Planning for Transportation Systems Management and Operations Within Corridors: A Desk Reference

Chapter 3. Approach to Planning for Transportation Systems Management and Operations within Corridors

This chapter provides information on several fundamental activities that will typically need to occur when planning for transportation systems management and operations (TSMO) on a corridor regardless of the type of corridor and the planning context. Chapter 4 describes the activities that are needed to make the plans for TSMO a reality through key activities, such as programming, design, and systems engineering. All of these activities form the basis for an approach to planning and preparing for the implementation of TSMO strategies in corridors. This approach is outlined in Figure 8. This figure will be used throughout the next two chapters to highlight the major activities. The approach is based on the planning for operations approach developed for advancing TSMO at the metropolitan planning level. Adaptations were made to account for the broad range of contexts in which TSMO may be planned for within corridors (e.g., planning for road weather management on a multistate corridor conducted outside of a formal regional or statewide planning process).

Figure 8. Diagram. Approach to planning for transportation systems management and operations within corridors.

This section covers:

• Getting started — scoping the effort and building a team.
• Gathering information on current and future context and conditions.
• Developing an outcome-oriented operational concept, including operations objectives.
• Identifying operations performance needs, gaps, and opportunities.
• Developing an integrated TSMO approach:
  • Identifying TSMO strategies based on operations objectives and performance needs.
  • Evaluating TSMO strategies.
  • Selecting TSMO strategies.

Getting Started - Scoping the Effort and Building a Team

Developing an effective corridor plan or system management plan requires scoping the effort and building a team of partners and stakeholders to work together on its development (Figure 9).

Key questions to consider in scoping the effort include:

• What do we want to accomplish/ address?
• What is the geographic area of the corridor? Does it include parallel roadways or transit lines? Are there any connectors along the corridor that also should be included?
• What are the pressing issues or desired areas of change?
• Who should be involved in this process? Why and how?
• How will the planning effort be conducted? What Federal, State, regional, or local procedures or guidelines are best suited to the effort regarding items such as outcome-oriented objectives, performance measurement, conditions analysis, strategy identification and evaluation, and public involvement?

Tools that can be leveraged to scope the effort and build a team include:³⁵

• Statewide or regional intelligent transportation system (ITS) architecture — Most states and large metropolitan areas already have an ITS architecture in place. This framework for planning, defining, and integrating ITS can provide insights into the management and operations services, stakeholders, and performance data that may play a role in a corridor study.
• Regional concept for transportation operations (RCTO) — An RCTO is an objectives-driven, performance-based approach to planning for one or more specific operations areas, such as traveler information or traffic incident management (TIM). The RCTO, which typically includes roles, responsibilities, and resources needed to achieve specific operations objectives, can be used as a tool to develop and implement TSMO strategies at the corridor level.
• Statewide or regional corridor planning guide — Some agencies, such as the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, have developed guides for corridor planning that include planning process recommendations and a toolbox of available strategies that may be considered. Ideally, the toolbox should include TSMO strategies in addition to more traditional transportation strategies, such as complete streets.³⁶

The team involved in a corridor planning study provides a forum for idea sharing, decisionmaking, and a commitment to improving operations. Chapter 1 includes a preliminary list of transportation-related stakeholders that should be considered. Effectively engaging the team involves developing a shared understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and needs of key constituencies (e.g., partnering agencies, authorities, network owners and operators, stakeholders, and the users of the corridor). The team will then work together to define needs in the corridor, agree upon goals and objectives, develop preliminary consensus on pragmatic concepts for strategies or combinations of strategies that realistically address specified goals and objectives, and develop viable operating scenarios under which the concepts and strategies can be analyzed.

Although there is no one-size-fits-all approach to team building, these approaches have worked for some regions:³⁷

• Build on an existing collaborative group — Use an existing operations group or a committee that has already been used to develop a regional ITS architecture or RCTO as a starting point for identifying stakeholders. An existing operations group may be able to incorporate the corridor project into its meeting agendas.
• Ensure at least one committed champion — Ideally, the champion has a clear vision of the desired outcome, brings the stakeholders together, ensures they are engaged, and works to get the support needed to achieve the desired outcomes.
• Gather support from elected or appointed officials and agency leadership — Identify an advocate for the effort at the executive leadership level to help influence the success of the team.
• Engage participants — It is important to identify and engage the array of operating agencies and stakeholders that will play a role in, and ultimately be critical to, operations within the corridor. Typically, this will include local transportation agencies, a State department of transportation (DOT), transit agencies, and representatives of local governments and community groups. Law enforcement, emergency responders, and major employers in a corridor also may be important participants. If some participants, such as emergency management agencies, are unable to attend project committee meetings, better success may be realized by taking the project to other established forums held by those stakeholders.³⁸
• Form a tiered collaborative structure with a strong mandate — The use of a steering committee with agency leaders can provide project guidance and make high level decisions while a working group comprised of technical staff can help shape the technical approaches needed to deliver on the leaders' vision.

