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.
9RTSOPs represent a relatively new paradigm for operating traffic signal systems, especially those systems that cross juris- dictional boundaries. The development of RTSOPs began in the late 1990s as deployment of advanced communications and ITS became more prevalent and agencies began to see the potential (and real) benefits of regional traffic operations. However, although many of the early ITS deployments were focused on the freeway system, agencies realized that ITS deployments on arterials could deliver performance improve- ments on the street network. Another catalyst for the formation of an RTSOP was the enactment of federal legislation that provided a dedicated source of funding to implementing sur- face transportation improvements (and other related proj- ects) that contribute to air quality and congestion-reduction improvements. The primary goal of this synthesis project was to document the current state of the practice of RTSOPs from around the United States. Specifically, the focus of the project was to identify the operational and institutional agreements and prac- tices that allow agencies to work together on a regional scope to collaboratively and cooperatively develop and sustain pro- grams dedicated to improving traffic signal operations. To ful- fill these requirements, a combination of (1) surveys of MPOs and regional transportation agencies, and (2) interviews with practitioners to assess the current state of the practice of regional traffic signal operations programs was used. This chapter describes the results of those efforts. SURVEY A survey was developed to gauge the state of the practice of U.S. RTSOPs. The purpose of the survey was to (1) obtain basic information about the current practices and activities performed in support of regional traffic signal operations throughout the United States, and (2) identify locations that currently have formal RTSOPs. Itâs an online survey using a commercially available survey tool. A copy of the survey is in Appendix A. Using the results of the survey, 15 sites were identified to conduct more detailed interviews to collect more in-depth information about the organizational structure, activities, functions performed, and roles and responsibilities of various RTSOPs. Another aspect of the interview process was to col- lect existing agreements that show the variety of arrangements used to structure, fund, and operate these programs. These existing agreements can be used as samples for other regions to emulate in developing their own programs. The criteria used to select locations for follow-up interviews included survey responses, geographic location, program size, existing (or potential) RTSOP organizational structure, lead agency type, and level of maturity. A copy of the interview script is pro- vided in Appendix B. The findings from the surveys are syn- thesized in this and the following chapters. SURVEY RESULTS A cover letter with a link to the survey instrument was mailed electronically to more than 320 MPOs and regional trans- portation authorities throughout the United States. A total of 70 agencies responded, either partially or in whole, to the sur- vey. Fifty-six agencies completed the survey document. As shown in Figure 3, 55% of the respondents indicated that they have some type of RTSOP for their region. If agencies indicated that they had an operational RTSOP in their region or locale, they were asked to self-identify the level of development of their program. A total of 16 agencies indicated that they had formal RTSOPs, 6 that they were in the early stages of developing a formal program, and 9 indicated that although they had an informal program, they expected to transition to a more formal program in the next 3 to 5 years. The following is a list the locations of each of the programs responding in each level of development. Formal Program Active in Region ⢠Orange County, CA ⢠Macon, GA ⢠Detroit, MI ⢠Kansas City, KS/MO ⢠Fargo, ND/ ⢠North Carolina Moorhead, MN ⢠Buffalo/Niagara ⢠Los Angeles Falls, NY County, CA ⢠Bend, OR ⢠Tucson, AZ ⢠Portland, OR ⢠Reno, NV ⢠Las Vegas, NV ⢠Pittsburgh, PA ⢠San Francisco Bay ⢠Harris County, TX Area, CA Program in Early Stages of Development ⢠Auburn, ME ⢠Huntington, WV ⢠St. Louis, MO ⢠Seattle, WA ⢠Johnson City, TN ⢠Richmond, VA CHAPTER TWO STATE OF THE PRACTICE OF REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS PROGRAMS
