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.

22 RTSOPs do not appear to have a single best formula for how they begin, evolve, and ultimately sustain themselves. Surveys and interviews revealed some commonalities, but no one for- mula appears to exist on how to start or develop an RTSOP. However, the one common link among successful RTSOPs appears to be that local relationships among committed stake- holders create the strong foundation required for success. Without a strong commitment to solve problems cooperatively among key leaders and stakeholders a successful regional program cannot be achieved. A total of 17 entities were interviewed as part of this synthesis: • Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, California) • Puget Sound Regional Council (Seattle, Washington) • Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (Las Vegas, Nevada) • Region 4 Oregon Department of Transportation • Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno, Nevada) • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Fargo–Moorhead Council of Governments (Fargo, North Dakota) • Southeast Michigan Council of Governments/Oakland County Road Commission (Detroit, Michigan) • Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) • Denver Regional Council of Governments (Denver, Colorado) • Pima Association of Governments (Tucson, Arizona) • Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco, California) • Maricopa Association of Governments (Phoenix, Arizona) • Niagara International Transportation Technology Coali- tion (Niagara/Buffalo, New York) • Mid-America Regional Council (Kansas City, Missouri) • North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas– Ft. Worth, Texas) • Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, California). Table 10 shows the attributes (such as the total number of traffic signals, the percentage of traffic signals included in their RTSOP, and the level of maturity of their RTSOP) associated with each of these programs. These attributes can be used to cross reference agency responses with the general size of the program. Summaries of the interviews are found in Appendix C. Although RTSOPs have been in existence in some regions of the country since the late 1980s, the concept of RTSOPs has gained considerable traction more recently as regions deal with increasing congestion and limited resources. In this chapter, information is provided on the activities and functions performed by RTSOPs that are in addition to simply develop- ing inter-jurisdictional timing plans. In addition, agency roles and responsibilities are discussed and information presented on the common organizational structures used for RTSOPs in the United States. Finally, this chapter will highlight some of the tangible benefits reported by agencies that use an RTSOP framework to deliver more efficient traffic signal system operations. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES Most RTSOPs involve a collaboration of multiple partners in a region—all of which may have varying levels of authority and differing perspectives. Table 11 shows the types of agen- cies commonly participating in a sample of RTSOPs across the United States. Most frequently the lead agency is the MPO or its equiv- alent [e.g., a council of governments (COG) or a transportation management authority]. Federal law requires that urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more that use federal funds to make improvements to their transportation system have an agency that is responsible for the continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive planning of these improvements for the urbanized area (2). One of the primary functions of the MPO is to conduct long-range planning for the metropolitan area, with the planning effort being coordinated across multiple jurisdictions. Therefore, the notion of linking the planning process (and the forum for cooperation and collaboration it offers) to operational activities among agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries is consistent with the purpose and mission of most MPOs. Another reason the MPO is often the lead entity in these programs is related to its role in regional funding of transportation improvements. The MPO typically coordinates the distribution of federal and state transporta- tion improvement funds to local entities and, because of its CHAPTER THREE BUILDING AND FORMING REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS PROGRAMS

23 Location State Lead Organization Approximate Number of Traffic Signals Percentage of Traffic Signals in RTSOP Number of Years RTSOP Operational Type of Agreements Used Bend OR DOT 168 76 to 99% >10 years Project Buffalo NY Governmental corporation 2,000 1 to 5% 1 to 2 years MOU Dallas–Ft. Worth TX MPO/COG 3,200 25 to 50% 5 to 10 years Project Denver CO MPO/COG 3,500 51 to 75% >10 years Informal Detroit MI MPO/COG More than 5,000 100% 5 to 10 years Project Fargo–Moorhead ND/MN City 240 76 to 99% <1 year Cooperative Agreement State of North Carolina NC Department of Transportation 8,860 26 to 50% >10 years Cooperative Agreement Kansas City MO/KS MPO/COG 6,000 11 to 25% 3 to 5 years Cooperative Agreement Las Vegas NV MPO/COGs 1,600 76 to 99% >10 years Program Los Angeles County CA Transportation authority 4,000 51 to 75% >10 years Project Orange County CA Transportation authority 3,200 51 to 75% <1 year Project Pittsburgh PA MPO/COG 2,650 100% 1 to 2 years Project Phoenix AZ MPO/COG 1,200 51 to 75% 3 to 5 years Project Reno NV MPO/COG 375 100% 3 to 5 years Project Seattle WA MPO/COG More than 5,000 51 