system is activated. • Retime traffic signal systems to support priority for tran- sit vehicles. This would include active priority through signal preemption systems and passive priority through signal timing plans, and could include providing transit vehicles with rapid access/egress from major transit hubs. • Retime traffic signal systems in conjunction with other established regional programs, such as safe routes to schools, safe routes to transit, smart corridors, and incident management. Under the program, the types of activities that could be imple- mented include the following: • developing and implementing signal coordination plans (a.m., p.m., and/or midday) that reduce travel time and delay on corridors that contain state and local signals; • collecting weekday peak-period turning movement counts, including pedestrian and bicycle counts, and seven-day, 24-hour machine counts at strategic locations to determine periods of coordination; • developing and implementing signal coordination plans based on the throughput of people rather than vehicles; • developing and implementing flush plans for arterials that are used as diversion routes in the event of freeway inci- dents, in conjunction with other incident management actions; • developing and implementing optimized actuated settings for fully actuated signals to minimize queuing during non- peak periods; • developing and implementing signal coordination plans that reduce starts and stops and promote uniform travel speeds; and • developing and implementing transit signal priority plans to make transit a more attractive travel option. Project Selection Local agencies are required to submit an application to MTC. As part of the application, the local agency must demonstrate how the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the program. Candidate projects must involve a minimum of eight signalized intersections with interconnection or reliable time sources and are currently capable of coordinated operation, unless the project application includes provision of interconnections or a reliable time source. Projects that improve communications systems are also eligi- ble from funding under PASS. Communication improvements are limited to a maximum of $10,000 per project. Projects that link signals owned by Caltrans and local agencies have higher priority for funding. Projects involving traffic signals owned by one local agency receive a lower priority for funding, unless they are part of a regional program, such as safe routes to school/tran- sit, smart corridors, or incident management. Roles and Responsibilities MTC is responsible for administering and managing PASS. MTC is responsible for receiving and evaluating submitted applications for local agencies. MTC is also responsible for securing consultants to perform the work specified in the application. MTC’s consultant is responsible for developing the following recommended timing plans for each signal in the system: • optimal initial and actuated settings, • time-of-day coordination plans and hours of coordinated operations, and • transit signal priority plans and hours of operations. Primary responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the traffic signals remains with the agency that owns the signal. Prior to implementation, MTC and the local agencies must review and approve the recommended new timing settings. Once approved, the consultant is responsible for implementing or assisting the agency staff in implementing the new timing settings. The con- sultant is also responsible for fine-tuning or assisting agency staff in fine-tuning the settings once deployed in the fields. Agreements MTC requires PASS grant recipients to enter into an agreement with MTC to (1) waive any and all claims against MTC for any loss, liability, or damages resulting from the program, either directly or indirectly; and (2) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend TABLE C1 ALLOCATION OF STATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FUNDS BY FISCAL YEAR FOR GOOD TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year Level of Service A B C D F 2000–2001 $1,036,000 $1,036,000 $1,036,000 $1,036,000 $1,036,000 2001–2002 $2,540,000 $2,111,000 $1,698,000 $1,355,000 $1,006,000 2002–2003 $3,076,000 $2,546,000 $2,032,000 $1,608,000 $1,178,000 2003–2004 $3,232,000 $2,673,000 $2,129,000 $1,681,000 $1,225,000 2004–2005 $3,232,000 $2,673,000 $2,129,000 $1,681,000 $1,225,000

MTC against any third-party claims that may result from the agency’s participation in the program. An agency that requires peer review assistance will also be required to sign such an agree- ment in favor of the peer reviewer. Funding MTC uses federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to provide funding for projects. MTC obligates approxi- mately $1.25 million per year to fund traffic signal coordination under PASS. This level of funding allows MTC to initiate between 10 and 15 projects annually. MTC provides the 20 per- cent matching requirement for the local agencies. Performance Measures MTC requires the selected consultant to conduct before-and-after field assessments of each project. MTC requires the consultant to conduct travel time and delay studies during times and days that are representative of the times and days for which coordination plans were developed. A minimum of four runs shall be con- ducted for each direction for each peak period. From the studies, MTC requires the consultant to calculate the following measures of effectiveness of the improved system: delay, number of stops, travel time, fuel consumption, emissions, benefit-cost ratio, and cost effective for emissions reductions. Outreach MTC provides outreach through their Arterial Operations Com- mittee (AOC). The AOC is open to all local traffic engineers and consultants interested in regional operations. The committee meets every two months to discuss various programs overseen by MTC, including regional projects that may have impacts on arterials and other relevant issues such as air quality conformity, status of fund- ing obligations, upcoming grant and training opportunities, and new publications. Every meeting has a feature presentation where engineers can learn about the status and results of local projects. MTC also provides a Technology Transfer Program. This program allows MTC to offer free, half-day seminars on a vari- ety of topics of interest to local transportation engineers. These seminars include technical presentations by topic experts as well as presentations from local engineers on recent projects in the Bay Area. These seminars are held every four to six months. APPENDIX C3. SITE SUMMARY FOR KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN AREA Operation Green Light is the RTSOP for the Kansas City met- ropolitan area. Originally funded in the late 1990s, the intent of the program was to define and analyze alternative approaches to meeting the existing and future traffic signal needs in the city with an aim towards providing optimum traffic movements and pro- gression flow. As the program developed, it began to have a more regional emphasis. Today, the program is hosted by the Mid- America Regional Council (MARC), the metropolitan planning organization for the bi-state Kansas City region. MARC is gov- erned by a board of local elected officials, and serves a nine county region composing more than 120 cities. Operation Green Light is one of the many programs hosted by MARC and is a regional initiative to improve traffic flow and reduce emissions through the coordination of traffic signal timing plans and improved communications between traffic signal equip- ment. Today, twenty-one municipalities, the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Kansas Department of Transportation, the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and MARC all partic- ipate in the program. The goal of the program is to improve the coordination of traffic signals and incident responses on major routes throughout the Kansas City area on both sides of the Kansas/ Missouri state line. Traffic signals controlled by MARC through the Operation Green Light program are managed from a single control center located at the Missouri Department of Transportation District 4 headquarters in Lee’s Summit. The operations center shares space with the Kansas City Scout project, the region’s freeway manage- ment center operated jointly by the Kansas Department of Trans- portation and the Missouri Department of Transportation. Roles and Responsibilities of Partner Agencies Working with the local entities, MARC is responsible for devel- oping regional timing traffic signal timing plans using traffic counts and other relevant information provided by the local enti- ties. MARC is also responsible for conducting travel-time studies and speed profiles before and after the timing plans have been implemented. Each local entity is responsible for providing MARC with an initial set of phase sequencing, splits, and offset, which MARC will use to develop an initial timing plan. Local agencies have the authority to review and determine if any changes to the initial settings are needed to optimize operations in the cor- ridor. Once member agencies have agreed on the different timing plans, the local agencies may either download the setting them- selves or request that MARC download the setting to the con- troller. Once implemented, MARC, in conjunction with agency staff, will monitor the operations in the field and work with the local agency to make any additional changes to further optimize flow in the corridor, if necessary. MARC is also responsible for the following tasks: • conducting annual examination of the operations of signals that are part of the regional significant traffic corridors, • working in cooperation with the local entity to develop spe- cial timing plans to implement when incidents occur in the corridor, and • responding to citizen complaints and requests on opera- tions of the traffic signals in the program. In terms of maintenance, MARC is responsible for maintenance and replacement of all wireless communications infrastructure installed as part the Operations Green Light program. Member agencies that have the capability to maintain their own communi- cation infrastructure may do so by agreement with MARC. MARC is also responsible for upgrading traffic controllers that are not capable of communicating with the central system software. Organization Structure The program is administered by MARC, which has a staff dedi- cated to developing timing plans and repairing and maintaining the center-to-field communications system. These individuals are MARC employees. The program is supported by five full-time employees: one engineer, three network technicians, and one administrative assistant. Oversight for the program is provided by the Steering Com- mittee. The Steering committee is comprised of representatives 82

83 from the participating agencies. The Steering Committee is responsible for establishing policy and priorities for the program, as well as for participating in the project decision-making process at key points through the review and approval of project deliver- able and reports. The Steering Committee is also responsible for assisting in the development of subsequent inter-jurisdictional agreements for constructing, operating, and maintaining the regional traffic signal coordination system. The Steering commit- tee meets on a quarterly basis. Funding The costs associated with Phase I of Operation Green light have been around $13.1 million. These costs include the following: • the deployment of a dedicated wireless communications system to more than 600 intersections in the region; • the deployment of a regional traffic operations center, not only to manage traffic signals, but also to coordinate inci- dent responses; and • the replacement of some traffic signal controller infra- structure. The annual operating costs are approximately $1.2 million per year. The sources of funding from the program include the following: • local Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds, • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, • federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, • federal appropriation earmarks, • state and local operating/maintenance budgets, and • state ITS program funds (Kansas). Beginning in 2012, local entities will be required to provide a 35 percent match to the federal funds. MARC is exploring options for decreasing their reliance on federal funds. Agreement To participate in the program, each local entity enters into a coop- erative agreement with MARC. The cooperative agreement out- lines the roles and responsibilities of both MARC and the local entity. The agreement also contains a matrix showing ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the various communications and central monitoring software system. Also included in an appendix of the agreement is the Operations Green Light concept of operation, which provides detailed specifics on the processes and procedures to be used to perform the following tasks: • developing and deploying initial regional timing plans, • providing maintenance of timing plans, • developing and implementing incident management tim- ing plans, • handling and processing citizen complaints/requests, • maintaining and replacing responsibilities for the wireless communications systems, • upgrading controllers and working incident agency owned traffic signal controller cabinets, and • staffing of the traffic operations center. The cooperative agreement also contains a section that specifi- cally identifies the maximum amount of money each entity pays to MARC over the life of the project agreement (5 years) for the maintenance and operation of the Regional Traffic Control Sys- tem. Costs are allocated to each agency based on the proportion of agency-owned traffic signals to the total number of traffic signals covered by Operation Green Light. The agreement also shows the amount of money owed each year by the agency accounting from decreases in federal subsidies levels. Performance Measures MARC is responsible for conducting before-and-after travel time studies to assess the effects of improved coordination of traffic signals. Standard measures of reductions in travel time and delays are the performance measures used in these studies. APPENDIX C4. SITE SUMMARY FOR SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN/OAKLAND COUNTY While there is no formal regional traffic signal operations pro- gram, the agencies in Southeast Michigan have a long history of thinking about their traffic signal system from a regional perspec- tive. As early as 1999, state and regional agencies held a traffic signal summit to discuss the state of traffic signal operations and timings in southeast Michigan. The summit focused on three crit- ical issues related to signal timings: signal timing and progression, timely installation of traffic signals, and all-red clearance inter- vals. This summit led to the development of a traffic signal retim- ing program In 2005, SEMCOG secured a grant to create a Regional Con- cept of Transportation Operations (RCTO). To develop the RCTO, SEMCOG staff met with tri-county and Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) staff and first responders to develop a common vision among transportation operators for improving operations throughout the region. The group established the fol- lowing five operational goals to guide the development and deployment of their transportation management activities: • improve responder safety; • provide for safe, quick clearance of incidents; • provide prompt, reliable interoperable communications disseminating operational information to stakeholders; • retime traffic signal regularly; and • identify priority corridors for future investment. Administrative Structure There is no formal administrative structure that oversees the regional operation. Funding for retiming projects is often pro- vided by SEMCOG or MDOT. Local and counties agencies have a long history of working collaboratively and cooperatively. Agreements The RCOC frequently uses cost-sharing agreements for traffic signal work. Under these agreements, local agencies and the RCOC agree to share the cost of installing, operating, and main- taining traffic signals based on some agreed-upon formula— usually based on the percentage of signals located within each jurisdiction. These agreements also define who is responsible for paying the energy billings, who is the owner of the equip- ments, and/or who is responsible for providing and maintain the communications interconnections between signals. Agencies