Expect to Have Formal Program in 3 to 5 Years ⢠Baltimore, MD ⢠Lancaster, PA ⢠Chicago, IL ⢠Columbus, OH ⢠Columbus, IN ⢠Omaha, NE ⢠Philadelphia, PA ⢠West Lafayette, IN ⢠Newark, NJ Relative Size of RTSOPs Respondents were asked to provide an indication of both the number of traffic signals within their region and an estimate of the percentage of traffic signals included in their RTSOPs. Figure 4 shows how respondents answered the question about how many traffic signals are included in their region. Sixty- four percent of the respondents noted that their region contains more than 500 traffic signals. Only 13% of the respondents indicated that they have fewer than 100 signals in their region. Clearly, this demonstrates that RTSOPs are more often used in regions that have a relatively large number of traffic signals. Figure 5 shows how agencies responded when asked what percentage of the total number of traffic signals included are operated and maintained under an RTSOP. A total of 70% of those agencies reporting that they have an RTSOP also oper- ate and/or maintain their traffic signals through their pro- grams. Almost 21% of the agencies reporting that they have an RTSOP also indicated that all (100%) of their traffic signals were included in the program. Thirty-one percent of the agen- cies reporting that they have an RTSOP also estimate that between one-half and three-quarters of their traffic signals were included in the program. This suggests that once agencies 10 begin to regionalize operations through their RTSOPs, the ten- dency is for the programs to grow to include the vast majority of the traffic signals in the region. Figure 6 shows how agencies responded to the question pertaining to the number of years their RTSOP has been oper- ational. Approximately one-third of the respondents indicated that they have been operating their program for more than 5 years, whereas 26% of the respondents indicated that they have been operating their systems between 1 and 5 years. Thirty-three percent of the respondents with RTSOPs indi- cated that their programs were still under development. Almost two-thirds of the agencies that reported using RTSOPs did not report using formal criteria to select roadway facilities for operational improvements through inclusion in their RTSOP. This implies that agencies have other factors that they consider when determining which roadways to include in their program. Roadway functional classification and regional importance were often cited as reasons for includ- ing roadways in their programs. Figure 7 shows the factors that agencies consider important when selecting roadways to be included in their RTSOP; agencies were permitted to select multiple factors influencing their decisions. The results show that RTSOPs tend to focus on roadways with high traffic vol- umes that also function as major commuting corridors, but may also be roadways that connect major trip generators. These characteristics tend to point to roadways of significant importance to regional mobility. Furthermore, the finding that âexcessive delaysâ was lower rated as an important factor suggests that agencies may have higher intrinsic goals (such as regional mobility) other than strictly operational performance as a goal for their programs. FIGURE 3 Percentage of respondents indicating the presence of an RTSOP in their region (n = 56).
11 FIGURE 4 Distribution of agency responses as to the number of traffic signals included in region where RTSOPs are deployed (n = 31). FIGURE 5 Distribution of agency responses indicating the percentage of regional signals included in their RTSOPs (n = 29).
12 FIGURE 6 Distribution of agency responses indicating the number of years their RTSOPs have been operational (n = 30). FIGURE 7 Factors important in selecting roadways for inclusion in an RTSOP. 16 15 13 10 11 10 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 High Traffic Volumes Major Commuting Corridor Connect Major Trip Generators Experience Excessive Delays Primary Transit Routes Critical Facility Other Fr eq ue nc y of R es po ns es Other contributing factors cited as influencing the decision process for selecting roadways to include in their RTSOPs were: ⢠Signalized intersections at freeway interchanges, ⢠Primary evacuation routes or diversion routes for free- way incidents, ⢠Part of a regional network of high-priority roadways, ⢠Truck percentages, ⢠Accident rates, ⢠Air quality, ⢠Potential for integration with regional traffic manage- ment center, ⢠Need for transit priority, and ⢠Potential of local match. Organizational Structure and Decision Making Respondents were asked to select from several options the organizational structure that best described their system. Table 1 summarizes these responses.