to 75% In development Informal San Francisco Bay Area CA MPO/COG 7,000 25 to 50% 6 to 10 years Project Tucson AZ MPO/COG 600 100% 6 to 10 years Project MPO/COG = Metropolitan Planning Organization/Council of Governments; DOT = Department of Transportation. TABLE 10 ATTRIBUTES OF RTSOPs INTERVIEWED Participating Agencies Region/Area N or th C ar ol in a Sa n Fr an ci sc o Ba y, C A K an sa s C ity , K S/ M O D et ro it, M I Lo s A ng el es , C A D al la s– Fo rt W or th , T X D en ve r, CO O ra ng e Co u n ty , C A Pi tts bu rg h, P A B u ffa lo , N Y La s V eg as , N V Ph oe ni x, A Z Tu cs o n , A Z R en o, N V Fa rg o – M oo rh ea d, N D /M N B en d, O R MPO State DOT County DOT Local/Municipal DOT Private Consultant(s) Utilities Vendors University = Lead agency; = Partner agency. TABLE 11 TYPES OF AGENCIES PARTICIPATING IN RTSOPs IN A SAMPLE OF PROGRAMS FROM THE UNITED STATES

24 regional perspective and mission, the MPO can leverage the funding available to ensure that the projects and corridors of regional significance receive adequate attention. In a number of the RTSOPs, the county DOT may play the role of the agency with the regional perspective. These counties are typically fairly large geographically and encom- pass multiple jurisdictions (such as Los Angeles and Orange counties in California, and Oakland County in Michigan). This is not to say that state and local DOTs do not play a critical role in the success of these programs. As planning agencies, MPOs are not typically owners and operators of traffic signal systems. Therefore, the regional RTSOP must rely heavily on the cooperation and collaboration of state and local transportation entities to install and operate the physi- cal equipment in the field [although in some RTSOPs this authority may be (or eventually could be) transferred to an RTSOP entity]. ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS PROGRAMS The activities and functions performed by different RTSOPs depend on how those programs are structured. Table 12 shows the primary activities and functions performed by the RTSOPs that were interviewed. The most common functions of these programs involved the following: • Developing traffic signal timing plans to facilitate cross- jurisdictional traffic flow; • Providing a forum for discussing traffic signal operations’ issues in the region; RTSOP Function Region/Area N or th C ar ol in a Sa n Fr an ci sc o Ba y, C A K an sa s C ity , K S/ M O D et ro it, M I Lo s A ng el es , C A D al la s– Fo rt W or th , T X D en ve r, CO O ra ng e Co u n ty , C A Pi tts bu rg h, P A B u ffa lo , N Y La s V eg as , N V Ph oe ni x, A Z Tu cs o n , A Z R en o, N V Fa rg o – M oo rh ea d, N D /M N B en d, O R Develop and maintain a database of traffic signal assets (hardware) for the region Develop and maintain a database of timing parameters and plans for the traffic signals in the region Provide a foru m for discussing traffic signal operations issues Develop traffic signal hardware standards and specifications Develop standards and specifications for communications hardware Develop standards and specifications for controller software Provide central m onitoring of traffic signal operations from a regional perspective through a single traffic managem ent center Provide training/certification for traffic signal technicians and operators Develop traffic signal timing plans to facilitate cross- jurisdictional traffic flow Facilitate the deployment and implementation of transit signal pr io rity Facilitate the deployment and implementation of incident management traffic signal timing plans Facilitate the deployment and implementation of regional traffic signal timing plans for severe weather Provide outreach to the public and decision makers Provide consistency in signal ti mi ng practices between agencies (i.e., clearance intervals, intersection configuration, pedestrian tim ings and policies, etc.) Provide a single point of contact for reporting and responding to citizen complaints and concerns about traffic signal timing Provide travel information to travelers and commuters Identify and establish priorities, corridors of significance, perform ance goals and m easures, etc., for the region's traffic signals Facilitate the deployment of advanced traffic management concepts and control strategies, such as adaptive traffic signal control and integrated corridor ma nagem ent TABLE 12 ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS PERFORMED IN A SAMPLE OF RTSOPs IN THE UNITED STATES

25 • Identifying and establishing priorities, corridors of significance, and performance goals and measures of the region’s traffic signals; • Facilitating the deployment of advanced traffic man- agement concepts and control strategies (such as adaptive traffic signal control, integrated corridor man- agement, etc.); • Providing consistency in signal timing practices between agencies (i.e., using similar clearance intervals, phasing patterns, pedestrian timings, etc.); and • Providing outreach to the public and decision makers. Developing Inter-Jurisdictional Timing Plans and Coordination It appears that the primary need satisfied by most RTSOPs is in the development of regionally coordinated traffic signal timing plans for arterials that cross multiple jurisdictions. Therefore, those activities generally associated with devel- oping these timing plans are supported financially directly or indirectly through these programs. As the roles and respon- sibilities for traffic signal operations differ from region to region, who is eligible to develop these timing plans can vary by