are billed monthly and agreements can be terminated generally within 30 days written notice by any party. Roles and Responsibilities Oakland County, one of the counties in the SEMCOG region, operates its own regional traffic signal operations program, known as Faster and Safer Travel Through Routing and Advanced Controls (FAST-TRAC) system. Operated by the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC), FAST-TRAC is an arterial surveillance and control system designed to optimize traffic flow and squeeze out as much additional capacity as possi- ble from the existing roadway. The FAST-TRAC system utilizes the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) as the primary signal management system. Seven regional computers monitor network-wide traffic flow and balance traffic flows between major corridors. In this way, RCOC can adjust traffic signal operations area-wide to accommodate for traffic backups caused by traffic restrictions (such as incidents and work zones). These regional computers are connected to a central management computer where RCOC traffic managers can monitor operations on the network and make adjustments to signal timing strategies as needed. SEMCOG recently purchased a traffic signal management software system to serve as a central clearinghouse for all traffic signals for the four outer counties. SEMCOG uses this software system to keep track of when traffic signals in major corridors were last retimed. Working with the local counties, SEMCOG uses this information to develop a list of intersections and corri- dors that need to be upgraded. Local agencies also have the abil- ity to access signal information from other entities in the region, which can be used to coordinate operations. Local agencies that can access the system include the following: road commissions of Livingston, Monroe, St. Clair, and Washtenaw counties, as well as the cities and villages of Ann Arbor, Brighton, Dearborn, Ferndale, Fowlerville, Holly, Howell, Monroe, Pontiac, Port Huron, Royal Oak, and Ypsilanti. Another one of SEMCOG’s roles in the program is to identify regional priority corridors for signal timing upgrades and improvements. With the help of SEMCOG’s Arterial Traffic Management Committee, a total of 576 corridors were evaluated region-wide. Each corridor was ranked on a point scale of 1 through 18. Table C2 shows the criteria that were used to rank the corridors. The top half of priority corridors were further grouped into tiers with Tier 1 (those receiving 16–18 points) being the highest priority corridors, Tier 2 (those receiving 14–15 points) being the next highest priority, and Tier 3 (11–13 points) being the third priority corridor. This tier system is being used to focus limited resources on roadways based on needs and potential impacts and not jurisdiction. Funding for actual retiming projects is provided through Con- gestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Local agen- cies are responsible for submitting applications for funding. SEMCOG is responsible for processing applications. Because of their high “readiness,” traffic signal timing projects make good “backup” projects that can quickly utilize unused CMAQ funds that become available. Funding The program is funded using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Traffic signal retiming projects must compete along with other improvements for available funds. Eligible improvements funded through the program include the following: • signal systems improvements, such as interconnects, retim- ing, actuation, or optimization along federal-aid eligible roads; • retiming of individual signals along federal-aid eligible roads; • addition of dedicated turn lanes of less than one-half mile in length at congested intersections on federal-aid eligible roads; • intelligent transportation systems (ITS) projects improving the flow of traffic through congested corridors on federal- aid eligible roads; • transit projects, such as replacement of older, more pollut- ing buses with cleaner-running new buses and the acquisi- tion of new vehicles for service expansion; • operating assistance for start up of new transit service (three year maximum); • carpool and vanpool programs; 84 TABLE C2 EVALUATION CRITERIA USED BY SEMCOG TO IDENTIFY PRIORITY CORRIDORS Criteria Points Based On Safety 0–3 Weighted PCI (Crash Probability Manual) per mile scaled to a maximum of 3 Congestion 0–3 Percent of corridor overlapped by congested segments scaled to maximum of 3 Freight 0–3 1 for corridors designated as truck routes 1 for identified corridors connecting to ports, airports, or intermodal facilities 1 for identified corridors serving high-priority regional freight corridors Transit 0–3 Transit ridership by category (1: 1–4,999 riders per day; 2: 5,000–9,999 per day; 3: 10,000+ riders per day) Volume 1–3 Volume by category (1: 1–9,999 vehicle per day; 2:10,000–29,999 vehicles per day; 3: 30,000+ vehicles per day) Density 0–3 3 for corridors intersecting TAZ (traffic analysis zones) with household density > 3.0 or job density > 4.0 Activity Centers 0–3 3 for corridors intersecting one-half mile buffer around identified activity centers Functional Classification 0–3 3 for principal arterials; 2 for minor arterials; 1 for major/minor collectors; 0 for others

85 • certain non-motorized paths and bicycle projects, where these can be shown to divert motor vehicle commuting traf- fic that would otherwise take place; • diesel retrofit of fleet trucks; and • construction of roundabouts on federal-aid eligible roads. In order to enhance their readiness, traffic signal retiming proj- ects can be entirely covered by federal funds, rather than the typical 80/20 matching requirement. This eliminates the need for local agencies to work quickly to secure local matching funds. APPENDIX C5. SITE SUMMARY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA The Department of Public Works (DPW) of Los Angeles County has been completing Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (TSSP) projects since 1988. The program was initiated at the request of a local county politician who demanded the regional transportation provider begin operating their systems from a regional perspective. The goal of the program was to identify, develop, and implement innovative, low-cost opera- tional improvements to the network of traffic signals on the major streets throughout Los Angeles County. Today, the pro- gram is responsible for developing coordination timing plans for more than 2000 traffic signals. The primary functions of the pro- gram include the following: • provide training/certification for traffic signal technicians and operational personnel, • provide a forum for discussing regional traffic signal opera- tions issues, • develop traffic signal timing plans that facilitate cross- jurisdictional traffic flow, • provide consistency in signal timing practices between agencies, and • identify and establish priorities, corridors of significance, performance goals, and measures for the region’s traffic signals Using funding provided by the MTA, TSSP projects involve upgrading all the traffic signals along a route to keep the sig- nals synchronized, placing vehicle detectors in the pavement to detect the presence of vehicles and enable the signal to operate as a fully traffic actuated signal, and coordinating the timing of the signals between successive intersections. Organizational Structure Originally when the program was developed, working groups, called Regional Traffic Signal Forums, were established to facil- itate the development of operational timing plans. Each forum is composed of approximately 20 local entities. Each agency is responsible for operating and maintaining the traffic signals within their agency. In some instances, agencies contract with DPW for traffic signal maintenance. Also included in each forum are representatives from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local Council of Govern- ments. LA County Department of Public Works (DPW) is the lead agency administering traffic projects in each forum. Each forum focuses on a set of major commuting corridors in the county. A total of five corridor projects within three forums have been initiated to address regional traffic signal coordina- tion issues. The original intent of these forums was to identify and make decisions about operational improvements to support regional operations. Today, the purposes of the forums are as follows: • to identify and prioritize locations for expending regional resources, • to develop and implement coordination timings on road- ways that span multiple jurisdictions, and • to facilitate the development and deployment of advance traffic management concepts (such as transit signal priority) in the region. As the program has matured, the organizational structure has transitioned to more of a peer-to-peer structure, with LA County being the lead agency responsible for coordinating the improve- ments across jurisdictional boundaries. Funding Funding for improvements is provided through Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Signal Synchronization and Bus Speed Improvement program. The pro- gram is supported by local sales tax revenues. Projects funded under this program require a 20 percent match, with LA County being the primary source of the local match. These funds can be used to cover a wide variety of traffic engineering measures that can be categorized into four tiers: • TIER 1: Conventional Traffic Engineering—such as time- based traffic signal coordination and functional intersection improvements. • TIER 2: Transit Preferential Treatment and Priority Sys- tems—such as traffic signal priority and bottleneck inter- section improvements. • TIER 3: Computerized Traffic Control and Monitoring Sys- tems—such as arterial, area-wide, and central traffic signal control systems. • TIER 4: Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Inte- grated Corridor Management (ICM)—such as multi-agency system integration and advanced communications and ITS technologies. LA County’s Traffic Signal Synchronization projects compete with other projects funded through this program. The first phase of the program was completed in September 1995 when a total of 39 routes and 780 signalized intersections along 220 miles of streets in 58 cities and unincorporated areas were improved at an estimated cost of $17 million. The second phase of the program is ongoing and involves 104 projects on 72 routes, consisting of 1,800 signalized intersections along nearly 530 miles. Project Selection Currently, when projects are initiated, LA County works with each individual local entity to identify the specific routes and roadways to be included in a project. Each individual agency is responsible for making its own decisions in terms of what level of involvement they want in the program. Cities can elect to have LA County operate their traffic signals from their regional control cen- ter or construct their own improvements or install their own sys- tems. In the first situation, LA County will provide the technical expertise and interagency needs to establish multi-jurisdictional signal coordination. To secure funds in the program, the MTA issues a Call for Projects that utilize local mobility funds to develop traffic signal synchronization and intelligent transportation system projects.