13 Responding agencies were also asked to indicate how key decisions are made within their programs. Figure 8 shows how agencies responded. Approximately one-half of the respon- dents (48%) indicated that decisions are made by consensus (100% agreement), whereas 11% indicated that decisions are made by an executive director or program director with input and oversight from a committee of member agencies. Several respondents indicated that the traffic signal timing plans developed as part of their program are merely sugges- tions and that each agency is ultimately responsible for mak- ing decisions regarding the operation and timing of the signals that it owns. Other respondents noted that agency approval is needed before new operational settings can be implemented in field devices. Several respondents also indicated that because of good working relationships and trust that exist between partners operational decisions are often reached by mutual agreement. Agreements and Institutional Arrangements Agencies were asked to indicate the reasons (or motivating factors) for establishing their RTSOPs. Table 2 summarizes these responses. Three of the top four reasons (to improve progression, create operational efficiencies, and facilitate advanced traffic management strategies) all suggest that agen- cies are creating RTSOPs as mechanisms for improving traf- fic flows and providing operational efficiencies, and all four of the top-cited reasons suggest that agencies are self-motivated in developing these programs. Issues associated with optimiz- ing funding (i.e., to identify or prioritize locations to expend limited funds and to leverage or pool funds and/or resources and leverage staff expertise with a fellow operating agency) all rated in the middle of the frequency of responses, whereas externally motivated factors (such as responding to external public pressure; responding to political pressures; and adher- ing to local, state, or federal regulations) all rated low as TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES INDICATING THE TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE EMPLOYED BY RTSOPs Potential Organizational Structures Frequency Percentage We formed a separate, stand-alone committee comprised of traffic signal engineers and decision makers from the public entities that make technical decisions for our RTSOP. 8 27 Our RTSOP is run through an independent agency, such as a MPO, a council of governments, or a governmental corporation. The program is managed by an executive director or program director with an independent technical staff. Technical assistance and oversight might be provided by a committee of agency representatives. 5 17 We have an executive committee of senior decision makers from each agency (e.g., district engineers, director of public works, etc.) that sets the policy for our RTSOP. Each member entity is responsible for implementing the policy set by the executive committee. 1 3 We have an executive committee of senior decision makers from each agency (e.g., district engineers, director of public works) that sets the policy for our RTSOP. The executive committee is supported by a technical committee of traffic signal engineers and decision makers that make implementation decisions for the RTSOP. Each member entity is responsible for implementing the decision of the technical committee. 1 3 Other (see below) 15 50 Our RTSOP is run through an independent agency, such as a MPO, a council of government, or a governmental corporation. Within the MPO committee structure we have a steering committee of senior decision makers from each agency (e.g., district engineers, director of public works, etc.) that sets the policy for our RTSOP. The executive committee is supported by a technical committee of traffic signal engineers and decision makers that make implementation decisions for the RTSOP. The program is managed by an executive director or program director with an independent technical staff. The county, as lead agency, provides the technical expertise and recommends routes to be included in the program. When the program was established, we worked with committees from each of the councils of governments. Now we work directly with each involved agency to obtain approvals as necessary. The DOT technical staff takes the lead on program goals and priorities and works with the local agency staff on an ad hoc basis. It is a combination of an independent governmental agency with technical staff and executive/technical committees in a tiered structure that make and implement decisions for the RTSOP. These decision makers are also agency policy makers and engineers responsible for implementation of the policy and systems. Currently, our Traffic Operations Working Group is a subcommittee of the MPO Policy Board. However, our program is still emerging, so we are likely to advance to a more ìpolitically â defined MOU of sorts in the next 8 to 24 months. The structure of the MOU will likely point toward a stand-alone governing body, made up of senior technical staff, which will report to elected public bodies (cities, DOTs, etc.). A stand-alone committee organized by the MPO. The RTSOP is run through the MPO, but the MPO is comprised of the members of the stand-alone committee. Technical decisions are made through the stand-alone committee. The MPO provides contracted technical staff assistance to the MPO and the RTSOP for the program, including the current development of a systematic approach to the selection of signalized locations for analysis and time plan adjustment consideration. In summary, we are an MPO. A technical working group consisting of operations staff from each partner agency assists the MPO staff in the development and update of the capital improvement program. MPO staff also provides assistance in the development of inter-jurisdictional signal timing and coordination plans. The MPO Board, consisting of elected officials, must approve the program each time it is updated. MOU = memorandum of understanding.