location. In some RTSOPs, program funds are used to pro- vide financial support to in-house (MPO) staff or consultants, whose responsibility it is to develop, implement, operate, and maintain regional traffic signal operations. Other RTSOPs use program funds to implement timing plans by allocating resources to local agencies. Other programs use funds to con- tract with outside consultants to develop regional plans that are then implemented by the owning agencies in identified corridors. It appears that the responsibility for developing the signal timing plans is highly dependent on the size of the region, maturity of the program, level of deployment of other traffic management functions and capabilities in the region, and level of in-house expertise available to the local partner agencies. Facilitating Regional Traffic Signal Operations Forums Almost every RTSOP currently in operation in the United States has some type of regional oversight committee or forum where local agency partners can discuss traffic signal timing and operational issues of regional importance. Their form may be either ad hoc or formal, but their general purpose is to permit an open and free exchange of information related to regional operational issues. These committees, usually com- posed of director-level staff from local agencies, are typically responsible for generating a concept of operations for oper- ating traffic signals with a regional perspective (including a vision and goals), establishing criteria for selecting projects, and developing consensus on regionally acceptable technical issues, including equipment, communication, and operational standards. Many of the traffic signal operations’ programs offer addi- tional subcommittees or forums to address more specific or technical issues, including the following: • Traffic signal timing principles and practices; • Recent developments in controller, communications, detection equipment, and technologies; • Resources and training; • Standards development and standardization benefits; • Communications and system integration issues; • Performance measuring and monitoring; and • Inter-jurisdictional coordination and control. These forums are typically where RTSOPs evolve for a region over time. Regular meetings of these committees are deemed critical in generating consensus and building strong working relationships between regional entities. Providing Funds for Traffic Signal Operations Projects of Regional Significance One of the primary functions of RTSOPs is to provide a collaborative environment so that funds to develop and implement coordinated timing plans on roadways of regional significance are championed and allocated by numerous groups and agencies on a regional basis. Generally, the timing plans generated are based on time-of-day, peak and off-peak, and focused on providing a progressive flow of traffic across jurisdictional boundaries. Other improvements encouraged and promoted by RTSOPs can vary significantly from location to location, depending on their scope. In addition to estab- lishing timing plans, most RTSOPs will encourage funding allocations to agencies to purchase equipment and deploy intersection infrastructure necessary to allow more efficient regional coordination between multiple jurisdictions. Exam- ples of the types of improvements commonly eligible for funding under RTSOPs include the following: • Installation of or improvements to communications sys- tems and infrastructure that support regional coordination and monitoring; • Installation of universal timing devices (such as GPS clocks) that permit the accurate synchronization of controller time; • Replacement of existing traffic signal controllers that are not compatible with or capable of providing coordi- nated operations with other equipment or protocols in the corridor; • Addition of limited intersection signing and/or pave- ment markings needed to implement more efficient, progression-friendly intersection phasing; • Installation of additional vehicular signal heads and other indications needed to permit improved intersection safety and coordination efficiency; • Replacement or modification of vehicle detection and associated hardware;

• Addition of pedestrian push buttons and signals to support coordinated operations in corridors; • Installation of equipment needed to provide priority treatment to transit vehicles; • Purchase and development of traffic signal synchro- nization optimization tools; • Provision of training and outreach activities to ensure highly qualified local agency staff that can support regional coordination and operations; and • Removal of existing signal indications or entire traf- fic signals that are no longer warranted within the corridor. Examples of the types of improvements generally not supported through RTSOPs include: • Purchases of rights-of-way for planned or proposed intersection widening; • Physical construction of added capacity (new travel lanes or turn lanes); • Installation of new traffic signals where they previously did not exist; • Relocation and replacement of traffic signal poles or mast structures; and • Addition of new sidewalks, pedestrians’ ramps, and other pedestrian features. OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS Table 13 shows the different operational concepts currently being used by RTSOPs in the United States. These broad operational concepts present the context in which the major roles and responsibilities of the various partner agencies are defined in operating their RTSOPs, which is also impor- tant in defining the organizational structure of the