LA County works with each local community within the sub- regions to identify potential corridors, identify equipment upgrades, and prepare a funding request. To be eligible for proj- ect funds, the roadway must satisfy the following criteria: • The project must be located on roadways included in the Countywide Significant Arterial Network (CSAN), a collec- tion of major and secondary arterials of significant regional importance. • The roadway must have a minimum of four lanes (two lanes in each direction). • The roadway should carry a minimum average daily traffic (ADT) of 20,000. • The roadway must currently experience a level of Service D or worse. • Any construction that occurs must be within the existing rights-of-way. Roles and Responsibilities of Partner Agencies Under the TSSP program, LA County is responsible for develop- ing the coordination timing plans (cycle lengths, splits, and off- set), while both LA County and the local agencies are responsible for maintaining the timing plan in the controller in their respective jurisdictions. Coordination timing is implemented on traffic sig- nal control hardware and software selected by each local agencies. The local agencies are responsible for establishing the basic sig- nal timing parameters (clearance intervals, pedestrian timings, etc.) based on local policy. The local agencies are also responsi- ble for performing routine and emergency maintenance on the intersection hardware. As part of the funding agreement, the local agencies agree to keep the coordination timing plan in the con- troller. If a local agency needs or desires a change to the coordi- nation timing plan, they must have approval of DPW in its role as the lead agency administering these projects. DPW works with the individual agencies to ensure the revised timing maintains coordination for all the signals on the route. The second component of the program is the installation of centralized traffic control systems for the cities. These systems provide central monitoring of traffic signal operations from a central location, and provide the capability to automatically adjust the traffic signals to facilitate the movement of vehicles through the intersections. With the deployment of these agency systems, the need for comprehensive software to enable DPW and each agency to view the operation of traffic signals across jurisdictional boundaries became apparent. Therefore, to facilitate these functions, LA County has devel- oped their own software, called the “Information Exchange Net- work” to support the exchange of traffic signal data from different control systems operated in the region. To date, this software pro- vides interfaces with systems from multiple vendors, including the city of Los Angeles, McCain/Quicnet, TransCore/Transuite, and Siemens/i2 systems. LA County is also actively working on obtaining traffic signal data from Kimley Horn Integrated Trans- portation System (KITS) and from Econolite’s Centracs systems. DPW is also working on including freeway congestion data from Caltrans into the software. Agreements Two types of agreements are used in this program, depending on the program component and level of supervisory control to be performed by the county. The first type of agreement is an inter- agency TSSP cooperative agreement. The purpose of the agree- ment is solely to define and document the roles and responsibil- ities of the respective city and the county when entering into a TSSP project and to confirm the associated liabilities of each agency. Nothing in the agreements is intended to alter the cur- rent roles and responsibilities of the participants in operating and maintaining the traffic signals and signal systems within their respective jurisdictions. Under this type of agreement, each city is responsible for designing, installing, operating, and maintaining the traffic signals within their jurisdiction. This means that each city is responsible for developing, operating and maintaining the basic signal timing parameters according to their local operating policies and practices, and that the county is responsible for devel- oping and implementing the traffic signal coordination timings along the designated arterials to promote regional traffic move- ment. While each city has the authority to change any of the sig- nal timings, they are required to notify the county of any changes that may impact the base coordination timing plans. An example of this type of agreement is provided in Appendix D7. The second type of agreement that is used in the program is for the intelligent transportation system component and specifically for those agencies that want LA County to provide supervisory control over their signal operations. This type of agreement not only allows the county to develop and maintain coordination tim- ing plans, but also allows the county to connect each intersection to the county’s central monitoring system. Using this type of agreement, the county is responsible for funding any and all equipment upgrades necessary to support developing and coordi- nating inter-regional traffic operations. This include such items as the installation of wireless communications systems to link iso- lated intersections, the installation of a workstation and connec- tion to LA County’s central monitoring and control system, and the implementation of new traffic signal controller firmware to facilitate coordinated operations. The agreement stipulates that the county has the authority to review, observe, and, if necessary, recommend revisions to and/or modify basic and/or coordination timings at the city’s signals with the approval of the city. The agreement also stipulates that each city retains the overall respon- sibility for operating and maintaining the signals within their jurisdiction, and will reimburse the county a specified amount for the annual costs incurred by the county for monitoring and oper- ating their traffic signals. An example of this type of agreement is contained in Appendix D8. Performance Measures While LA County does not routinely produce performance mea- sures reports, estimates showed that this program has saved motorists, on an annual basis, $218 million in vehicle costs, 14.8 million travel hours, 18.7 million gallons of fuel, and 7,700 tons of pollutants to date. Travel times were reduced by as much as 24 to 29 percent. APPENDIX C6. SITE SUMMARY FOR DALLAS–FT. WORTH, TEXAS In 2002, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) launched a Thoroughfare Assessment Program (TAP). The goal of this program was to improve traffic flow and enhance capacity of existing arterial systems by implementing new signal timing and low-cost operational improvements along selected corridors. Under the program, local agencies can apply for funding through NCTCOG to make operational improvements such as changes to lane assignments, upgrades to vehicle detection systems, additions of pedestrian push buttons, upgrades to traffic 86

87 signal heads, upgrades to traffic signal controllers and cabi- nets, communications to central monitoring computers, addi- tions of GPS clocks to provide time-of-day coordination, and minor restriping. The program was divided into three phases: • Phase 2.0, which included signal retiming and low-cost operational improvements at 482 signalized intersections in 20 corridors; • Phase 3.1, which included 258 signalized intersections in 13 corridors the Dallas–Fort Worth Metropolitan area; and • Phase 3.2, which included 1,178 signalized intersections in a total of 60 corridors. Phase 2.0 was completed in July, 2009, while Phase 3.1 and 3.2 were completed in June, 2003, and December, 2009, respectively. Project Selection A Project Review Committee was responsible for selecting the projects to be included in the TAP. The Project Review Commit- tee was composed of technical representatives of agencies that submitted project requests. NCTCOG provided initial review and scoring of the projects based on criteria established by the Project Review Committee. The Project Review Committee reviewed the draft rankings and scorings and revised the project selection crite- ria until there was collective agreement on the priority and rank- ing of the projects. Final project rankings and scoring were then approved by the Regional Transportation Council, which is a policymaking body composed of elected officials from member agencies. In addition to assisting with project selection, NCTCOG was responsible for procuring the consultant responsible for per- forming the assessment of corridor operations. The consultant was responsible for: • assessing corridor operations prior to initiating improve- ments, • collecting all necessary volume and turning movement counts needed to establish new timing plans, • developing new timing plans for the corridors, • identifying any needed changes to lane assignment or restrip- ing that would improve operational efficiency, and • conducting a before-and-after assessment of the improve- ments in operational performance once the retiming was complete. For all corridors, the consultant was responsible for developing new timing plans for the weekday a.m., midday, and p.m. peaks. In many cases, separate versions of a.m. and midday plans were required for times when school speed zones were in operation. Some corridors also required separate timing plans for other peri- ods (such as Saturday or late evening off-peak periods) based on traffic demands and travel patterns. Once the new timing plans were developed, they were submit- ted to the local jurisdictions for approval. The local entities, with the assistance of the local consultant, were then responsible for implementing the new timing strategies in local intersection con- trollers. The consultant was also responsible for “fine-tuning” the new timing plans to improve actual on-street performance. Funding Funding for the projects was provided using Congestion Mitiga- tion/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. These funds were used to make operational improvements only and for minor upgrades to com- munication and control equipment (for example, purchasing GPS clocks to provide time-of-day coordination). Local agencies are responsible for providing the 20 percent local match that is typi- cally associated with using CMAQ funds. No formal cost-sharing arrangements are used as part of the program. Agreements Because local agencies are required to submit funding for the project, an interagency agreement is required between NCTCOG and the implementing agencies. The agreement basically stipu- lates that the local entity is responsible for providing the match requirement for the project. The agreement does not stipulate that agencies are required to implement the timings developed by the consultant or restricts them from changing the timings once imple- mented in the field. Maintenance of the traffic signal equipment and timings are the sole responsibility of the implementing agencies. Each local entity is responsible for maintaining the control and detection equipment as well as the signal timing plans when implemented. Performance Measures Before and after travel times and stops were used to quantify the benefits of each individual project. These runs were used to assess the average travel time savings and reductions in stops generated by the signal timing improvements. Travel times runs were made with an instrumented vehicle traveling at the pace set by other traffic. The “before” travel time runs were made at the start of the project, prior to any changes in the previous signal settings. The “after” travel time runs were made after the new signal timing plans had been installed and fine-tuned. In addition to actual field measurements of travel times, proj- ect results were also estimated using Synchro™. For each corri- dor, a calibrated model of the before timings were compared with the calibrated model of the final timings. The measures of effec- tiveness (MOEs) that were compared included total signal delay, fuel consumption, and three categories of emissions (CO, NOx, and VOC). Outreach NCTCOG does not have a formal outreach effort associated with the program; instead it leaves the outreach to the individual enti- ties deploying the improvements. NCTCOG does respond to requests for interviews from the media and assists local agencies in clarifying the benefits of the program. At the conclusion of each program phase, NCTCOG’s consultant produces an execu- tive summary describing the assessments conducted, the types of improvements recommended, and the overall collective benefits resulting from the improvements. These benefits reports are avail- able through NCTCOG’s website. APPENDIX C7. SITE SUMMARY FOR DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is responsible for administering the Regional Traffic Signal System Improvement Program (TSSIP) for the DRCOG Transportation Management Area (TMA). The TMA contains more than 3,500 traffic signals operating in 32 different jurisdictions. Initiated in

1994, the goal of the program is to reduce travel times and vehi- cle emissions through the implementation of cost-effective traffic signal improvements and coordination timings. Originally when the program was first developed, the primary emphasis was on providing inter-jurisdictional coordination through techniques such as the deployment of a common cycle length, the replace- ment of unreliable equipment and controllers, and the installation of detection and monitoring systems for assessing demands. As it exists today, the program consists of two primary elements: • a capital improvement program designed to (1) raise the base functionality of the traffic signal equipment in the region to a specified standard, and (2) provide communica- tions linkages to traffic signals in high traffic volume corri- dors; and • a traffic signal improvement program that provides new and/or updated traffic signal timing and coordination plans every three to five years. The majority of the capital projects focus on installing commu- nication systems to support interconnection. Over time and as improvements have been made, the priority of the programs has changed from upgrading the basic functionality of traffic signal equipment at critical intersections to deploying reliable commu- nications systems to support the interconnection of traffic signals and other ITS. A fundamental component of the program continues to be the development of new time-of-day, scheduled-based timing plans. TSSIP ensures coordination across jurisdictional boundaries by having all controllers and control systems synchronized with the Universal Coordinated time (WWV time) broadcast by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder. Organizational Structure DVCOG operates as an independent agency, separate from the operating agencies in the region. DRCOG is the MPO for the Denver region and follows the typical MPO structure. A techni- cal advisory group, called the Transportation Advisory commit- tee, provides assistance to the MPO staff in developing policy options and makes recommendations to the Regional Trans- portation Committee. The Regional Transportation Committee is the policy board for the MPO and consists of elected officials from the region. The Regional Transportation Committee must approve the TSSIP each time it is updated. Funding The program is funded through the use of CMAQ funds. The pro- gram is specified as a line item in the TIP that allows DRCOG to fund different projects annually. The program is funded at approximately $3.9 million annually. Approximately two-thirds of these funds are directed towards the capital needs of the pro- gram. These funds are intended to be used to replace insufficient or unreliable communications in key corridors, to extend and incorporate isolated intersections into nearby systems, and to provide higher efficiency systems and equipment in support of regional ITS deployments. Approximately $1 million dollars per year is set aside for developing signal timings and coordination plans. A small amount of funds ($250,000) has been set aside for contingencies and miscellaneous equipment purchases. These funds are used to ensure that projects can proceed to con- struction if actual costs exceed preliminary estimates. Once it is certain that identified construction projects can be completed with the allotted funds, the remaining contingency funds can be used for purchasing miscellaneous traffic signal equipment on an as needed basis. Project Selection Retiming projects that are directly tied to capital projects have the highest priority, while non-capital retiming requests generally are secondary. DRCOG’s target goal is to review the timing on each of the major corridors every three to five years. DRCOG, in coop- eration with the local partners, is responsible for identifying DRCOG uses of their knowledge of the local operations as well as citizen complaints to identify roadways for these targeted studies. There is a group called the Regional Transportation Opera- tions Working Group that meets monthly to discuss regional transportation operations issues and build consensus on technical issues of regional importance. This group assists in preparing program recommendations to the DRCOG Board of Directors as well as serving as a forum for discussing technical and institu- tional issues related to regional signal timing. Roles and Responsibilities of Partner Agencies DRCOG’s Traffic Operations Program is responsible for imple- menting the program. The Traffic Operations Program has a staff of one supervisor, three traffic engineers, and three technicians. The staff works cooperatively with traffic operations personnel from the local entities and the Colorado Department of Trans- portation to develop coordination timings for the corridors spec- ified in the Traffic Signal Improvement Program master plan. DRCOG’s responsibilities include the following: • preparing system and operations plans in advance of design for capital improvement projects; • developing plans and bid documents for upgrades to traffic signal and communications infrastructure; • developing new timing and coordination plans following the completion of new capital improvements; • assisting with the implementation, field verification, and fine-tuning of traffic signal timing plans; and • conducting evaluation studies documenting the effective- ness of the improvement on corridor operations. The local entities’ responsibilities are as follows: • operating and maintaining traffic signal hardware and communication infrastructure once installed, • maintaining the traffic signal timings and coordination plans once deployed in the field, • fine-tuning operations of the traffic signal once the initial coordination settings have been deployed, and • approving plans and other documents prior to construction of capital improvements. DRCOG will also conduct traffic signal retiming projects at the request of a partner agency. Agreements No formal agreements are required to implement the improve- ments identified by the program. Program priorities are iden- tified in the Traffic Signal System Improvement Program 88