Figure 10. Diagram. The framework for collaboration and
coordination within a corridor.
Source: Source: Federal Highway Administration. Regional
Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination: A
Primer for Working Together to Improve Transportation Safety,
Reliability, and Security, FHWA-OP-03-008.

Benefits of Collaboration

Enhancing collaboration and coordination among agencies involved in systems management and operations within corridors is a key component of integrated corridor management (ICM) and is vital to developing solutions for optimizing corridor performance; this is particularly true in complex urban corridors with many different operators and choices of modes and routes. Collaboration produces tangible benefits both to participating agencies and jurisdictions, as well as to system users and other stakeholders who depend on effective corridor operations in moving people and goods. These benefits fall into three general groups: (1) access to and use of existing resources, (2) improvements in current operations, and (3) better outcomes for system users and other stakeholders.³⁹

Expanded Access to Resources and More Efficient Use of Existing Resources

The visible and immediate benefits of collaboration among agencies and jurisdictions in a corridor may be realized through strategies, such as:

• Pooling funds to avoid duplicate investments or purchases.
• Participating in joint training activities.
• Taking advantage of special expertise or experience that may reside in some but not all agencies or jurisdictions.
• Negotiating group purchasing agreements with vendors and suppliers.
• Adopting common standards for technology that can simplify interagency and multijurisdictional interactions and mutual support.
• Acquiring and maintaining more current and more effective hardware and software systems.

Each of these approaches, or several in combination, can improve the use of available resources.

Improved Agency Operations

Beyond more efficient access to and use of resources, collaboration enables cooperating entities to perform their missions more effectively. These improvements can result in:

• Sharing information among system operators and owners so that they have greater awareness of current and anticipated events in adjacent jurisdictions or in other agencies.
• Developing standard protocols and procedures among agencies and jurisdictions that operate within the corridor.
• Improving responsiveness to events and incidents by sharing information, assets, and responsibilities.
• Working cooperatively to leverage all available assets, skills, and personnel to improve efficiency.

Each of these, and other strategies, can enhance working relationships during routine operations and offer the added benefit of providing the foundation for preparing for and responding to emergency situations, crashes, intentional attacks on transportation assets or other infrastructure, planned special events (e.g., sporting events, conventions, and festivals), or major natural events (e.g., hurricanes, snowstorms, tornados, earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, etc.).

Better Outcomes or Results for Travelers, Suppliers or Shippers, and Other Stakeholders

Ultimately, system users and communities benefit through effects, such as:

• Safer corridor facilities (e.g., transit stations and bicycle/pedestrian paths and lanes).
• Lower fuel consumption through both more efficient operation of the corridor and more and better alternatives to private vehicle use.
• Shorter travel times achieved through congestion mitigation strategies and more effective corridor management and operation.
• More accurate, timely, and relevant information about past, current, and anticipated travel conditions, modes, schedules, travel times, and travel options so that travelers, shippers, and others can make more informed travel decisions.

These benefits will, over time, prove to be the most important, because they are the outcomes important to travelers, shippers, environmental agencies, neighborhood associations, bicycle/pedestrian advocates, and others who interact with the corridor.

A Framework for Collaboration and Coordination in a Corridor

Five key, or foundational, elements characterize the collaboration and coordination necessary for effective TSMO within corridors. As shown in Figure 10, these five elements are connected, interactive, iterative, and build upon foundational elements that can be applied at multiple scales.

The starting point for collaboration and coordination is the structure, or the means through which individuals, agencies, and jurisdictions come together to identify needs, establish priorities, make commitments, allocate resources, and evaluate performance. In a corridor, a structure might be formalized in an ongoing corridor coalition or working group, or it may be addressed as part of broader regional or State efforts that include a focus on key corridors.

The process is the course of action taken through which options are created and decisions are made; the process could involve formal activities like a structured set of meetings as part of a corridor planning process or informal activities.

The products are the agreements, arrangements, and commitments to move forward with agreed upon strategies. The product may include a corridor plan, a concept of operations, operating plans and procedures, or other documents.

Resources reflect the commitments made in terms of funding, people, equipment, facilities, support, and other assets needed to implement the strategies identified for the corridor.

Finally, performance measurement provides the feedback to determine how well the agreed upon strategies have been implemented and executed, and the effect these strategies have had on outcomes of interest in the corridor relative to the agreed-upon goals and objectives.

Connections to Broader Planning and Operations Efforts

Transportation planning in a corridor should build off of broader planning efforts for TSMO, as well as existing operations programs and strategies at a regional and State level. Regardless of the size of the corridor, planning for corridor operations should recognize and build upon existing programs that can benefit the corridor, including:

• Existing ITS infrastructure, such as fiber networks, variable message signs, and traffic cameras.
• State and/or regional traveler information systems, which can be utilized to help provide real-time information on incidents, speeds, and other aspects of operating conditions for highways, arterials, and transit in the corridor.
• Regional incident management and response programs, which can be expanded or targeted to address corridor-specific issues.
• Work zone management strategies used in transportation management plans for significant projects.
• Regional transportation demand management (TDM) programs, which often include ridematching services, employer outreach, and public outreach and incentives to encourage use of alternatives to driving alone.