RTSOP. A discussion of each of the concepts of operations is pro- vided here. Local Collaboration One concept of operation used with RTSOPs in the United States is one in which the lead entity in the region serves as only the funding source for the developing regional traffic signal operations. In this instance, the regional entity (usually an MPO, but it could also be a state or county DOT) provides little direct influence over the technical activities and functions of the program, particularly with respect to the development of inter-jurisdictional coordinated signal timing schemes. Instead, the lead regional entity provides only funding and administrative oversight and does not provide any technical expertise in the development of regional timing plans. The local operating agency retains full and complete responsibility for collecting the field data needed to develop timing plans, implement the timing plans, and conduct before-and-after evaluation of the improvements. In addition to developing and installing regional timing plans, the local agencies are respon- sible for performing both routine and emergency mainte- nance on the traffic signal and communications infrastructure. Figure 14 provides an illustration of an operational concept. This operational concept is generally used when the local entities have a fairly high level of expertise and experience dealing with traffic signal operations. These local entities may also already have traffic management centers through which they operate their traffic signals, and they may be look- ing for funding sources to upgrade communications and/or intersection controller equipment in the region. The RTSOP operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (3) and the North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) (4) are examples of systems using this concept of operation. With both of these systems, the lead entity is responsible for providing funds to make improvements. Los Angeles County uses this approach to fund improve- ments where local entities already have operational traffic 26 Operational Concept Region/Area N or th C ar ol in a Sa n Fr an ci sc o Ba y, C A K an sa s C ity , K S/ M O D et ro it, M I Lo s A ng el es , C A D al la s– Fo rt W or th , T X D en ve r, CO O ra ng e Co u n ty , C A Pi tts bu rg h, P A B u ffa lo , N Y La s V eg as , N V Ph oe ni x, A Z Tu cs o n , A Z R en o, N V Fa rg o – M oo rh ea d, N D /M N B en d, O R Local Collaboration Regional Recommended Tim ings Shared Control Regional Coordinated Monitoring Full Regional Control TABLE 13 OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS USED IN SELECT RTSOPs IN THE UNITED STATES

27 management centers and high levels of on-staff or contracted technical expertise. Regional Recommended Timings Another common concept of operation for RTSOPs in the United States is one in which the lead entity is responsible for hiring a local consultant to develop regional timing plans for the local operating agencies. Generally, the process begins with a call for projects being issued by the regional entity. Local agencies submit applications to the regional entity defining specific projects to be performed by the regional entity. Projects are evaluated by the regional entity and/or a project selection committee to ensure that RTSOP goals and objectives are addressed. Once a project is selected by a project selection committee, the regional entity assigns a consultant to the project. The consultant, working with the local entities that submitted the application, is responsible for collecting and analyzing all information necessary for developing optimal traffic signal timings. This might include verifying existing actuated controller settings, collecting traffic volume counts, verifying intersection geometry, collecting before-and-after travel time and delay studies, and developing traffic signal optimization and/or simulation models. Using this information, the consultant is responsible for developing recommended traffic signal timing plan strategies. These recommendations may include optimal initial and actuated controller settings, time-of-day coordination plans and hours of coordinated operations, and/or transit signal priority plans and hours of operations, if applicable. The consultant may also be tasked with an assessment of communications’ requirements and strategies for maintaining coordination between multiple agency systems. An illustration of this operational concept is shown in Figure 15. Generally, the local operating agencies will retain the authority to review and approve signal timing recommenda- tions or request modifications. In some regions, the consul- tant is responsible for implementing new timing plans into field controllers, whereas in other regions the local agencies complete that task with their staff. Depending on the region, the consultant may be responsible for fine-tuning controller settings based on post-implementation field observation or may assist agency staff in fine-tuning the settings. It is typically the consultant that is responsible for conducting travel time and delay studies and documenting the results in an evalua- tion report. Under this operational concept, local agencies are typically not restricted to making modifications to timing plans after they have been implemented, and local agencies retain their responsibilities for operating and maintaining their traffic signals. This type of concept of operation (or a slight variant) is used in a number of regions, including in the San Francisco FIGURE 14 RTSOP operational concept—Local Collaboration.