89 master plan. Because the program plan has to be approved by the Regional Transportation Committee, local agencies are obligated to abide by the projects and programs specified in the plan. DRCOG uses a formalized standard process for developing signal timing plans. The process, which was developed early in the program and adopted by the DRCOG’s technical advisory committee, provides step-by-step procedures for developing a signal timing project and highlights the reasons and responsi- ble agency/individual for completing the step. Performance Measures At the conclusion of each retiming project, DRCOG is responsi- ble for preparing an effectiveness evaluation for each project. This evaluation involves comparing before-and-after travel times to determine the amount of congestion reduction associated with each project. A benefits analysis spreadsheet is used to generate the following performance measures: • travel time savings, in terms of hours per day; • reductions in fuel consumption, in gallons per day; • reduction is pollutant emissions, in pounds per day; and • user savings, in dollars per day. Outreach DRCOG maintains a website (see http://www.drcog.org/index. cfm?page=TrafficSignalProgram) that provides an overview of the program as well as links to different documents associated with the program. The website provides links to summary tables that show the annual benefits associated with projects completed annu- ally by the programs. The website also contains a link to a brochure developed by DRCOG that provides an overview of the basic phi- losophy and challenges associated with timing traffic signals and traffic signal coordination. In addition to maintaining a website, DRCOG also produces a Signal Timing Brief at the conclusion of each project. Each brief contains a brief description of the project; a map showing the loca- tion of the project within the region; a listing of the local project partners; a summary of the project specifics (traffic volumes, tim- ing revisions, reductions in travel times, etc.); a summary of the daily benefits in terms of reductions in vehicle hours of travel, fuel consumption, time and fuel costs, and total pollutant emissions; and an overall assessment of the cost savings associated with the improvements. APPENDIX C8. SITE SUMMARY FOR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Orange County is currently in the process of formalizing a pro- gram developed specifically to address regional traffic signal operations and coordination issues. Run through the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the Traffic Light Synchronization Program builds upon the success of two demonstration projects: the Euclid Street Demonstration Project and the Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive Demonstration Proj- ects. Through these two demonstration projects, OCTA showed that managing signal operations from a regional perspective resulted in significant reductions in travel times and stops and dramatic improvements in air quality. As a result of the projects, OCTA is proceeding with the development of full scale Traffic Light Synchronization Program. To date, the program has focused on developing a Traffic Light Synchronization Master Plan that outlines the goals, strategies, and components for operating traffic signals coun- tywide. The goals of the Master Plan include the following: • Develop a strategic plan to achieve optimized performance of traffic signals along important traffic corridors through- out Orange County. • Build consensus among multiple cities and agencies to reach common operational goals. • Establish a multi-year method for implementing the strate- gic plan. • Maintain optimized traffic light synchronization in the future. The Master Plan is expected to be approved by the OCTA Board of Directors in the summer of 2010. Beginning in 2011, the pro- gram will begin the process of synchronizing 2,000 signalized intersections in the county. The program will be administered through OCTA. Agencies will submit applications for funding through the program. Agencies can elect to develop their own sig- nal timing plans or elect to have OCTA develop the timing plans for them. Each individual agency will be responsible for main- taining the coordination timing plans as well as all hardware and communications infrastructure in the system. Funding Recently, the voters of Orange County renewed local trans- portation ordinance Measure M, extending the existing $0.005 sales tax for 30 more years beginning in April 2011. One of the reasons the measure passed was the promise to use part of the funds to improve inter-jurisdictional traffic signal coordination. The measure requires that all revenues from the funds are to be deposited in a special fund and used solely for identified free- way projects, street and roadway improvements, transit projects, and environmental cleanup. These funds are administered by OCTA. It is anticipated that these funds will permit the syn- chronization of more than 2,000 signalized intersections across the county over the next three years. Local agencies will be required to provide a 20 percent match to use the funds for traf- fic signal synchronization projects. Day-to-day operations and equipment maintenance are the responsibility of the agency that owns the system. Project Selection To be eligible to receive project funds through the program, local agencies have to agree to develop their own Local Traffic Signal Synchronization program, which must be greater than or consistent with OCTA’s Regional Traffic Signal Synchroniza- tion Plan. The Local Traffic Signal Synchronization Plan must describe the processes and steps that local agencies will take to keep their traffic signals in coordination and operating effec- tively. The local plan should also contain a maintenance plan that outlines the processes that will be used to keep field hard- ware, communications, and detection systems running. A three- year estimate of the maintenance costs must also be included in the plan. One of the unique features of OCTA’s program is that OCTA has pre-qualified eight consultants who are allowed to work on traffic signal synchronization projects. These consultants must have demonstrated experience collecting traffic signal operations data and developing and implementing coordination timings for

traffic signal systems. OCTA will select one of these consultants as their agent when they are to lead a synchronization project. When a local agency is designated as the lead, they have the option of using one of these prequalified consultants or can per- form the work themselves. Roles and Responsibilities of Partner Agencies Roles and responsibilities for each individual project vary depending upon which agency is leading the project. Agencies have the option for using their own forces or OCTA to develop coordination timing plans. In the case where the agencies are lead- ing the development process, their roles and responsibilities are as follows: • Develop a local traffic signal synchronization program greater than or consistent with the Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan. • Participate in regional traffic forums. • Provide local match or in-kind services to support the proj- ect development and implementation. • Collect intersection traffic counts needed to support the development of timing plans. • Develop new timing plans that optimize signal synchro- nization and provide updated timing plans and turning movement counts to OCTA in a particular format. • Complete a before-and-after study of the project improve- ments. • Take reasonable steps to keep signal control system, inter- connections, detection systems, and related equipment in proper working order. • Perform the changes required at central or field locations and/or intersection controller assemblies. • Authorize a representative from the agency to make changes or adjustments to the signal timing plans, when required. • Provide OCTA with a project final report that documents the improvements had on corridor operations and the environment. In those cases where the agency elects to have OCTA lead the project development effort, many of these timing plan develop- ment roles and responsibilities transfer to OCTA (or their desig- nated consultants) for the duration of the project. Local agencies retain their responsibilities to maintain the traffic signal and com- munications infrastructure to local agency standards and policies. OCTA’s responsibilities in the program are as follows: • provide funds up to a specified amount to reimburse agen- cies for expenses in establishing and implementing timing plan changes that provide inter-jurisdictional operations, • perform web-based public outreach activities for each indi- vidual project to disseminate major project deadlines and results, and • provide project oversight in order to maintain inter- jurisdictional traffic signal operational integrity between existing legacy and new projects and operations. Monitoring of traffic signal operations will be done from multi- ple traffic operations/management centers with communications interface capabilities for data, audio, and video. Maintenance of central or supervisory control and data acquisitions systems and maintenance of interconnect communications are funded through the program. All other work is considered routine maintenance to be covered by each agency’s normal policies and procedures. Agreements OCTA is in the process of developing formal agreements that will be used to award project funds for individual synchronization projects. These agreements define the roles and responsibility of OCTA and the agency leading the synchronization project. Two different local project agreements are being considered depending on who is designated as the lead agency for the project. Appendix D9 shows the proposed model agreement to be used if OCTA is designated as the lead agency, while Appendix D10 shows the proposed model agreement to be used if a local agency leads the project. Performance Measures OCTA requires that a before-and-after study be performed as part of each traffic light synchronization project. In addition to stan- dard traffic signal performance measures (intersections stops and delays, reduction in emissions, etc.). OCTA uses three primary measures of effectiveness: speed, the “Green/Red” ratio, and the number of stops per mile. The “Green/Red” ratio is the number of intersections through which a floating car can pass through on a green indication compared to the number of intersections at which the vehicle is stopped by a red indication. OCTA combines these three measures to provide the Corridor Synchronization Perfor- mance Index (CSPI). Because CSPI is a composite score, it allows OCTA to compare the effectiveness of different synchronization projects that have been designed to address different operational issues (e.g., different progression patterns for alternate times-of- day and directions of flow). Table C3 shows CSPI values for the performance measures. OCTA sets a performance standard for acceptable level of operations—roadways that have a CSPI score of 70 or more are considered to be operating well. A report on the performance of the system is produced every 3 years. Outreach Outreach is a critical component of OCTA’s Traffic Signal Syn- chronization Program. To facilitate the development and imple- mentation of the Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan, OCTA hosted a series of Traffic Signal Forums. The purpose of these forums was to allow stakeholder agencies to express and address comments and concerns about regional traffic signal operations as a whole. Another purpose of these forums was to assist in the prioritization and phasing of individual deployment projects. OCTA used three tiers of traffic signal operation forums. The first tier involved representatives for all 34 cities in Orange County as well as OCTA, the county of Orange, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and pri- vate consultants. At this level, discussion focused on issues of regional significance throughout the entire county. In the second tier of forums, the county was divided into two halves (north and south). This division was based on the fact that different geo- graphic topologies impact traffic operations in the county. A third set of forums were formed to focus on operations in six dif- ferent commuting corridors in the county. In these forums, agency operators discussed common operational issues specific to these corridors and identified roadways in the corridor to tar- get through synchronization projects. Traffic forums continue to be an important element of the program. As a precondition for receiving funds through the pro- gram, agencies are required to participate in the forums. Fur- 90

91 thermore, the forums are where decisions about changes in estab- lished coordination timing plans are made. In order to change an established synchronization timing plan, agencies must first prove to their respective forums that the results of the proposed changes are beneficial to traffic operations in the corridor as a whole before changes can be made. APPENDIX C9. SITE SUMMARY FOR SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA (PITTSBURGH) In 2007, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), the regional MPO for the 10 counties and the city of Pittsburgh, com- missioned a study to outline transportation projects, programs, and policies to be implemented in the 10 county areas over the next twelve years. This study was an extension of the SPC’s Transporta- tions Systems Operations Plan, and defines the region’s priorities for improving operations within the southwest region. Through a series of stakeholder meetings, four key operation areas emerged as high priority to the region, including the following: • incident and emergency management, • traveler information, • traffic signals, and • institutional issues. To begin the process of executing these plans, SPC has devel- oped the Regional Traffic Signal Program (RTSP). The goals of this program are as follows: • provide outreach, training, and education to local govern- ment agencies; • update and maintain a traffic signal management database; • manage regional Signals in Coordination (SINC) projects (i.e., retiming and coordination project for signals that are adequately equipped); and • manage regional signals in coordination with equipment upgrades projects (i.e., projects that include both equip- ment upgrades and retiming and coordination plan devel- opment). SINC projects are projects funded and supported by the SPC to improve traffic signal timings at intersections that already have the equipment needed to provide coordinated operations. These projects have a quick implementation time (4 to 6 months), and are focused at developing new timing plans that provide coordi- nate signal operations across jurisdictional boundaries. To be eli- gible for funding under this category, projects must involve two or more signals that have controller clocks that can be synchro- nized to a common reference (via interconnection, GPS, etc.) and are currently running in free (uncoordinated) operations or whose coordination plans have not been updated in the past three years. SPC provides the funding and technical assistance to local agen- cies to develop optimized regional signal coordination. This sup- port includes field reviews, traffic counts, alternatives analysis, new timing coordination plans and other recommendations. In addition, SPC facilitates the development of multi-agency coor- dination and agreements to permit signals to be coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries. All efforts would be coordinated with local governments and the local Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) districts. The final component of the program involves projects where minor upgrades to the traffic signal equipment are needed before the traffic signal can be retimed to provide coordination. These projects, called SINC-UP projects, include upgrades to controllers, communications, and signal indications. This program is also used to remove unnecessary signals, as long as the removal can be shown to benefit inter-jurisdictional coordination. Like SINC projects, local governments can make requests for projects to be included in this program. SPC pro- vides the funding and traffic engineering support needed to re- optimize intersection and corridor operations. Construction of needed improvements would be coordinated through the local PennDOT District. Some examples of eligible projects are the following: • modifications to traffic signal timings; • modifications to traffic signal phasing; • replacement or modifications to traffic signal coordination equipment and cables; • replacement or modifications to traffic signal controller, controller cabinet assemblies, electrical service, and related electronic equipment; • replacement of incandescent vehicular and pedestrian signals with LED Module vehicular and pedestrian sig- nals; • replacement or modifications to pavement markings on the roadway; • replacement or modifications to vehicular detectors and associated hardware; • replacement or modifications to traffic control signage; Speed Green/Red Ratio Average Number of Stops per Mile CSPI Score Measured Performance CSPI Score Measured Performance CSPI Score 36 39 6.0 48 0.5 35 34 36 5.5 44 0.7 33 32 33 5.0 40 0.9 31 30 30 4.5 36 1.1 29 28 27 4.0 32 1.3 27 26 24 3.5 28 1.5 25 24 21 3.0 24 1.7 23 22 18 2.5 20 1.9 21 20 15 2.0 16 2.0 20 Measured Performance TABLE C3 CORRIDOR SYNCHRONIZATION PERFORMANCE INDEX (CSPI) USED BY OCTA TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRIDOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMINGS

• replacement or modifications to electrical and communi- cation conduit and junction boxes that do not impact, dis- turb, or modify pedestrian usability; • replacement or modifications to traffic signal electrical cabling; • removal of existing signal installations that are no longer warranted; • in-kind replacement or repair of existing sidewalks and accessible ramps only to the extent that is necessary due to the above mentioned work (areas must be less than 100 lin- ear feet and less than 500 square feet); and • maintenance and protection of traffic and other incidental items related to the above work. Improvements not eligible under this program include the following: • relocating and replacing of traffic signal pole or mast structures; • signalizing intersections that are currently unsignalized; • adding pedestrian features to an intersection where none currently exist (e.g., new sidewalks, accessible ramps, and/or new pedestrian signal where none currently exist); • widening any roadway; • performing any work that will permanently impact, dis- turb, or modify pedestrian usability; and • funding of complete replacement of signal infrastructure (unless otherwise authorized by the project selection committee). Funding The program utilizes Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to fund traffic signal synchronization and signal equipment upgrade projects. All projects must include timing revisions that result in optimized operations of traffic signals. Projects that involve signalizing intersections of currently un- signalized intersections or roadway widening are not eligible for project funds. Complete replacement of existing traffic signal installations can only be partially funded through the program. Only construction associated with the electrical components are eligible for project funding through the program. Local agencies are required to provide at least a 20% match of these funds. Tasks performed by local agencies using either in- house staff or outside contractors can be applied toward the local match requirement. Examples of eligible tasks include imple- menting new timing plans and/or installing new equipment and design services. SPC anticipates spending up to $3,000,000 in federal funds to implement traffic signal synchronization projects over the next two years (2008–2010). Project Selection To secure project funds, local municipalities must submit an application for program funds. Submitted applications are reviewed by a selection committee composed of traffic engi- neers from the local PennDOT districts and from SPC’s regional planning partners. Projects are evaluated based on the following criteria: • total amount of delay experience in the corridor (or roadway functional classification if not a priority corridor), • number of intersections being coordinated, • traffic volumes, • transit ridership, • truck percentages, and • accident rates. Additional bonus points are awarded to projects that are located in environmentally sensitive areas, involve integration with other regional traffic management functions, provide priority treatment for transit, or include additional local match. The project selection criteria are shown in Figure C1. Selected projects are reviewed and approved by the SPC Administrative Board prior to the awarding the funds to the municipalities. Roles and Responsibilities of Partner Agencies Prior to beginning any construction or implementing any timing improvements in the corridor using project funds, SPC and the local agencies must enter into either a memorandum of under- standing (for SINC projects) or local project agreement (for SINC-UP projects), which define the roles and responsibilities of each agency for the project. For both SINC and SINC-UP, SPC (or their designated consultant) is generally responsible for the following activities: • conducting field reconnaissance to inspect and verify field conditions and collect information on the study area required for a capacity analysis, including performing turning move- ment counts during weekday and/or weekend peak-period conditions; • performing a capacity analysis of existing conditions using SYNCHRO/SIM Traffic and/or Highway Capacity Soft- ware (HCS); • performing an analysis of the collision history in the corri- dor and identifying collision trends and potential counter- measures; and • developing recommended short-term operational improve- ments such as revised signal phasing, optimized signal timings and offsets, additional signal coordination, revised pavement markings, and revised signage. For those projects where construction is involved, SPC is respon- sible of the following additional items: • preparing all plans, specifications, estimates and bid proposal documents required to bid the project; • securing all necessary approvals, permits, and licenses from all other governmental agencies as may be required to complete the project; • submitting all required bid documents to PennDOT and the local municipality for review and approval; and • inspecting and supervising the construction work to insure its compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Local agencies have the following roles and responsibilities in each project: • provide at least 20 percent match of the total project costs, • maintain the traffic signal equipment in accordance to established local and statewide policies and practices and existing maintenance agreements, and • maintain the signal timings implemented in the project for a period of 1 year after completion of the project (unless changes have been authorized by SPC). 92

93 FIGURE C1 Evaluation criteria for prioritizing regional traffic signal operations projects performed by SPC.

Local agencies can also complete their own optimization study, design, and construction as long as they follow the requirements outlined by SPC, PennDOT, and FHWA. Agreements Within one month of award, fund recipients are required to enter into an agreement with SPC to waive all claims and indemnify SPC against any third-party claims that may result from the agency’s participation in the program. Prior to the commencement of any work by SPC, recipients are also required to enter into a local project agreement specific to each individual project that indicates the recipient’s commit- ment to their responsibility for providing the local match, and indicates the scope, schedule, budget, and each agency’s respon- sibilities for the project. For SINC-UP projects (i.e., projects involving minor con- struction), recipients must also enter into a cost reimbursement agreement with PennDOT prior to beginning the design and construction of improvements. A sample of this agreement is contained in Appendix D6. Since all signals in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are operated and maintained by local jurisdictions, local municipali- ties are already required to have local maintenance agreements with PennDOT. These agreements require the local jurisdictions to maintain their signals to a standard set by PennDOT. Any and all existing maintenance agreements between PennDOT and the local jurisdictions remain in effect after the signal retiming projects are complete. These maintenance agreements generally have the following requirements: • periodic inspections; • functional reviews of traffic operations; • appropriate preventative maintenance, including cleaning, lubricating, and refurbishing all electrical equipment; • a systematic recording-keeping system; and • a means of handling the notification and implementation of emergency repairs. Performance Measures After completion of the project, fund recipients are required to provide a report to their governing boards and SPC document- ing the benefits of the project. This report typically includes a before-and-after comparison of travel times and delays in the corridor, reduced emissions estimates, and reduced stops. SPC is responsible for providing the data to be used in the final report. Outreach SPC maintains a website that provides important technical infor- mation related to traffic signals (see http://www.spcregion.org/ trans_ops_traff_mun.shtml). This website provides a location where local agencies can find the following information: • federal and state technical publications; • local traffic bid prices; and • information about advantages, estimated benefits, cost savings, and grant applications associated with converting incandescent bulbs to LED. The website also contains a before-and-after video that shows the magnitude of the benefits that can be achieved through the pro- gram. The video provides a driver’s eye view of a trip before and after the traffic signals were retimed in one of the pilot projects. Through the video, local decision makers can see how upgrading the signal timing minimizes stops and improves traf- fic flow in the pilot corridor. The website also includes formal before-and-after evaluation reports for other pilot deployments in the region. In addition to operating this webpage, SPC regularly hosts training and professional development seminars about traffic signal operations. In 2008, SPC hosted training provided by the International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) that resulted in more than 50 individuals achieving Traffic Signal Level 1 certification. SPC also hosted 7 regional workshops that outlined the benefits of using LED signal indications. SPC plans to continue its regional training efforts as future needs arise. APPENDIX C10. SITE SUMMARY FOR NIAGARA FALLS/BUFFALO, NEW YORK The Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC) is an organization of fourteen agencies in western New York and southern Ontario, Canada, whose goal is to improve regional and international transportation mobility, promote economic competitiveness, and minimize adverse environmen- tal effects related to regional transportation systems. NITTEC operates a 24-hr traffic management center that collects and ana- lyzes real-time traffic sensor information, operates traveler infor- mation systems, and performs incident management functions for the Buffalo/Niagara region. To date, most of the deployments of transportation management functions and services have been oriented towards the regional freeways; however, NITTEC is expanding their role to take on more responsibilities in assisting in managing operations on the arterial street system. Funding The member agencies in the Buffalo area have established a $5.3 million revolving account. NITTEC is responsible for managing this account and, with the assistance of the local agencies, identi- fying what types of projects will be funded through this account. The account is used by member agencies to deploy and operate ITS traffic management improvements that provide integration and coordination within the region. NITTEC plans to use a portion of these funds to fund regional traffic signal operations and coordina- tion projects. Agencies would be required to submit an application to “borrow” funds from NITTEC to fund their projects. Applica- tions are then reviewed by a standing committee of peer agencies from multiple agencies. If the application is deemed reasonable, funds are then transferred to the requesting local agency. Funds can be used to pay for the development of regional traffic signal timing plans, and for minor communications upgrades that permit the interconnection of traffic signals systems. All central control room operations and management are funded through federal STP Flex and CMAQ funds, with appropriate matching requirements. Roles and Responsibilities of Partner Agencies NITTEC is responsible for staffing the operations control center. The operations control center is staffed 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. Through the center, NITTEC operates the regional part- ners’ freeway management assets (CCTV cameras, dynamic mes- 94