motivating factors. This suggests that agencies see inherent value in developing these programs and are self-motivated to improve operational efficiencies as opposed to being driven by funding issues or in response to public outcry. Other reasons cited as being a motivating factor for establishing these pro- grams included the following: ⢠To provide a voluntary, supplementary transportation strategy to reduce ground level ozone pollution in the region. ⢠To address the identified strategies in an approved Regional Operations Plan or Regional Concept of Trans- portation Operations document that was developed by 14 local planning partners and adopted by a regional over- sight board. ⢠To address common signal timing parameters (clearance intervals), expedite purchasing of equipment, and facili- tate coordination with utilities. ⢠To expedite purchasing of equipment. ⢠To facilitate coordination with utilities. Agencies were asked to indicate what types of institutional agreements were used to establish their RTSOPs. In short, more than half of the agencies indicated that they did not use any formal agreement to establish their program (this includes those that indicated that they had no agreement but checked FIGURE 8 Summary of how decisions are made in existing RTSOPs (n = 27). TABLE 2 FACTORS AND/OR REASONS CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING RTSOPs Motivating Factors/Reasons for Establishing RTSOPs Frequency Percentage To improve progression and coordination on roadways that span multiple jurisdictions 21 70 To create operational and resource efficiencies among transportation agencies in the region 20 67 Internally motivated by one or more partner agency 18 60 To facilitate the development and/or deployment of advanced transportation management strategies (such as integrated corridor management or transit signal priority) in the region 16 53 To identify/prioritize locations for expending limited funds 14 47 To address a specific operational issue or concern on a particular route or corridor (such as diverted traffic from a major construction project spanning multiple jurisdictions) 13 43 To leverage/pool funds and/or other resources (e.g., equipment and personnel) 13 43 To leverage the staff expertise of a fellow operating agency 12 40 To respond to external public pressure 6 20 To respond to political pressure 4 13 To promote the equitable distribution of funds between competing operational entities 3 10 Mandated by local, state, or federal legislation 2 7 Other 6 20
15 the âotherâ category). Several agencies indicated that they use interagency or project agreements to fund individual upgrades or synchronization projects within their programs. Only a few agencies mentioned that they used memoranda of understand- ing (MOUs) to establish their programs, although several of the agencies that were in the development phase indicated that they are likely to be pursuing MOUs to establish such pro- grams. Figure 9 shows how agencies responded to the question on institutional agreements. Agencies were also asked to indicate what operational items or elements are included in their agreements. Table 3 shows items and/or elements commonly included in the RTSOPsâ operational agreements. Most agreements appear to be focused on defining the relationships between entities; for example, which agencies are involved or which agencies are performing what tasks. Technical requirements and specifications are not as widely covered in these agreements, primarily because most RTSOPs purchase only a limited amount of traffic control sig- nal hardware and communications equipment, and because in most RTSOPs the individual agencies are responsible for oper- ating and maintaining intersection hardware infrastructure. Agencies were also asked if they had developed a concept of operations as part of their program. Sixty-six percent of the respondents indicated that a concept of operations document FIGURE 9 Summary of the responses pertaining to the types of agreements used to form RTSOPs (n = 29). TABLE 3 ELEMENTS REPORTED TO BE CONTAINED IN OPERATIONAL AGREEMENTS FOR RTSOPs Items/Elements Included in Operational Agreements Frequency Percentage Roles and responsibilities of participating agencies 15 75 Activities to be performed by the program and participating agencies 12 60 Identification of lead agency 12 60 Duration of agreement 10 50 Funding requirements/cost-sharing arrangements 10 50 Equipment and personnel sharing arrangements 7 35 Operational goals and objectives from the program 7 35 Organizational structure 7 35 Requirements for decision making 7 35 Scope of coordination (i.e., which arterials to manage, signals to include, etc.) 7 35 Technical requirements 6 30 Equipment specifications 5 25 Notification requirements (for changes in configuration and/or operations) 5 25 System integration requirements 5 25 Performance goals and monitoring requirements 4 20 Configuration management procedures 3 16 Personnel training requirements/schedule 2 15 Other 4 20
does not exist for their program. Thirty-four percent of the respondents indicated they have a concept of operations docu- ment that describes the roles, responsibilities, and functions of their program. Agencies were also asked if their region has a regional ITS architecture. Eighty-three percent noted that a regional architecture exists; however, only 37% of those reported that their RTSOP is specifically identified in their architecture. RTSOP Functions Agencies were asked to select the functions and tasks per- formed by their RTSOP from a pre-defined list. Table 4 shows the frequency with which agencies selected each function or task. Agencies had the ability to select multiple functions and tasks. As shown in Table 4, providing a forum for discussing traf- fic signal operational issues is the most frequently cited func- tion performed by RTSOPs, with 75% of the agencies reporting that this is one of the major functions of their RTSOP. More than