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.

36 The types of institutional arrangements and agreements used in establishing and operating RTSOPs can be grouped into (1) program-level, and (2) project-level. The type of agreement is highly dependent on the goals and functions of the program. Program-level agreements are intended to clarify the “big pic- ture” intent of the program, defining a vision and goals for the program and dealing more with organizational structure. These types of arrangements and agreements define a formal organization structure of the program. Program-level agree- ments are more likely to be used when regional partners are considering consolidating operations into a single entity. RTSOPs that are proposed to keep control with the local enti- ties will generally rely on project-level agreements among a subset of participating agencies. Program-level arrangements are intended to extend beyond the needs that are specific to an individual project or corridor where improvements are being implemented, whereas project-level agreements are designed to cover the needs of an individual project or corridor improve- ment. Program-level agreements tend to be focused on the longer term and to be bigger in scope, whereas project-level arrangements are short-term, lasting only long enough to implement a specific set of improvements to a corridor. Program-level arrangements can be either formal or infor- mal and typically develop from long-term relationships among stakeholders. Project-level agreements are almost always formal and represent a contractual arrangement between two entities. PROGRAM-LEVEL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Through the interview process, three types of institutional arrangements were identified that are commonly used in establishing RTSOPs: • Local partnerships, • MOU, and • Cooperative agreements. Table 17 shows some of the elements commonly included in agency agreements related to RTSOPs. A brief description of the different types of institutional arrangements that are commonly used to establish and sustain RTSOPs is provided here. Appendix C provides examples of program-level and project-level institutional arrangements and agreements used by various entities. Local Partnerships Some locations have been successful in using a partnership arrangement to develop their RTSOP. In a partnership arrange- ment, no formal agreements are made between entities. Instead, local entities build on existing relationships to begin a more formalized RTSOP. Usually, these partnerships evolve using spoken and/or unwritten agreements between two or more entities to define the program for the region. This type of arrangement is built on a mutual trust between agencies and has proven to be a successful approach when agencies have a long history of collaboration. The Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area is a good exam- ple of a case where a successful RTSOP has been implemented without any type of formal agreement. A partnership arrange- ment between the DRCOG, Colorado DOT (CoDOT), and 32 local entities has allowed the Denver region to develop and operate its regional Traffic Operations Program since 1989 (17). Through a collaborative dialogue led by DRCOG, local entities work together to identify and prioritize road- ways for improvement and develop implementation projects through the program. Periodic program updates, performed every three to four years, are used to list specific projects deemed important to the region. The process begins with DRCOG updating a regional inventory of the system and assessing the current operational conditions of arterials in the region. A working group composed of representatives from partner entities works together to perform a needs assessment and identify specific projects based on the following factors: criticality of need, importance of the corridor, strategic needs for communications linkages, local priorities and synergies, and cost-effectiveness. These projects are then incorporated into the Traffic Signal Systems Improvement Program, which contains both capital improvement and traffic signal timing improvement elements. This system is then used to set the priorities for the program for the funding cycle. Memorandum of Understanding Occasionally, an RTSOP will use an MOU to establish the institutional structure of an RTSOP. An MOU is a written agreement between two or more entities that indicate the course of action to be pursued by each of the entities to address a common goal or line of action. MOUs are generally used to provide written confirmation of agreed upon terms under an CHAPTER FOUR OPERATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS

37 oral arrangement. They describe the basic principles and guide- lines under which multiple parties will work together to accom- plish specific goals and objectives. Depending on its structure, an MOU is generally a nonbinding agreement between entities and describes the relationships between entities in the program. Furthermore, MOUs are typically used when there is no need to obligate an agency to provide funding to a project or program. MOUs are generally used at the formation stage of an RTSOP. The MOU outlines the general purpose of the RTSOP—why it is needed, what agencies are involved, and why it is necessary for these agencies to work together to accomplish the common vision. Effective MOUs contain concise statements that describe the purpose and intent of the new or proposed collaboration and the relationships between the partner agencies, as well as the administrative governance for the program. Other items of importance that may be addressed in an MOU include the following: • A definition of important terms and phrases that are used throughout the MOU; • A description of the organizational structure and mem- bership of the agencies involved in the program; • A description of the functions, activities, and responsi- bilities of each of the partner agencies in the program; • A description of the obligations of the entities for fund- ing the program, including how the funds can be used and the formula for allocating costs between the partner agencies; • An indication of the duration and terms of renewal of the agreement; • Indemnity clauses; and/or • A description of ownership of property purchased. An MOU was used to form the Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC) in the Buffalo/Niagara Falls, New York area (20). A copy of the MOU is provided in web-only Appendix D1. The MOU defines the overall structure of the program and the roles and responsibilities of each participating agency. The MOU also defines the committee structure that is used to manage differ- ent aspects of the program. NITTEC’s RTSOP falls primarily under the purview of the Regional Transportation Coordina- tion and Management Council and Traffic Operations Center committees. The MOU does not actually describe how NITTEC is to manage traffic signals to promote regional traffic flow. This is done through standard operating procedures and protocols. These protocols define under what specific conditions NITTEC operators can implement changes in traffic signal timing. Appendix D2 (web-only) shows a sample protocol that defines when and how NITTEC operators can change the city of Buf- falo’s traffic signal timing plans during emergency and severe weather conditions. Elements Contained in RTSOP Agreements 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 Operational goals and objectives from the program Organizational structure Identification of lead agency Requirements for decision making Roles and responsibilities of participating agencies Activities to be performed by the program and participating agencies Performance goals and monitoring requirements Equipment and personnel sharing arrangements Funding requirements and cost-sharing arrangements System integration requirements Technical requirements Equipment specifications Personnel training requirements/schedule Duration of agreement Scope of coordination (i.e., which arterials to manage, signals to include, etc.) Configuration management procedures Notification requirements (for changes in configuration and/or operations) None, a formal agreement not used TABLE 17 COMMON ELEMENTS CONTAINED IN RTSOP AGREEMENTS

38 Cooperative Agreements Cooperative agreements are similar in concept to an MOU, but are considered to be legally binding documents. Cooper- ative agreements contain much of the same basic elements as an MOU; they describe the organizational structure of the program, the functions of the program, and the roles and responsibilities of each partner agency, etc.; however, where cooperative agreements generally differ from MOUs is that they are used to obligate one or more of the agencies to mak- ing a financial commitment to the program. The Nevada DOT; cities of Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas; Clark County; and the Regional Trans- portation Commission of Southern Nevada entered into a cooperative agreement to establish the FAST program in 2004. Under this agreement the local entities agreed to com- bine the Las Vegas metropolitan area arterial traffic manage- ment systems (known as the Las Vegas Area Computer Traffic System) and the Nevada DOT freeway management system into a single integrated organization, known as FAST. As part of the agreement, the local agencies created a new regional entity responsible for operating and maintaining both the freeway management and arterial management systems. The cooperative agreement defined not only the organizational structure of this new entity, but also the roles of the local enti- ties and their oversight responsibilities, the level of funding to be provided by each local entity, the indemnity require- ments, the duration of the agreement, and the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the local entities. A copy of this agreement is provided in Appendix D3 (web-only). Appendix D4 (web-only) contains the cooperative agree- ment for Operation Green Light, the regional traffic signal control program used in the Kansas City urban area. This par- ticular agreement is between MARC and the city of Overland Park, Kansas—which is one of the local entities participating in the program. Although the agreement is in a slightly dif- ferent form than the one used to create the FAST program in Nevada, the cooperative agreement contains the same basic types of information. The Operation Green Light agreement describes the basic organizational structure for the program; roles and responsibilities for participating agencies; func- tions, activities, and tasks to be performed by MARC through the program; the cost-sharing arrangement between MARC and the city; insurance requirements; equipment ownership and maintenance obligations; and other important elements of the program. The agreement is signed by appropriate sig- natories of both MARC and the individual city (in this case, Overland Park). Similar agreements are held with the other participating agencies in the region. PROJECT-LEVEL AGREEMENTS Many of the agencies interviewed use project-level agreements as part of the normal course of business for RTSOPs. Project agreements (which may also be referred to as inter-local agreements, inter-agency agreements, or inter-jurisdictional agreements) are frequently used in RTSOPs to initiate spe- cific improvement projects within a program (as opposed to the program itself). Generally, these types of agreements are legally binding and are used when there is a need to exchange funds between the agency responsible for distribut- ing funds (i.e., the regional RTSOP entity) and the agency responsible for performing the work (i.e., the local entity). Usually, project agreements exist between only two govern- mental entities and not between a public entity and a private consulting firm (a different type of contracting mechanism is used for this arrangement). Although the exact content can vary from location to location, the project agreement generally describes the roles, responsibilities, and relationships between the regional and local entities. Specific items usually covered in a project agreement related to RTSOPs include: • Who is responsible for purchasing and deploying any necessary communications and field equipment upgrades; • Who has ownership of which pieces of equipment deployed as part of the project; • Who is responsible for testing and inspecting any field equipment deployed as part of the project; • Who will perform the data collection necessary to develop timing plans; • Who will develop the timing plans; • Who will implement the timing plans in the field; • Who is responsible for fine-tuning timing plans once they have been implemented; • Who is responsible for conducting the different types of evaluations associated with the project; • Who is responsible for operating and maintaining the field equipment and/or timing plans installed as part of the project; • Who is to be notified if timing plans are to be changed and what restrictions, if any, exist on when timing plans can be changed (i.e., how long before timing plans can be changed after deployment); and • Who is responsible for preparing specific documenta- tion (i.e., expense reports, final reports, outreach docu- mentation, etc.) associated with the project. Project agreements also specify the amount of money that each agency is responsible for contributing to the project. This includes the amount and type of matching requirements (hard match, soft match, or in-kind match) that the local entity is to provide, if any. Many times, these project agree- ments also contain a payment reimbursement schedule and a project delivery time frame, as well. There is likely no one single “standard” example of a proj- ect agreement that is recommended; however, Appendix D5 (web-only) shows an example of the type of inter-local agreement the NCTOG uses when funding traffic signal retim- ing programs. Project agreements can vary (even within the same program) depending on the type of work being done and who is designated as the lead agency on the project. For