95 sage signs, etc.). Their primary mission is to manage these assets during incident conditions. NITTEC is currently working with the city of Buffalo to establish scenarios in which NITTEC operators would also operate the city’s traffic signals during incident condi- tions. These responses would be limited to invoking specific tim- ing plans developed specifically for these scenarios. Deployment of the timing plans would be through NITTEC’s existing central control software. In addition to these activities, NITTEC would be responsible for providing the following: • facilitating the deployment and implementation of regional traffic signal timing plans for severe weather events; • providing central monitoring of traffic signal operations throughout the region; • hosting forums for discussing regional traffic signal oper- ations issues; • developing standards and specification for communications hardware; • facilitating the deployment and implementation of incident management traffic signal timing plans; • identifying and establishing priorities, corridors of signifi- cance, and performance goals and measures for the region; • facilitating the deployment of advance traffic management concepts and control strategies in the region; and • providing travel condition information to travelers and commuters. Just as NITTEC is responsible for operating and maintaining the traffic management center software, NITTEC would also be responsible for integrating the disparate signal control software used by the regional partners into the core center software. NITTEC would also be responsible for managing and maintain- ing the communications network from the central system to the field devices. Each individual entity is responsible for maintain- ing the traffic signal hardware infrastructure. Agreement NITTEC is an independent operating agency responsible formed through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that states the willingness of each partner agency to cooperate and coordinate with other stakeholders to improve regional and cross-border mobility. A total of 14 agencies participated in the formation of NITTEC, including the following: • Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, • City of Buffalo, • City of Niagara Falls, New York, • City of Niagara Falls, Ontario, • Erie County, • Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, • New York State Department of Transportation, • New York State Thruway Authority, • Niagara County, • Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, • Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, • The Niagara Parks Commission, • Niagara Region, and • Town of Fort Erie. The MOU does not provide specifics on how NITTEC is to oper- ate the system, but establishes a general vision for how the trans- portation system is to operate from a regional perspective. It identifies the roles and responsibilities of the various entities and identifies the structure of the program. A copy of the MOU is pro- vided in Appendix D1. NITTEC has developed an operating protocol with the city of Buffalo that describes how NITTEC will operate certain road- ways within the city during emergency situations, such as inci- dents or severe weather. The protocol defines three scenarios in which NITTEC can modify the signal timing plans from the stan- dard plans: • when an incident or disabled vehicle blocks some or all of the lanes on a highway that results in adjacent or parallel city of Buffalo streets becoming congested, • when weather conditions (e.g., flooding, snow, ice, etc.) require the closure of a roadway or impede the flow of traf- fic, and • when an emergency evacuation of the city is ordered, result- ing in several roadways becoming congested. The signal timing plans (and the conditions in which they can be implemented) were developed by the city of Buffalo. The pro- tocol requires the following to occur: • The TOC may initiate a timing plan change when the TOC operator can detect that the conditions on the roadways are deteriorating. The operator is required to contact the city of Buffalo prior to initiating established scenario-based sig- nal plan change. • The city of Buffalo may contact the TOC and request that a signal plan be changed based on the specific scenario. • The TOC is required to monitor the traffic impacts on the city of Buffalo streets and notify the city when the situa- tion has been resolved prior to reverting back to a standard timing plan. Performance Measures NITTEC produces annual system reliability reports that show the monthly activities performed by the Traffic Operations Center. The following lists the types of performance measures included in these reports: • total number of incidents throughout the region, • incident severity, • number of incident response team assists, • incident response and clearance times (by type of inci- dent), • total number of incidents worked by Traffic Operations Center, and • reliability (up time) reports for CCTV, DMS, and other ITS equipment. APPENDIX C11. SITE SUMMARY FOR LAS VEGAS, NEVADA The Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) in Las Vegas is one of the nation’s first truly integrated transporta- tion management centers. A department of the Regional Trans- portation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), FAST is both a freeway management system and a regional traffic signal oper- ations program run from the same traffic management center. The FAST system combines elements of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Arterial Traffic Management System [formerly known as the Las Vegas Computerized Traffic System (LVCST)] and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) freeway manage- ment system. The system consists of more than 100 video sur- veillance cameras, 52 dynamic message signs, 29 ramp control signals, and more than 1200 traffic signals. FAST manages the

96 majority of traffic signals in the city of Las Vegas, the city of North Las Vegas, the city of Henderson, and Clark County—all of whom, along with the NDOT and RTC, are partners in FAST. Organizational Structure FAST is organized as a regional transportation management entity under the direction of RTC. RTC is both the regional tran- sit authority and the transportation planning authority for South- ern Nevada. Oversight of day-to-day operations is provided by the Operations Management Committee (OMC). The OMC is com- prised of one representative from each of the member agencies. Member agencies include the NDOT, Clark County, the city of Henderson, the city of Las Vegas, and the city of North Las Vegas. The OMC is responsible for recommending policy, estab- lishing operational procedures and principles, and providing over- sight of RTC’s FAST system operators. Member agencies are responsible for upgrades and expansions to the FAST infrastruc- ture that is within their jurisdictional authority. The FAST system is managed by a System Manager. The FAST System Manager is an employee of RTC and is responsible for the daily operators of FAST, including the day-to-day super- vision of FAST staff, system operations and maintenance activi- ties, the approval of additions of transportation management infrastructure, the development of transportation management strategies, and the preparation of the annual budget. RTC employs a total of 36 TMC operators, field technicians, and communica- tion technicians to support both FAST freeway and arterial man- agement functions. Roles and Responsibilities All traffic signals in the region are managed through a single traf- fic management software. Except for communications failures, FAST operators do little real-time monitoring of traffic signal operations. Instead, FAST signals are designed to operate on a time-of-day pattern. A total of seven time-of-day plans are used to manage arterial flows (an early morning plan, an a.m. peak plan, a mid-day plan, a p.m. peak plan, an evening plan, a late-night plan, and free operations). Operators can call special timing plans or make real-time adjusts to traffic signals during incident conditions. FAST operators are responsible for developing the coordina- tion timing plans for each of the major corridors. This includes establishing the cycle length, splits, and offsets associated with each coordination plan. RTC attempts to review timing plans from approximately two-thirds of the network annually. The cities and county are responsible for maintaining the base signal timing parameters (including minimum and maximum green settings, yellow and all-red clearance intervals, pedestrian intervals, etc.). Each local agency is responsible for maintaining the signal equipment within their own jurisdiction, including repairs to intersection controllers and signal field equipment. Each local agency is also responsible for maintaining the detection sys- tem used by FAST. Operators in the control center monitor the status of intersection detectors and notify the appropriate agency when maintenance is required. The local agencies are responsible for replacing and/or repairing failed detectors. Agreements FAST is established and operated through a cooperative agree- ment between the member agencies. This agreement defines the organizational structure of FAST, including the composition of the OTC; the roles and responsibilities of the OTC, the member agencies, the RTC (as the administrative agency for FAST), the FAST System Operator, and the FAST staff; and the mechanisms and formula for funding support of operations and maintenance of the FAST. The agreement also includes an indemnification section that requires each of the member agencies to be respon- sible for any and all liability resulting from injury or damage to any person or property that occurs within their individual juris- dictions. Member agencies are also responsible for any and all liability arising out of the hiring, firing, or termination of the FAST system manager or the administrative staff, if such action has been performed at the request of the OMC. RTC retains the liability for hiring, firing, or terminating the FAST system man- ager if such action is not requested by the OMC. Funding RTC used to receive funding from local agencies based on a fund- ing formula that considered the number of traffic signals and/or ITS field devices within each member’s jurisdiction; however, RTC now receives funding supported by an eighth of a cent trans- portation tax. These funds are used to finance major roadway capital improvements and other transportation improvements. A small portion of this tax revenue is used to fund the arterial management portion of the FAST program. These funds are pri- marily used to provide staffing support for the FAST center. These funds are also used to provide support for improvements and upgrades of the region’s signal program, to maintain the com- munications network, and to facilitate repairs to controller equip- ment. Funding for the freeway management side of FAST is provided by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Performance Measures While the RTC does not have a formal mechanism for evaluat- ing the effectiveness of their RTSOP, they do produce evalua- tion reports on an as-needed basis. When formal evaluation reports are produced, the primary measures of effectiveness used include intersection stops and delays, corridor travel times and speeds, and vehicle throughput. The RTC also used citizen complaints as a primary way of identifying corridors where sig- nal timing improvements are needed. Outreach The OTC meets once a month to discuss issues and topics of interests related to traffic operations. These meetings are open to the public and agendas and meeting minutes are public record. RTC publishes meeting minutes on their website. In addition to monthly coordination meetings, the RTC rou- tinely conducts interviews with local media outlets about on-going and planned projects. RTC has a very capable governmental affairs media group that proactively coordinates with local media. This group also staffs booths at local fairs and community activities. APPENDIX C12. SITE SUMMARY FOR PHOENIX, ARIZONA The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is responsible for administering the Traffic Signal Operations Program (TSOP) for the entities in the greater Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area.

97 The program began in 2003 when MAG developed a Regional Concept of Transportation Operations that serves as an overall plan for improving transportation operations in the region. This plan led to the establishment of the Traffic Signal Operations Plan (TSOP) in 2004. Through this program, MAG provides assistance to local agencies that own and operate traffic signal systems to ensure that they are operating efficiently. MAG provides assis- tance through an on-call consultant services contract with approx- imately 15 consultants. These consultants provide local agencies with the following technical services: • hands-on training in signal timing optimization and evalu- ation software such as SYNCHRO and HCS, • development and optimization of timing plans for traffic sig- nals, • field offset and timing adjustments following implementa- tion of initial timing plan settings, and • acquisition of turning movement counts for the a.m., p.m., and off-peak periods. Roles and Responsibilities MAG is responsible for administering the TSOP in the region. MAG has on call several local consultants who have extensive experience developing multi-jurisdictional timing plans for local agencies. Once a plan is approved, MAG works with the local agencies to develop a final scope of work for the project. MAG then issues a task order to one of its consultants under the terms of their on-call project. The consultant firm is then responsible for coordinating the development of the timing plans with the local entity and making recommendations to the local entity for signal timing improvements that promote inter-jurisdictional operations. Local agencies are not required to approve and implement the required timing plans; however, as the local agencies have numer- ous opportunities to provide input throughout the process, the likelihood of a local agency rejecting the recommended timing plans are minimized. By applying for funding through the pro- gram, local agencies are required to perform the following: • appoint a project manager to be the point of contact between the agency and the assigned consultant; • provide all necessary background information to the con- sultant including local requirements and policies concerning phasing sequencing, clearance intervals, and speed limits for all intersections within the boundary of the project; • coordinate required traffic counts during the a.m. peak., p.m. peak, and off-peak periods (only if the agency has volun- teered to do so in the application); • implement the signal timing plans recommended by the pro- gram in field devices; and • provide the agency’s implemented signal timing data to MAG to share with adjacent jurisdictions via the Regional Archive Data Server. Implementation of the new signal timing plans is the responsibility of the local entities. Depending upon the project, some timing plan changes are entered as the project is finished; in other cases, new signal timing plans are implemented as soon as practical after they have been delivered to the local entity. The local entities are respon- sible for all maintenance functions during and after each project. Agreements The MAG does not require any formal agreements with the local entities to participate in the program. To receive funding through the program, local entities are required to submit an application. Candidate projects are evaluated by the MAG ITS Committee, which is composed of traffic and transportation engineers from the local entities. Preference is given to projects that have the fol- lowing attributes: • requests for assistance in obtaining SYNCHRO or HCS (applicable only for those agencies that do not currently have these software tools for analyzing and optimizing traffic signal operations), • requests for hands-on training in SYNCHRO or HCS for agency personnel who are directly responsible for devel- oping and implementing traffic signal timings and daily operations of traffic signals, and • agencies that do not have in-house staff resources or exper- tise in developing traffic signal timings. Requests for project funding are evaluated based on the follow- ing criteria: • Technical Merit (maximum 25 points)—Based on the complexity of the project’s problem: High (25 points), Medium (15 points), and Low (5 points); • Multi-agency coordination (maximum 10 points)—Num- ber of agencies participating in the project determines the score, with projects involving a single agency receiving 5 points and projects involving two or more agencies receiv- ing 10 points; • Intersection/corridor performance (maximum 40 points)— Based on the average a.m./p.m. peak intersection level of ser- vice (LOS) from the 2003/2007 MAG travel time and delay study or more current local data. Roadways with intersec- tions operating at LOS F receive 40 points, LOS E receive 30 points, and LOS D receive 20 points; and • Longevity of project impacts (maximum of 0 points)— Negative points are awarded if the likelihood of a major roadway construction project will occur in the vicinity of the proposed projects within the next two years that will minimize the effects of the retiming. Projects expecting high impacts due to construction receive −10 points, while projects expecting medium and low impacts receive −5 points, and 0 points, respectively. The MAG Regional Council, comprised of political decision makers from the entities, has the final approval over the projects selected. Funding Initial funding for the program was provided utilizing Conges- tion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. The program was identified as a specific line item in the Region’s Transportation Improvement Plan. This allowed MAG the ability to fund multiple projects of varying sizes under one umbrella project description. Local agencies were not required to provide local match from the program—MAG provided all the local match for the local agencies through their in-kind services from adminis- tering the program. This allows 100 percent of the funds to be used to address project needs. Recently, funding for the program has changed. Voters in the region have approved a local 0.5 percent sales tax to be used to fund transportation improvements in the region. MAG has com- mitted to using a portion of the region’s tax revenue to continue funding the TSOP. The total amount of funds available for the