Bay area (5,6), Maricopa in Arizona (7 ), and the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area in Texas (8). Because there is funding required of the local agencies, no formal project agreement is required between the RTSOP regional lead and the local agency. The regional entity is responsible for paying for the consultant’s services. Any additional services required of the consultant or for equipment purchases are generally negoti- ated between the consultant, any vendors involved, the lead RTSOP entity, and the local agency. One advantage of this operational concept is that local agencies do not have to hire the consulting firm—this is the responsibility of the regional entity. Under this organizational structure, the regional entity is responsible for: (1) obligating the funds required to perform the contract, (2) contracting with consultants to develop the timing plans, (3) approving contract deliverables, and (4) paying the invoices of the consultants. In some programs, local agencies may be required to waive any claims against the RTSOP lead agency for any loss, lia- bility, or damages resulting from the deployment of the signal timings. Local agencies may also be required to indemnify the regional entity against any and all third-party claims that may result from the agency’s participation in the program. Consultants are also required to maintain liability, general commercial, and other insurance policies with the public agencies as additional insured parties. Shared Control Figure 16 provides an illustration of a Shared Control oper- ational concept for an RTSOP. This operational concept is similar to the Regional Recommended Timings operational concept, except that under this concept, the regional entity (or its consultant) is responsible for both developing and implementing inter-jurisdictional timing plans for high- priority corridors. As with the previous model, local agencies will generally submit an application for one or multiple cor- ridors that would benefit from inclusion or modification in the RTSOP program. After a review of the application, the regional entity, usually with the assistance of an oversight committee, will select projects deemed to be of regional sig- nificance. Once selected, the regional entity will work closely with the local agencies to develop multi-jurisdictional coor- dination schemes on the various corridors. Usually these traffic signal timing plans provide time-of-day/day-of-week coordination. The RTSOP lead agency develops these timing plans using operational constraints established by each local entity (i.e., vehicle and pedestrian clearance intervals, pedes- trian walk times, local phase sequencing patterns, etc.). In contrast to the Regional Recommended Timings operational concept, once implemented in the Regional Directed Tim- ings, local entities are restricted from making modifications to the coordination timings for a specified period of time and/or can only change the coordination timings with permission of the RTSOP lead agency and the other affected local agencies. 28 FIGURE 15 RTSOP operational concept—Regional Recommended Timings.

29 In this concept, the RTSOP lead agency does not typically provide any real-time monitoring of corridor operations but leaves that function to the local agencies. The local agencies retain the responsibility for providing all levels of mainte- nance at the intersection, including maintaining the commu- nications system needed to provide regional coordination (if provided). The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) uses this concept for improving multi-jurisdictional traffic signal operations in the ten-county region around Pittsburgh (9). SPC provides funding and technical assistance to local agen- cies to develop optimized signal timing plans and to install low-cost communication systems to enable or improve coor- dination between adjacent jurisdictions. Although the local entities retain overall maintenance responsibilities, the fund- ing agreement specifies that local entities are restricted from making modifications to the coordination timing plans for two years without first notifying the SPC and the adjacent signal operators. A similar arrangement is used by Los Angeles County in instances where local entities elect to retain operational and maintenance control of their traffic signals (3). Under its RTSOP, Los Angeles County develops regional timing plans designed to provide coordination between local entities. As part of the application process for securing funds from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, local entities must agree to implement the timing plans developed by the county and refrain from modifying those timings for two years, unless they receive prior approval from the county and the other adjacent jurisdictions. Regional Coordinated Monitoring With the Regional Coordinated Monitoring concept, the RTSOP lead agency is not only responsible for developing and implementing the timing plans, but also may provide real-time monitoring of the traffic signal operations. The regional entity is likely to have a central control center where information about the status of arterial operations is monitored. Operators in the control center monitor current traffic operations and identify (either manually or using decision-support tools) options for minor adjustments to the signal timing patterns. The regional entity may also have the authority to implement special timing plans for atypical operational scenarios (such as incidents, inclement weather, or special events). Generally, these timing sets are special coordination plans developed in advance specifi- cally for certain events. They are created in cooperation with the local agencies and stored locally in the field equipment by each respective local agency. Figure 17 illustrates this operational concept. FIGURE 16 RTSOP operational concept—Shared Control.

With this concept, the local agencies remain responsible for performing routine and emergency maintenance functions; however, the RTSOP lead agency is likely to remain respon- sible for maintaining communications infrastructure and the computer systems needed to monitor signal operations across participating jurisdictions. This type of concept of operation is also used in Los Ange- les County (3). Some local agencies in the county do not have the resources or the technical expertise to operate their signals. Local agencies have the option of yielding operational con- trol of their signals to the Public Works Department of Los Angeles County. The county has developed software called the Information Exchange Network, which allows local entities to exchange traffic signal data from different control systems (10). This system allows participating agencies to share signal status and arterial congestion conditions among traffic control agen- cies in the county. The software also allows an agency to grant limited control of their field devices to another agency. This type of operation is also used to administer many of the traffic signals in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah. Many of the traffic signals in the cities of Salt Lake, Orem, and Provo are operated jointly by the Utah DOT (UDOT) through its traffic operations center. What makes this arrangement work in Utah is that in many of the major metropolitan areas, UDOT is responsible for operating the traffic signals on state system roadways, even though they may be located within municipal limits. The local agencies retain operation and maintenance responsibility for traffic signals within their own jurisdictions, which often parallel state-maintained facilities. To operate the traffic signals in its system, UDOT installed fiber optic communications and upgraded the traffic signal equipment at its intersections. Through handshake agreements, UDOT also upgraded the communications and control equipment on several of the corridors under local agency control to achieve interoperability. Current traffic signal operations data are brought back to UDOT’s traffic operations center. UDOT developed timing plans that coordinate operations across jurisdictional boundaries for both normal and incident con- ditions. UDOT operators monitor the status and operations of the traffic signals and make fine-tuning adjustments to operations within specific, agreed-upon guidelines on state and local corridors. During incident conditions, operators can also deploy predetermined timing plans designed to facilitate traffic flow on designated detour routes. The UDOT coopera- tive arrangement was developed and deployed without formal agreements. Full Regional Control As illustrated in Figure 18, Full Regional Control involves the transfer of operations over to a single regional entity. 30 FIGURE 17 RTSOP operational concept—Regional Coordinated Monitoring.