half of the RTSOPs surveyed also indicated that develop- ing traffic signal timing plans that facilitate the crossing of jurisdictional boundaries and providing consistency in signal timing practices between agencies are major functions of their programs. Only 30% of the RTSOPs surveyed reported that providing standards and specifications is one of their major functions, and only 19% cited the following activities as being major functions of their programs: providing traveler informa- 16 tion, being the single point of contact of citizen complaints, and developing and implementing traffic signal timings for severe weather. Other functions cited as being performed by RTSOPs include facilitating the deployment and implementation of corridor-specific transit signal priority, and identifying and selecting upgrades to traffic signal equipment that enables opti- mized operations (typically focused on controller, communica- tions, and indication upgrades). Approximately 40% of the surveyed RTSOPs indicated that they provide central monitoring of traffic signal opera- tions through a single traffic management center, and only 41% of the agencies reported that their traffic signals are integrated with other regional transportation management programs, devices, or activities. Funding of RTSOPs Agencies were asked to identify the sources of funds used to establish and finance projects through their programs. The type of funding used by these programs is highly dependent on the nature of the program. More than 50% of the respondents indi- cated that they use federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. These STP funds are primarily used to install infrastructure-related capital improvements (such as hardware improvements, communications, and control center systems) and other ITS support systems (such as video surveillance camera systems or traffic volume sensors). Forty-six percent of the respondents identified Congestion Mitigation and Air RTSOP Functions and Tasks Frequency Percentage Provide a forum for discussing traffic signal operations issues 18 75 Develop traffic signal timing plans to facilitate cross-jurisdictional traffic flow 16 59 Provide consistency in signal timing practices between agencies (i.e., clearance intervals, intersection configuration, pedestrian timings and policies, etc.) 15 56 Develop and maintain a database of traffic signal assets (hardware) for the region 12 44 Facilitate the deployment and implementation of incident management traffic signal timing plans 12 44 Facilitate the deployment of advanced traffic management concepts and control strategies, such as adaptive traffic signal control, integrated corridor management, etc. 12 44 Develop and maintain a database of timing parameters and plans for the traffic signals in the region 11 41 Facilitate the deployment and implementation of region-wide transit signal priority 11 41 Identify and establish priorities, corridors of significance, performance goals and measures, etc., for the regionâs traffic signals 11 41 Provide central monitoring of traffic signal operations from a regional perspective through a single traffic management center 11 41 Develop standards and specifications for communications hardware 10 37 Provide outreach to the public and decision makers 10 37 Provide training/certification for traffic signal technicians and operators 9 33 Develop standards and specifications for controller software 8 30 Develop standards and specifications for traffic signal hardware 8 30 Facilitate the deployment and implementation of regional traffic signal timing plans for severe weather 5 19 Provide a single point of contact for reporting and responding to citizen complaints 5 19 Provide travel information to travelers and commuters 5 19 Other 6 20 TABLE 4 NUMBER OF AGENCIES REPORTING FUNCTIONS/TASKS PERFORMED BY RTSOPs
17 Quality (CMAQ) funds as a major funding source for these programs. CMAQ funds are primarily used to fund the devel- opment and implementation of enabling infrastructure and equipment to provide coordinated timing plans [e.g., global positioning system (GPS) clocks]. Approximately 40% of the respondents indicated that they also use state and local capital or discretionary funds to support their RTSOP. Several states mentioned that they have a transportation tax, a portion of which are dedicated to financing their programs. Table 5 pro- vides a summary of the types of funds agencies reported using to fund their RTSOP. Other cited sources of funding that are used to develop and operate RTSOPs included: ⢠State ITS program funds, ⢠Federal transportation planning funds, ⢠Metropolitan planning funds, and ⢠A dedicated transportation sales tax. Figure 10 summarizes agency responses when they were asked to identify the functions or activities in their program that are funded through formal cost-sharing arrangements. More than one-third of the respondents indicated that they do not have formal cost-sharing agreements; however, the remaining agencies do include various activities in their cooperatively funded functions. Fourteen percent of the agencies responding indicated that formal cost-sharing agreements are used to fund the day-to-day program oper- ations. Fourteen percent of the agencies also indicated that formal cost-sharing agreements are used to support routine and preventive maintenance activities; however, in many cases, these appear to be agreements that are in place to support the maintenance of all traffic signals and not just FIGURE 10 Summary of the types of RTSOP functions and activities funded through formal cost-sharing arrangements and agreements (n = 42). TABLE 5 SOURCES OF FUNDING USED TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMED BY RTSOPs Funding Source Frequency Percentage Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) 16 57 Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 13 46 Local Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 10 36 State or Local Operating/Maintenance Budget Funds 10 36 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds 9 32 Federal Appropriation Earmarked Funds 5 18 State Traffic Safety Funds 5 18 Federal Enhancement Funds 2 7 Other 8 29