program in fiscal year 2010 is $321,000. Individual projects have a maximum limit of $25,000. Performance Measures No formal evaluation is required at the conclusion of each proj- ect. MAG routinely performs travel time and data studies as part of their model validation and verification process. These data are frequently used by MAG and applicants in the project justifica- tion and selection process. Outreach MAG’s main outreach effort is though a website that contains information about the program. The website provides a brief description of the program and lists the current and completed projects. Users can click on links that provide greater information about each project funded through the program. In addition to the website, MAG routinely hosts training and professional development seminars to their local partners on top- ics of importance to the region. This training includes hands-on instruction related to the use of traffic signal optimization and eval- uation software as well as traffic signal timing basics. This training is provided annually and has been credited with significantly rais- ing the level of knowledge of operation personnel throughout the region. APPENDIX C13. SITE SUMMARY FOR PIMA COUNTY (TUCSON), ARIZONA Nearly 100 percent of the traffic signals in the region are oper- ated through the Regional Traffic Operations Center (RTOC). Originally, established in the mid-1970s, the RTOC is one of the few multi-jurisdictional traffic signal systems in the United States. The RTOC is operated by the city of Tucson. The cen- ter provides the city with real-time monitoring of traffic opera- tions as well as emergency response. In addition to the arterial traffic signal system, the state of Arizona has installed a Free- way Management System (FMS) that includes cameras, vari- able message boards, and a fiber optic communication backbone along the Tucson freeway system. These devices are monitored by the RTOC as well as by City 911, the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Organizational Structure Pima County’s RTSOP is run through the Regional Trans- portation Authority (RTA). Members of the RTA include the cities of South Tucson and Tucson; Pima County; the Towns of Marana, Oro Valley, and Sahuarita; the Pascua Yaqui Tribe; the Tohono O’odham Nation; the Arizona Department of Trans- portation; and the Pima Association of Governments (PAG). Representatives from these agencies are responsible for estab- lishing policy and making technical decisions associated with the program. PAG provides contacted technical staff assistance to the RTA to assist agencies in developing a systematic approach to the selection of signalized locations for analysis and for developing coordination timing plan for corridors of regional significance. Roles and Responsibilities Each individual agency is responsible for installing, operating, and maintaining the equipment within their jurisdiction. The PAG is responsible for providing funding of infrastructure upgrades and some operations work. Each operating agency has a verbal agree- ment with the city of Tucson for sharing data and connecting indi- vidual traffic signal projects to the RTOC. Maintenance activities are not supported or performed through PAG’s regional program. Through their regional program, PAG administers a regional traffic signal service contract. PAG has hired two retired traffic engineers formerly with the city of Tucson as their contractors. These contractors are responsible for establishing a methodology for identifying which intersections and corridors are in need of retiming, and developing timing plans designed to improve regional coordination across jurisdictional boundaries. These con- sultants serve in an advisory capacity only to the local entities and their responsibility stops short of implementing the new timing plans strategies in the field. Each agency is responsible for imple- menting new timing plan strategies in their own equipment. Once the respective agencies have implemented the signal timing plan changes, PAG is responsible for conducting an evaluation of the timing plan changes and providing a report documenting the effectiveness of the timing plan changes. PAG’s consultant is also responsible for developing and main- taining a regional Synchro™/SimTraffic™ model for the region. The model includes all but 12 of the region’s traffic signals. This model serves as the foundation for developing coordination tim- ing plans. Funding Funding for RTSOP projects are provided through the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). The RTA was formed in 2004 after legislation creating the authority was signed by then- Governor Janet Napolitano in April. The RTA became effective August 25, 2004. The RTA is governed by a nine-member board, including representatives from the cities of South Tucson and Tuc- son; Pima County; the Towns of Marana, Oro Valley, and Sahuarita; the Pascua Yaqui Tribe; the Tohono O’odham Nation; and the Arizona State Transportation Board. Representatives of these agencies developed a 20-year, $2.1 billion plan of road- way, safety, transit, and environmental and economic vitality projects. Elements of the plan include intersection and capacity improvements, elderly and pedestrian safety improvements, tran- sit corridor bus pullouts, signal technology upgrades, and improve- ments to at-grade railroad crossings and bridges. Funding for the improvements is being provided by a 1⁄2 cent sales tax over a 20- year period. Fifteen million dollars has been set aside for improv- ing signal and communications technology upgrades. The plan and the tax increase were approved by the region’s voters in 2006. Performance Measures Although no formal process is used to assess and identify the qual- ity of the signal timing in the region, PAG is working with local agencies to develop a draft methodology for assessing regional signal operations. The draft methodology uses both field measure- ments coupled with regional modeling to assess the overall effec- tiveness of regional operations and identify system deficiencies. Candidate performance measures include the following: • intersection stops and delays, • numberof trafficsignalreviewed for timing plan adjustments, 98

99 • corridor travel time/speeds, • level of service, and • throughput. Agreements Once a project has been identified, local agencies are required to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the RTMA to implement the desired improvements. The intergovernmental agreement defines the types of improvements that will be implemented, the responsibilities of the participating agencies, the design standards to be used in the project, the financial account- ing requirements, and ownership issues associated with installed equipment. The intergovernmental agreement also outlines the payment and construction schedule for the project. APPENDIX C14. SITE SUMMARY FOR WASHOE COUNTY (RENO), NEVADA The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has just com- pleted a 3-year program to develop and improve regional coordi- nation between local entities in the Truckee Meadows area. Participants in the program included the city of Reno, the city of Sparks, Washoe County, and the Nevada Department of Trans- portation. During the program, the timing plans of more than 165 intersections were reviewed and timing plans were developed to promote progressive traffic flow along arterials of major signifi- cance in the region. The goal of the program is to ensure that the timing plan at every intersection in the region gets reviewed and upgraded at least once every three years. RTC performs signal timing review on approximately a third (150) of the intersections annually. The program is expected to continue into the near future. Future objec- tives for the program include implementing a new traffic signal system that can be accessed at all five entities in a multi-user, multi-tasking manner, and upgrading the traffic signal commu- nications network in the system to provide a more reliable and stable operating environment. In addition to this Signal Retiming Program, RTC, in cooper- ation with the local entities, recently completed a Regional Trans- portation Plan (RTP). This plan provides a long-term vision to address the current and predicted traffic operations issues for the region. In the Reno–Sparks urban area, there are three agencies that operate traffic signal systems and all three use the same man- ufacturer of hardware and software. Of the approximately 390 traffic signals that exist in the Truckee Meadows area, almost 65 percent are connected to a central control and monitoring system. Stakeholders are now discussing developing a regional concept of transportation operations and the feasibility of coordinating oper- ations activities through a consolidated traffic/transportation man- agement center. Roles and Responsibilities The initial focus of the program was to develop good time-of-day coordination timing plans that coordinated traffic operations through an arterial of regional significance. Many of these corri- dors cross through multiple jurisdictions. RTC was the lead agency in the program and was responsible for providing resources and expertise to assist the local entities. Using program funds, the RTC hired a series of consultants to assist them with the signal retiming efforts in the identified corridors. The consultants worked with the local entities to develop time-of-day coordination plans. The consultants were responsible for collecting all the data neces- sary to analyzing the existing operations, analyzing current oper- ating conditions, developing optimized regional timing plans, and assisting the local entities with implementing and fine-tuning the coordination timings in the field. The local entities maintain the overall responsibility of the intersection. This includes day-to-day operations of the signal as well as all emergency and preventative maintenance. While the local entities are not restricted from altering timing plans once they have been implemented, cities are required to notify RTC when changes to the coordination scheme are made and provide a record of the changes. The city of Reno has developed a formal policy and protocol for providing traffic signal timing protocols. This protocol is provided in Figure C2. Organizational Structure Under the initial program, the RTC operated as an independent agency. A Traffic Operations and Management Committee, comprised of the traffic engineers from the city of Reno, city of Sparks, Washoe County, and the local district of the Nevada Department of Transportation, assisted with establishing pol- icy (i.e., common vehicle and pedestrian clearance intervals, default actuation parameters, etc.), and priorities for the pro- gram. Actual implementation of the timing plans occurred as a collaboration between RTC (and its consultant) and the local entities. Agencies are currently exploring developing a more formal structure in which the RTC (or one of the other partner agencies) would be responsible for coordinating operational activities through a consolidated traffic/transportation man- agement center. Funding In this initial phase, project improvements were funded using Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Local match for the funds was provided by RTC. Agreements No formal agreements existed between any of the local partners during the initial phase of the program. RTC was responsible for hiring and providing administrative oversight for the consultants. No formal agreements requiring the local entities to implement the timing plans developed by the consultant were developed; instead RTC, the consultants, and the local partners developed the signal retiming strategies collaboratively. RTC is in the process of developing formal operating procedures and standards that can be used in future regional timing upgrades. Performance Measurement RTC performed before-and-after travel time runs in the corri- dors to evaluate the effectiveness of the retiming efforts. The “before” travel time runs were collected immediately prior to implementing the new coordination plans and the “after” runs were conducted after fine-tuning was complete. Before and after video was also collected of each run for each project. For a select few projects, RTC developed a video providing a side-by-side comparison of travel times before and after the improvements in the corridor. The video show how far ahead a vehicle finishes

a trip after the improvement is made compared to the before condition. RTC uses the video to illustrate the benefits of the retiming efforts. Outreach RTC maintains two websites where stakeholders and the pub- lic can obtain information about the program. On the first web- site, designed as a public education site, users can learn basic information about traffic signal timing, traffic signal coordina- tion, the benefits of coordination, and the disadvantages and limitations of signal coordination. The public can also provide feedback about operational problems that they are experienc- ing in the system (i.e., report operational problem, mainte- nance issues, etc.). The second website provides more detail about the specifics of the program itself. It contains links to the following: • the RTC Traffic Signal Demonstration Video, which shows the side-by-side comparison of before-and-after travel times on select improvement corridors; • the RTC Traffic Signalization Video that highlights the pur- pose of the program; • a benefits fact sheet; • a map of the corridors and facilities where timing plan changes were performed and/or analyzed; and • a list of the intersections included in the initial program. APPENDIX C15. SITE SUMMARY FOR FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA/MOORHEAD, MINNESOTA The Fargo (ND)–Moorhead (MN) metropolitan area consists of five signal operators between two states; therefore, it represents several unique challenges in establishing a regional traffic signal operations program. Most major and minor arterials cross at least 100 FIGURE C2 City of Reno Signal Timing Protocol.