31 Under this concept, local agencies elect to consolidate some (or all) traffic signal operations and/or maintenance functions under a single agency responsible for the region. This entity could be one with a tradition of operating with a regional perspective (such as a county or state DOT) or it can be a new entity formed specifically to perform traffic management functions (this is the case with those systems operated through an MPO). Under this concept, traffic signal maintenance functions (preventative maintenance as well as emergency repairs) often remain with the local entities; however, main- tenance of communications systems, central processing sys- tems, and control center software becomes the responsibility of the RTSOP lead entity. In Clark County, Nevada, the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) is a regional transportation manage- ment center that performs both freeway and arterial manage- ment functions (11). Under the FAST arrangement, the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson, as well as Clark County, agreed to combine all traffic signals in the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area (including those owned by the Nevada DOT) into a single integrated organization. The system is operated by the Regional Transportation Commis- sion (RTC) of Southern Nevada. The RTC is an independent agency and serves as the MPO for the region. RTC staff is responsible for developing and monitoring all traffic signal timing plans from the FAST center. During normal operations, traffic signal systems operate in a time-of-day mode with seven different time-of-day coordination timing schemes. During incident conditions, operators in the control center are responsible for implementing new timing plans to accom- modate shifts in demand. The RTC is also responsible for maintaining all central management and communications aspects of field devices, whereas the local entities retain preventative and emergency repair responsibilities for the traffic signal infrastructure. Operation Green Light, in the Kansas City metro area, is another example of an RTSOP with regional operational control (12,13) All signal timings on select corridors in the system are coordinated by the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) through the Kansas City Scout Traffic Operations Center. Working with federal, state, and local agencies, the MARC staff develops and implements (with owning agency approval) traffic signal timing plans on select corridors of regional significance. Timing plans include both normal time-of-day timing plans and special timing plans to be used during incident conditions. When an incident is detected on, or nearby, a corridor, MARC staff may manually change the signal timing pattern to one that is specifically designed (and agreed on by the local agencies) to accommodate dif- ferent traffic flows during incident conditions. The local enti- ties, working with MARC, determine under what conditions the incident time plans can be implemented; however, once FIGURE 18 RTSOP operational concept—Full Regional Control.

an incident response plan has been implemented, MARC is responsible for notifying affected agencies. After the incident has cleared, MARC is responsible for returning the traffic signals back to normal schedules. Each member agency is responsible for all maintenance associated with the traffic signal infrastructure and control system, whereas MARC is responsible for maintaining the communications systems and central control center software. Hybrid Control In some cases, RTSOPs use a mixture of the previously discussed operational concepts. In Los Angeles County, for example, local operating agencies have different resources and technical capabilities. Some local agencies are well funded and have highly qualified staff members that can operate and maintain their traffic signal systems themselves, whereas other agencies may not have the financial resources or technical expertise needed to adequately operate and maintain inter- jurisdictional traffic signal timings. Smaller cities that do not have the technical expertise and financial resources to operate and maintain the traffic signals in high-priority corridors can request that the county take over the full operational and main- tenance responsibilities of their signals. In these circumstances, the county will develop coordination schemes and operate the traffic signals from its control center. For those agencies that want to retain their operating autonomy, the county will be responsible for developing the inter-jurisdictional timing plans, but the local agency will retain the responsibility for implementing and maintaining the new traffic signal timings. Local entities are restricted from making modifications to the regional coordination timing plans without prior notification and approval by the county and adjacent jurisdictions. COMMON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES A review of some of the existing programs being used in the United States revealed that several organizational structures exist and the type of organizational structure in a region varies significantly depending on a number of factors, includ- ing the following: • The local goals and objectives for regional traffic operations, • The size and number of local entities in a region, • The type and amount of funds available to the region for addressing operational issues, • The presence of a strong regional entity (e.g., a MPO, regional transportation authority, COG, or a county transportation entity), • The existing level of cooperation and collaboration between local entities in the region, • The existence and use of other advanced traffic manage- ment systems (i.e., freeway management/ITS centers) in the region, and • The degree of local knowledge and expertise present in the local operating agencies in the region. Table 14 provides a summary of common organizational structures used with RTSOPs in the United States. 