those included in the programs (e.g., a local or state juris- diction designated as responsible for operating and main- taining all the traffic signals in the state or region). Several agencies provided other responses to a question concerning functions and activities funded through formal cost-sharing arrangements. Examples of these responses are provided here. ⢠All operations of the central control and management are funded through the regional operations center, which consists of federal STP flex, CMAQ, etc., and state match funding. ⢠There is an 80/20 funding match requirement between sales tax and agency funding of the 20% match for construction and maintenance of regional traffic signal control systems and communications systems. Day-to- day operations and maintenance are the responsibility of the owning agency. ⢠Operations and maintenance of traffic signals in the state of Pennsylvania is the responsibility of the local governments where they are located. ⢠If projects will be funded with federal money, localities must participate in the project selection process at the MPO level. The project ranking process is used to pri- oritize funding, thereby distributing funding resources. ⢠Jurisdictional member agencies are responsible for their equipment installation, operation, and maintenance. Funding for infrastructure installation (and some oper- ations work) is coordinated through the MPO. Main- tenance projects are handled by individual operating agencies. The MPO is typically not involved in main- tenance projects. ⢠With each signal installation there is a participation agreement that addresses maintenance and operations. 18 When a new signal is modernized with local funds the agreement is invoked for cost sharing. Maintenance Agencies were asked to select from a list the description that most closely matched how maintenance activities are sup- ported by their RTSOP. Table 6 summarizes their responses. More than half the respondents indicated that each individ- ual agency retains the maintenance of its signals under its RTSOP. Only two agencies indicated that their RTSOP was responsible for performing maintenance activities. Several of the respondents indicated that existing maintenance agree- ments between the state DOT and the local entities covered the maintenance activities of the program. At least one agency mentioned that maintenance of the central software and communications systems is the responsibility of the RTSOP, whereas the local jurisdictions are responsible for performance maintenance of the field hardware. Table 7 shows the types of maintenance activities performed by RTSOPs. Again, more than half the agencies reported that routine preventative and emergency maintenance activities were the responsibility of the owning agencies. Approximately one-quarter of the respondents noted that they do regular maintenance activities, such as repairing or replacing detec- tors, adjusting phase timings, and responding to trouble calls. An in-depth review of survey responses showed that it was generally the same agencies that indicated that they are respon- sible for all types of maintenance activities. This suggests that if an RTSOP is willing to take on maintenance activities it gen- erally will perform all maintenance functions as opposed to just certain aspects of maintenance (such as just maintaining the coordination timings). TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES INDICATING HOW MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ARE SUPPORTED BY RTSOPs TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON THE TYPE OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY RTSOPs Maintenance Responsibilities Frequency Percentage Each agency is responsible for maintaining its traffic signals to its own standards. 13 50 RTSOP sets the maintenance policies and standards and each agency is directly responsible for maintaining its signals to these standards. 3 12 RTSOP is directly responsible for the maintenance of the traffic signals in the program, regardless of jurisdiction. 2 8 Other 8 31 Types of Maintenance Activities Performed by RTSOPs Frequency Percentage None, each agency is responsible for performing its own maintenance 15 58 Repairing/replacing defective or malfunctioning detectors 6 23 Trouble calls/call-outs during all hours throughout region 6 23 Trouble calls/call-outs during off-hours throughout region 6 23 Emergency response to knockdowns throughout region 5 19 Re-lamping of signal heads (emergency or routine) 5 19 Preventative maintenance 4 15 Other 10 38
19 In addition to these activities, other types of maintenance activities performed by RTSOPs included the following: ⢠Preventative maintenance of wireless communications system components, ⢠Repair and replacement of defective or malfunctioning wireless communications system components, ⢠Preventative maintenance of central computer system components, ⢠Repair and replacement of defective or malfunctioning central computer system components, ⢠Annual testing and certification of conflict monitors, ⢠Annual railroad preemption inspections, ⢠Repairs to central or supervisory control and data acqui- sition systems, and ⢠Upgrades to communications, including interconnect of any type, included in the maintenance. Table 8 provides a summary of the methods of funding (or supporting) maintenance activities performed by an RTSOP. Again, more than half of the respondents reported that maintenance activities are supported by local or state entities and not through the program. The remaining respon- dents indicated that they were about equally split between using cost-sharing arrangements and cost-reimbursement arrangements. Performance Measurement and Monitoring Agencies were asked to indicate what types of performance