101 two transportation agencies and jurisdictional boundaries, and at least one corridor involves the coordination of five transportation agencies. The Fargo–Moorhead metropolitan area has a total pop- ulation of 170,000, and the transportation system functions satis- factorily during most periods, but high demand levels during peak periods, traffic incidents, special events, and inclement weather all contribute to traffic congestion in the region. As in many regions, traffic signals comprise the majority of traffic devices in the region and have the largest potential for addressing regional traffic operations issues. The Fargo– Moorhead metropolitan area has 233 signalized intersections, 66% of which are operated by the city of Fargo. Control over the remaining signals is equally distributed among the city of Moor- head and the city of West Fargo, or either the Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation (Mn/DOT) or the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). In 2008, FHWA con- ducted an assessment of traffic operations in the Fargo–Moorhead area. This study found the following limitations associated with the current transportation system in terms of operations: • lack of coordination on inter-jurisdictional corridors, • varying levels of resources for agencies in terms of training and number of staff dedicated to traffic operations, • different software and hardware (field devices) between agencies that might hinder integration and information sharing (traffic data and traffic images), and • no established regional practices for traffic control and dealing with large-scale special events, incidents, or emer- gencies (e.g., flooding). To address these operational problems, the FM Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) formed a traffic operations working group to begin addressing the issues of traffic signal coor- dination and other operational issues. This committee is composed of representatives from the following agencies: • North Dakota Department of Transportation, • Minnesota Department of Transportation, • City of Fargo, • City of Moorhead, • City of West Fargo, • Cass County Highway Department, • Clay County Highway Department, • Metro Area Transit, and • Fargo–Moorhead Council of Governments (the regional MPO). One of the first steps of this committee was to develop an FM Traffic Operations Action plan, which focused on improving signal operations, developing system performance, implement- ing incident management, and creating a traffic operations cen- ter. This working group identified the following functions of the traffic operations center: • collect and share information about traffic signal timings, traffic congestion, incidents, road construction, and real- time video monitoring among the partner agencies; • implement inter-jurisdictional traffic control plans that coordinate traffic signal timings on major corridors and at freeway interchanges; • implement traffic management strategies in response to traffic incidents, including modifying traffic signal tim- ings and coordinating incident responses; and • provide information to travelers using different media, include dynamic message signs, Internet web pages, and traditional radio and television media. One of the unique features of this region is that unlike other areas that are building their programs in a piecemeal fashion, the Fargo–Moorhead area is taking a top-down approach. During the initial program planning phase, the idea of conducting a demon- stration project was discussed; however, because the area is not very large geographically, the local partners decided not to focus on just one initial corridor. Instead, regional partners decided to focus the program on providing interconnection of the various deployed signal systems. Therefore, the current emphasis is on building the regional infrastructure from the very outset of the program. Funding Because the region is not designated as a Transportation Man- agement Area (an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 that has not met certain other requirements, such as air quality control), the region is building their program using traditional funding mechanisms. These include local capital improvement program funds, federal and state transportation program funds, and state and local operating and maintenance budgets. Agreements Work is currently underway to develop a joint powers agree- ment that would allow each of the three operating entities (the city of Fargo, North Dakota, the city of Moorhead, Minnesota, and the North Dakota Department of Transportation) to oper- ate their traffic signals from either a hybrid or centralized traffic management center. While a final agreement has not yet been produced, the local partners have reached a consen- sus about the items to include in the agreement. Items cur- rently being discussed for inclusion in the agreement include the following: • performance requirements for operating and maintain coor- dination timings on facilities of regional importance, • performance standards for maintaining traffic signal and detection equipment and performing emergency repairs, and • requirements for sharing and retaining traffic and signal per- formance data. A final agreement is expected to be drafted and adopted within the next 8 to 18 months. Three levels of interagency agreements are needed in the Fargo–Moorhead region: • agreements between a state entity and local entities, • agreements between multiple local entities, and • agreements between two state entities. Outreach Outreach is envisioned to be a critical component of the Fargo–Moorhead regional traffic signal operations program development process. The MPO includes information about the regional signal efforts in its newsletters and other monthly pub- lications. The MPO recently hosted a workshop where the ben- efits of regional traffic signal coordination were discussed. Efforts are currently underway to develop materials for commu- nicating information about the program to public and elected officials.

APPENDIX C16. SITE SUMMARY FOR DISTRICT 4, OREGON DOT (BEND, OR) The Region 4 Traffic Section of the Oregon Department of Trans- portation (ODOT) is responsible for traffic engineering, opera- tions, maintenance, and safety in central Oregon. Region 4 is responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of U.S. and state highways from the Columbia River to the Califor- nia border and from the crest of the Cascade Range to the Oregon High Desert. The Traffic Section is responsible for the mainte- nance and operation of traffic signals on state system roadways within the region. ODOT operates approximately 170 traffic sig- nals in the region, more than three-quarters of which are included in an RTSOP. Primarily a rural area, Region 4 is often responsi- ble for operating traffic signals for small cities and urban transi- tion areas. The RTSOP in the region has been operational for more than 10 years. Organizational Structure Region 4 uses a more traditional organizational approach to their RTSOP. The state DOT technical staff takes the lead on devel- oping the program goals and objectives and works with local agencies to implement the plan. The key to success in Region 4, however, is the personal relationships that ODOT operations staff has with the other stakeholders in the region. Personal rela- tionships make it easy to form ad hoc committees when needed to address operational problems or to respond quickly to oppor- tunities for collaboration. In these situations, decisions are made by consensus. Most of the collaboration occurs when large land developments are being planned for areas. ODOT stated that having strong relationships built on years of experience and working together is critical to the success of their program. Through the years, stakeholders have developed a common thought process for identifying opportunities for col- laboration. Roles and Responsibilities According to ODOT’s Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines, the region traffic manager (designated representative) is responsible for the timing of traffic signals on state highways. Generally, ODOT is responsible for the design, inspection, timing, and maintenance of traffic signals at intersections of state highways and country roads or city streets. Typically, ODOT will enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the local agencies to clar- ify roles, arrange for maintenance, and allocate costs. ODOT’s primary role is to ensure that traffic signals are installed to the standard defined by the Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines. For the intersection of two (or more) non-state highways, ODOT’s responsibility is generally limited to design review and contract inspection, although ODOT may perform survey, design, con- struction administration, and inspection through an interagency agreement. Often, the costs for these services are billed to the local agency. Common functions performed by ODOT through their RTSOP include the following: • develop standards and specifications for traffic signal hardware, • provide consistency in signal timing practices between agencies (i.e., clearance intervals, intersection configura- tion, pedestrian timings and policies, etc.), • provide outreach to the public and decision makers, • develop traffic signal timing plans to facilitate cross-juris- dictional traffic flow, • develop standards and specifications for controller software, • develop standards and specifications for communications hardware, • develop and maintain a database of timing parameters and plans for traffic signals in the region, • provide central monitoring of traffic signal operations from a regional perspective through a single traffic management center, • provide a single point of contact for reporting and respond- ing to citizen complaints, and • facilitate the deployment of advanced traffic management concepts and control strategies, such as adaptive traffic signal control, integrated corridor management, etc. Funding Funding for the program is provided through typical state DOT funding mechanisms. All of the following funding sources have been used to fund projects and activities performed by the RTSOP: local capital improvement project (CIP) funds, American Recov- ery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, federal Surface Trans- portation Program (STP) funds, and state and local operating/ maintenance discretionary funds. Depending upon the location of the signal systems, ODOT has cost-sharing agreements with local entities to provide emergency maintenance repairs, ongoing daily operations, and/or routine and preventative maintenance. Performance Measurement Currently, a formal approach is not used to evaluate the effective- ness of ODOT’s Region 4 RTSOP. Other than citizen complaints, ODOT Region 4 currently does not follow a strategic process for identifying roadways that would benefits from increased inter- jurisdictional control. ODOT Region 4 currently does not rou- tinely produce a formal effectiveness report of their program. This is primarily due to the nature of their program and the relatively few opportunities for inter-jurisdictional collaboration. Outreach and Public Education ODOT Region 4 does not have a formal process for outreach and public education. Outreach generally occurs on a project-by- project basis, when needed. ODOT’s primary mechanism for providing outreach and public education is through local media. Region 4 personnel will be interviewed by local media occasion- ally to discuss changes in traffic operations or signal timings at key locations. APPENDIX C17. SITE SUMMARY FOR PUGET SOUND (SEATTLE, WASHINGTON) Beginning in 2007, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has been working to develop an RTSOP for the Puget Sound, near Seattle, Washington. The need for the program came about as a result of an FHWA-led assessment of the current state-of-the- practice of traffic signal operations in the region. This study found that the limited focus on support for operations at all levels and the absence of regional agreements on operations of traffic signals limited the effectiveness of traffic signal operations in the region. To address these issues, PSRC developed an advisory group, the Regional Traffic Operations Committee, comprised of repre- sentatives from more than 30 agencies, including cities, coun- ties, and the Washington State Department of Transportation 102

103 (WSDOT), to begin creating the foundation for an RTSOP in the Puget Sound area. Building upon the success of the regional freeway management/ITS system, this group has been working to develop a regional concept of traffic operations and identify- ing strategies for improving the operations of the arterial net- work. Much of the work so far in the program has focused on two region-wide planning documents: the Regional ITS Imple- mentation Plan (RITSIP) and the Regional Concept of Traffic Operations (RCTO). The RITSIP identifies ITS improvements for 25 key multi-jurisdictional arterial corridors, while the RTCO identifies the relationships, procedures, and resource arrange- ments needed to operate these corridors. Regional signal co- ordination is a core function to be used in these corridors. Organizational Structure Figure C3 shows the proposed structure for implementing RTSOP in the Puget Sound area. The concept proposed utilizes lead agen- cies, partner agencies, and contact agencies. The lead agency would typically be the agency with the most traffic signals in the corridor. It would be the lead agency’s role to develop daily and incident timing plans using global parameters that were agreed upon by the local partners. Partner and contract agencies would provide data collection and performance analysis support. While ideally all of the corridor’s signals would be on a single system and operated by the lead agency, a partner agency may still oper- ate the signals along a segment of the corridor and coordinate their operation with the lead agency. Most likely, there would be mul- tiple lead agencies across the region, depending on the geographic basis of the projects being implemented. WSDOT would continue to operate its freeway management system. Roles and Responsibilities Under the proposed structure, the following have been identified as potential roles and responsibilities for partners participating in the program: • Corridor Lead Agency—This entity would be the one agency primarily responsible for operating the traffic sig- nals in the corridor. Their primary roles would be to develop and implement signal timing plans (with input from the other partner agencies); provide for the daily operations of the system; and conduct before-and-after analyses and respond to inquiries from the public. • Partner Agencies—These agencies would continue to oper- ate their traffic signals not centrally controlled or spaced too far from the system to prevent coordination. Each partner agency would retain the ability to control the signal that they are currently operating. • WSDOT—WSDOT could continue to operate the ramp control signals through its freeway management system. WSDOT may take on the role of a lead agency or partner agency depending upon the circumstances and nature of the corridor. • Contract Agency—This would be an agency that does not have direct responsibility for operating traffic signals, but provides data collection and other support. Agreements Currently, no formal agreement exists between partner agencies; however, the local partners have expressed a preference to use for- mal agreements as the program develops. This will allow the local partners to build support with decision makers who must sign the agreements. These agreements are currently under development by the PSRC. Funding According to the RCTO, no secured funding source has yet been identified for implementing the proposed program in the Puget Sound area. Currently, the plan is looking for a dedicated source of funds through the PSRC. FIGURE C3 Proposed operational concept for regional signal coordination in the Puget Sound area.