32 RTSOP Organizational Structure Region/Area N or th C ar ol in a Sa n Fr an ci sc o Ba y, C A K an sa s C ity , K S/ M O D et ro it, M I Lo s A ng el es , C A D al la s– Fo rt W or th , T X D en ve r, CO O ra ng e Co u n ty , C A Pi tts bu rg h, P A B u ffa lo , N Y La s V eg as , N V Ph oe ni x, A Z Tu cs o n , A Z R en o, N V Fa rg o – M oo rh ea d, N D /M N B en d, O R DOT technical staff takes the lead on progra m goals and pr io rities and works with the local agency staff on an ad hoc basis A separate, stand-alone committee comprised of traffic signal engineers and decision ma kers fro m the public entities makes technical decisions for RTSOP. Local agencies retain responsibility for daily operations DOT technical staff assu me s control of local agency systems. Technical staff is responsible for daily operations of regional signal system Independent agency, such as an MPO, provides assistance and technical expertise to agency st aff on daily operations. Local agencies assist with selecting projects for funding and provide adm inistrative oversight RTSOP is run through an independent agency, such as an MPO. The program is ma naged by an executive director or program director. Technical staff is responsible for daily operations of regional signal system TABLE 14 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES OF RTSOPs IN THE UNITED STATES

33 Informal Coalitions and Collaborations With this organizational structure, no formal regional trans- portation signal operations program exists. Instead, agencies build on existing relationships and levels of trust to collectively develop, implement, and operate the traffic signals from a regional perspective. Although each agency retains the over- all responsibility for operating and maintaining the traffic signals within its own jurisdictions, the local partners work collaboratively to develop timing plans and deploy infrastruc- ture that promote regional coordination of traffic signals. In many of these cases, no formal agencies exist between operating entities. Instead, local agencies, through strong interpersonal relationships, form a loose coalition in which regional operational decisions are made. Generally, with this type of organizational model, each agency retains the respon- sibility for operating and maintaining the traffic signals within its respective jurisdiction. Formal Organizational Structure Many of the locations where the local entities have elected to consolidate operational control under a single regional entity have a more formal structure. Generally, these formal organi- zational structures are established by MOUs or by cooperative agreements. Figure 19 shows an example of the organizational struc- ture used to operate the FAST program in Las Vegas (14). In FAST, the local entities have agreed to consolidate all of the traffic signals in the region under the control of the RTC of Southern Nevada. FAST has two primary functions: arterial traffic management and freeway traffic management; therefore, the administrative structure has been established to support both functions. The organizational structure follows the gen- eral organizational structure of most MPOs, where there is a policy board composed of high-ranking elected or appointed decision makers responsible for establishing transportation policy for the region and a technical committee (in this case the Operational Management Committee, or OMC) respon- sible for providing technical input to the policy board. The OMC is comprised of: • The director/assistant director(s) of public works from Clark County, • The director/assistant director(s) of public works from the city of Henderson, • The director/assistant director(s) of public works from the city of Las Vegas, • The director/assistant director(s) of public works from the city of North Las Vegas, • The deputy directors(s) and deputy director/assistant director for operations or District I engineer of the Nevada DOT, and • The general manager of RTC. The primary role of the OMC is to provide instructions and direction to the FAST manager on policy issues, estab- lishing other operational procedures and policies, and moni- tor the various aspects of the FAST system. The OMC is also responsible for developing a funding policy and fund- ing requirements to support the operational and maintenance requirements of FAST. The OMC also assists the FAST system manger in developing traffic management strategies for freeways and arterials under control of FAST. The FAST system manager is an employee of the RTC and is responsible for daily operations of the FAST system, including super- vision of the FAST staff, system operations and maintenance activities, addition of transportation management or ITS field devices, development of freeway and arterial street traffic man- agement strategies, and preparation of an annual operating and maintenance budget. FAST staff includes professional, technical, and administrative support personnel who are also employees of the RTC. BENEFITS OF REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS PROGRAMS The goals of most RTSOPs are to generate reductions in travel times and delay with a subsequent improvement in arterial travel speed and reduction in vehicle emissions. Some of the reported benefits achieved in mature RTSOPs in the United States include: • At the conclusion of its first phase of improvements in 1995, Los Angeles County reported on the benefits of FIGURE 19 Organizational structure of the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) in Las Vegas, Nevada (14).

its Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (3). A typical project funded through the program involved upgrading all the traffic signals along a route to keep the signals synchronized, placing vehicle detectors in the pave- ment to detect the presence of vehicles, coordinating the timing of the signals between successive intersections, and automatically adjusting the traffic signals to facili- tate the movement of vehicles through the intersections. During the first phase, a total of 39 routes and 780 signal- ized intersections along 220 miles of streets in 58 cities and unincorporated areas were improved at an estimated cost of $17 million. Estimates show that this program has saved motorists, on an annual basis, $218 million in vehicle costs, 14.8 million travel hours, 18.7 million gal- lons of fuel, and 7,700 tons of pollutants. Travel times have been reduced by as much as 24% to 29%. • To garner support for its program, Orange County con- ducted two demonstration projects: one on Euclid Street (synchronizing 62 traffic signals on a 15-mile-long route through six different cities), and another on Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive (synchronizing 34 signals on 8 miles of suburban arterial roadways in five cities and unincorporated areas of Orange County) (15). A before-and-after evaluation showed that the Euclid proj- ect resulted in a 20% improvement in travel times and a 41% reduction in stops. The Oso Parkway/Pacific Park project netted similar results: a 30% improvement in travel times and a 50% reduction in stops. • Similar improvements were reported for the North Central Texas Council of Government’s (NCTCOG) resynchronization program (16). Table 15 shows the estimated total benefits accumulated for the improve- ments performed in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex region by NCTCOG. In this project, a total of 482 traffic signals were synchronized on 140 miles of arterial road- ways that cross through eight different cities, and two Texas DOT districts were subject to retiming. RTSOPs can also generate significant improvements in air quality. For example, Table 16 shows the air quality benefits that have been derived by the Denver Regional Council of Gov- ernments (DRCOG) from 2006 to 2010 through its RTSOP (17,18). Similarly, the SPC reported that a reduction in total emissions of 26.2% was calculated based on the reduction in fuel consumption (19). Other qualitative benefits of RTSOPs cited included: • Operating agencies can achieve increased access to any funding set aside specifically for making opera- tional improvements in the region. In these cases, traf- fic signal timing projects are not individually required to compete directly against capacity-enhancement proj- ects for limited regional dollars, but may compete as a group. 34 Performance Measures Estimated Benefits Average Travel Time Savings 8.7% overall reduction in travel time More than 280 vehicle-minutes or 4.7-hours reduction per weekday Reductions in Stops 22.7% overall reduction in number of stops More than 300 vehicle-stops reduced per weekday SynchroTM Measures of Effectiveness Total signal delay reduced by 20.7% Fuel consumption reduced by 19.1% Reduction of 64,000 gallons per weekday Emissions reduced by 12.9% CO reduction of more than 3,500 kg per day NOx reduction of more than 680 kg per weekday VOC reduction of more than 800 kg per weekday Estimated Economic Benefits Estimated user benefits of more than $389,000 per weekday Annual savings of approximately $97 million TABLE 15 ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF NCTCOG’S THOROUGHFARE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM PHASE 2.0 (15) Fiscal Year Cumulative Emission Reduction for All Projects (lb/day) Average Emissions Reduction per Project (lb/day) Minimum Project Reduction (lb/day) Minimum Project Reduction (lb/day) Number of Projects per Fiscal Year 2010 1,285 183.6 55 382 7 2009 9,353 414.7 34 1,602 24 2008 1,445,250 525.7 75 1,334 11 2007 1,358,422 518.2 116 1,515 12 2006 3,776,000 737.2 61 5,670 22 TABLE 16 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AIR QUALITY BENEFITS DERIVED BY DRCOG THROUGH RTSOP (17,18)

35 • Through collaboration with neighboring entities, agencies can leverage their technical expertise, resources, and existing institutional arrangements to advance larger, more technically advanced projects for the region. • Participating agencies can implement real solutions that have tangible impacts on regional congestion reduction and environmental goals. • Agencies can leverage reduced project costs and shorten implementation time frames by sharing common com- munications and infrastructure assets. • Agencies can reduce operating and maintenance costs by leveraging and sharing personnel and equipment common to the region. • Agencies can leverage limited training and professional development funds to develop and retain local in-house expertise in traffic signal system operations. • Local agencies can develop and implement alternative signal operations plans and strategies that facilitate diversion routing and traffic flows during freeway and arterial incidents.