measures they use to assess the effectiveness of their pro- grams. These responses are shown in Figure 11. The most fre- quently cited responses included corridor travel times or speeds, intersection stops and delays, and Highway Capacity Manual level of service. Eighty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they use corridor travel times and speeds as pri- mary measures of effectiveness, whereas 75% indicated that they use intersection stops and delays. These performance measures are probably most appropriate given that the focus of most programs is to improve progression on major commuting corridors or roadways of regional significant importance. In addition to these measures, some of the respondents indicated that they also used one or more of the following performance measures in assessing the effectiveness of their programs: ⢠Number of traffic signal malfunctions annually, ⢠Reduced emissions, and ⢠Number of traffic signals reviewed for timing plan adjustments. Agencies were also asked how frequently they produced formal evaluation reports on the effectiveness of their programs. FIGURE 11 Types of performance measures used to assess effectiveness of RTSOP improvements. TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES INDICATING METHODS FOR FUNDING OR SUPPORTING MAINTENANCE OF RTSOPs Methods for Funding or Supporting Maintenance of RTSOPs Frequency Percentage Maintenance activities are not supported/performed through the program. Each agency is responsible for the maintenance of its own signals 14 58 Agency uses cost-sharing arrangement 4 17 Agency uses multiple sources to fund maintenance activities, depending on the type of activity being performed 4 17 Agency uses cost reimbursement agreement 3 13 Other 4 17 18 15 12 10 4 4 3 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 N um be r o f R es po ns es
As shown in Figure 12, 38% of the respondents indicated that they do not routinely produce formal programmatic evalua- tion reports, whereas 23% reported that they produce perfor- mance evaluation reports on an as-needed basis. Many of the respondents indicated that as part of their funding arrange- ments they are required to produce project evaluations for each signal timing project after it has been completed (a requirement for using CMAQ funds). Several of the respon- dents, however, indicated that they use before-and-after stud- ies in pilot demonstrations to show agencies the potential benefits of inter-jurisdictional synchronization of traffic sig- nals. Several agencies indicated that these before-and-after studies are considered to be important in generating support for their programs. Only a few respondents noted that they do annual assess- ments on the effectiveness of their programs. A more in-depth review of the survey responses revealed that their assessments deal more with the project selection process than with a com- prehensive assessment of the program itself. Outreach and Public Education Outreach and public education was the final topic area in which agencies were surveyed. Specifically, agencies were asked to indicate how frequently partner agencies meet to dis- cuss regional operational issues. Figure 13 provides a sum- mary of their responses. Forty-five percent of the agencies reported that they meet on a regular basis, either monthly or quarterly. Another 34% of the respondents indicated that they meet on an as-needed basis. 20 Agencies were also asked to indicate the methods that they use to reach out to the public about the effectiveness of their program. Surprisingly, 43% of the agencies indicated that they do not have a formal method of public outreach concerning their program. Because many of these programs are funding operational improvements for local entities they permit the local entities to claim the credit for the benefits derived by spe- cific improvements. Approximately one-quarter of the survey respondents indicated that they have developed websites and brochures about their programs; however, the target audience of these outreach efforts appears to be directed more toward agencies than the public. Often websites will contain informa- tion about calls for projects, project-selection criteria, and other programmatic information. Very few respondents indi- cated that they do direct outreach (through media interviews, press releases, direct interactions, etc.) about their programs to the public. Table 9 shows how agencies responded to the ques- tion on outreach and public education. Several respondents indicated that they prepare signal timing briefs. These briefs are often prepared for each indi- vidual project performed through their program. These briefs are generally prepared at the end of each project and summarize the benefits and effectiveness of the project. Generally, these briefs are prepared for local decision mak- ers and are sometimes distributed through press releases or posted on agency websites. One agency noted that it gener- ates periodic newsletters that cover all the activities associ- ated with that agency. Occasionally, articles will be written that highlight the activities, benefits, and effectiveness of their RTSOP program. FIGURE 12 Frequency with which RTSOPs produce formal evaluation reports documenting the effectiveness of their programs (n = 26).
21 FIGURE 13 Frequency with which partner agencies meet to discuss regional operations issues (n = 29). TABLE 9 COMMONLY CITED METHODS OF PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ABOUT RTSOPs Methods of Providing Outreach and Public Education about RTSOPs Frequency Percentage None 12 43 Maintain a website 8 29 Developed brochure about programs 6 21 Have a public information officer to support program 5 17 Routinely conduct interviews with local media outlets 4 14 Staff booth at local fair and community activities 4 14 Routinely discuss on local access television program 2 7 Provide public service announcements on radio and television 1 4 Other 11 39