39 example, the SPC COG uses two different project agree- ments: one for projects that are performing only signal tim- ing improvements and one where equipment upgrades are being performed in conjunction with signal timing improve- ments [see Appendix D6 (web-only)]. Likewise, Los Angeles County has two different types of project agree- ments that are used that depend on whether a local entity will continue to operate the signal system after the improve- ments have been made [see Appendix D7 (web-only) or Los Angeles County is being asked to take over operating and monitoring signal performance [see Appendix D8 (web- only)]. Orange County also uses two different project agree- ments, depending on whether the lead agency is Orange County [Appendix D9 (web-only)] or the local agency [see Appendix D10 (web-only)]. Appendix D11 (web-only) shows a sample project agree- ment used in the Tucson area by the Pima County Transporta- tion Authority for a signal upgrade project. In this particular project, the Pima County DOT served as the lead agency. The project involved upgrading the traffic signal and communi- cations equipment in three different entities and included participation from five total agencies. OTHER AGREEMENTS Consultant Scope of Services and Contract In several of the organizations interviewed, the regional entity uses consultants to develop and assist local agencies with the implementation of recommended timing plan changes for inter-jurisdictional coordination. The regional entity typically uses a consultant services contract to out- line not only the specific project scope, but also the roles and responsibilities of the consultant in the regional retim- ing projects and its contractual and working relationships with the local entities. Typical items covered in a consul- tant contract: • Expectations for communications among, meetings with, and soliciting input from the local entities and other stakeholders affected by the project(s); • Data collection roles and responsibilities; • Acceptable processes and procedures for analyzing exist- ing conditions; • Permitted tools and techniques for analyzing and opti- mizing corridor-level traffic signal operations; • Acceptable processes and procedures for developing optimal initial and actuated timing plan settings; • Requirements for developing coordination timing plans; • Expectations for assisting in the deployment and fine- tuning of implemented signal timings, before-and-after evaluation roles and responsibilities; • Expected type and schedule for deliverables; and • Regulatory restrictions, insurance requirements, and other legally binding language specific to the contract- ing agency. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay area is one agency that relies heavily on consultants to produce its timing plans. The MTC has developed a standardized scope of work that it uses with all RTSOP consultants. An example of the scope of services is contained in Appendix D12 (web-only). Cost-Sharing Agreement Cost sharing is typically an issue when the organizational structure is one in which the local agencies have decided to create a regional entity that is responsible for the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the traffic signals on either corridors of regional significance or for all signalized inter- sections. Generally, when the local decision is to operate the traffic signal system through a regional RTSOP entity, the local partners are asked to share the responsibility of funding the costs for the functions and services that the regional entity performs (e.g., developing timing plans, monitoring arter- ial performance, improving infrastructure, or maintenance, among other functions). A number of approaches exist for determining an equitable way of sharing costs, but the most common methods appear to be based on the percentage (or ratio) of traffic signals within a single jurisdiction compared with the total number of traffic signals under the control of the regional entity. For example, if 25 of a total of 100 intersections are within the jurisdiction of City A, then City A would be responsible for 25% of the total operating costs needed to operate the regional system. In areas where transit priority is also provided, either the metropolitan transit agency or the regional RTSOP entity may be responsible for providing the cost share associated with operating the transit priority system (e.g., developing priority timing plans, purchasing and deploying the transit signal pri- ority detection systems, etc.). Operation Green Light is an example of an RTSOP where the local entities have agreed to consolidate the management of their traffic signals along arterial corridors under a signal control center operated by a regional entity, MARC (12,13). Under this program, each local entity has agreed to share the Operation Green Light Project annual operating costs, and MARC staff estimates the annual operating costs for the entire region. This total cost is then proportioned to each local entity based on the ratio of the number of traffic signals owned by the entity to the total number of traffic signals operated by MARC through the program. Annual operations costs are estimated assuming decreasing levels of program support by the federal government. These operating costs are then incorporated into a cooperative agreement. Figure 20 is an example of the cost- sharing arrangement contained in the Operation Green Light Cooperative Agreement for the city of Overland Park, Kansas, one of the local entities participating in the Operation Green Light Program. The entire agreement is available in Appendix D4 (web-only).

40 FIGURE 20 Sample of cost-sharing arrangement used in Operation Green Light. The Road Commission of Oakland County, Michigan, has a long history of operating and maintaining traffic sig- nals in its region. The Road Commission frequently enters into cost-sharing agreements with local entities to maintain operations of their traffic signals. Figure 21 shows an exam- ple of a cost-sharing arrangement between the Road Com- mission, an adjacent county, and two of the local entities in which the Road Commission is responsible for operating their traffic signals. Waiver of Claims and Indemnification Liability is a common concern with both regional and local entities when it comes to establishing and implementing an area RTSOP. Common liability issues and concerns that agencies must be worked through during the process of establishing an RTSOP include the following: • Who has the authority to implement agreed upon timing plans in other agency cabinets and equipment,

41 FIGURE 21 Sample cost-sharing agreement for FAST-TRAC signals in Oakland County, Michigan. • Who is responsible for establishing minimum vehicle and pedestrian phase setting and clearance intervals, • Who is responsible for maintaining the physical hardware—both the traffic signal hardware as well as the communications hardware—at each intersection, • Who is responsible for maintaining the coordination timing plans once they have been implemented, • Who is responsible for responding to citizen inquiries and complaints about traffic signal operations at inter- sections of regional importance, and • What authority do local agencies have to change regional traffic signal timing plans and the process for making those changes (who is to be notified, what records need to be kept, etc.)? Several regions have indemnification language included as part of their program-level and project-level agreements. For example, the MTC in the San Francisco Bay area requires local agencies applying for funds through their Regional Sig- nal Timing Program to enter into an agreement with MTC to

42 (1) waive any and all claims against MTC for any loss lia- bility, and (2) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend MTC against any and all third-party claims that may result from the agency’s participation in the program. MTC’s program is one in which the agency assigns a consultant to prepare tim- ing plans for agencies and its role is to monitor the work progress of the consultant. The local agencies have the ulti- mate responsibility to implement the timing recommenda- tions in the controllers. A sample of this agreement is shown in Figure 22. FIGURE 22 Sample waiver of claims and indemnification agreement used by the MTC for the San Francisco Bay Area.