In particular, transportation management centers (TMCs) use real-time information to support quicker incident management and communicate this information to the public through 511 systems, the Internet, and media to help travelers avoid delays. Employing active traffic management (ATM) and active transportation and demand management (ATDM) strategies in a corridor builds upon the foundation of monitoring, assessment, and response that takes place within TMCs. This may involve applying a wide range of strategies, such as opening shoulder lanes to transit vehicles or general-use traffic during congested periods, adjusting speed limits based on traffic levels, and dynamic ramp metering to control the flow of traffic at merging points.

TDM program services and incentives also could be targeted to specific corridors, particularly those with major construction activity. For instance, in the Washington, DC, metro area, the Virginia DOT and Maryland State Highway Administration partnered in developing the Bridge Bucks pilot program, which provided a 50-dollars-a-month incentive to commuters who switched out of their cars and into buses, trains, or vanpools during reconstruction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The regional Commuter Connections program, operated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, was a resource that helped provide ridematching and a guaranteed ride home to participants.⁴⁰

In developing corridor goals, operations objectives, and performance measures, and identifying and selecting appropriate strategies for application, the approach for planning for TSMO on a corridor should build upon existing planning efforts that relate to system operations, including:

• Priorities identified in State and regional transportation plans — Statewide and metropolitan transportation plans identify policies and priorities that can be used to inform identification of potential strategies for a corridor. For instance, some plans emphasize demand management or include a policy to prioritize strategies that increase transit, ridesharing, and non-motorized travel over single-occupancy vehicle travel.
• State or metropolitan area TSMO plans — Some State DOTs have developed TSMO plans, which identify priority corridors and sets of strategies that may be applicable for different types of corridors. For instance, Minnesota DOT's Highway System Operations Plan and Wisconsin DOT's Traffic Operations Infrastructure Plan generally outline Statewide operations infrastructure needs and opportunities.⁴¹, ⁴² A number of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) also have developed regional TSMO plans. For instance, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council developed the Baltimore Regional Management and Operations Strategic Deployment Plan, which includes goals, objectives, and strategies, as well as screening factors, to suggest an implementation order for projects.⁴³ Metro, the MPO for Portland, Oregon, developed a Regional Transportation System Management and Operations Plan, which lays out a framework that includes a regional vision, planning goals and objectives, and guiding principles, and an action plan for regional and corridor investments.⁴⁴ Similarly, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission completed its Regional Transportation Operations Plan: 2012-2016 in 2012, which identifies short-range actions recommended for implementation over a 5 year period.⁴⁵ While these plans are often high level, where available, they will serve as a very strong basis for more-detailed, corridor-focused efforts.
• Regional ITS architectures — A regional ITS architecture provides a common framework for planning, defining, and integrating ITS across a state or region. A regional ITS architecture can be used by State and local planning agencies and organizations to identify integration opportunities and to support incorporation of operational needs in transportation planning. For instance, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, in coordination with New Jersey DOT, is updating the regional ITS architectures for the region and state. A key component of this effort is development of an ITS strategic deployment plan, known as The Connected Corridor, that will serve as a shared vision by transportation agencies to more effectively plan, program, and operate the region's transportation system with operational strategies.⁴⁶ Consequently, these documents will help to inform ICM planning efforts.
• Regional TDM plans — Some metropolitan areas also have developed TDM plans, which can provide a basis for developing corridor-specific demand management efforts. For instance, the Atlanta Regional Commission developed the Atlanta Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan that defined a framework for developing and integrating TDM strategies into planning, project development, and system operations investment decisionmaking.⁴⁷ The plan identifies key goals and strategies, which are intended to be addressed with partners from Georgia DOT, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, local governments, and others.

Effectively planning for TSMO within corridors will build upon existing plans and programs and ensure that corridor plans are compatible with, and take advantage of, these broader efforts. It is important to recognize that a corridor is part of a larger transportation network, and the policies and strategies being identified at the regional and state levels should help to inform the more geographically focused effort. At the same time, the plans, strategies, and operational relationships that will be effective within a corridor will reflect the specific travel needs, constraints, and opportunities of the corridor.

Gathering Information on current and Future Context and Conditions

Gathering information about the corridor — the current conditions and the future context — is a key early step in the development of any corridor plan or strategy (Figure 11). Data, both qualitative and quantitative, play a vital role in a performance-based approach to planning for TSMO in a corridor.

Baseline information helps define the existing conditions in the corridor, including identification of challenges and problem areas. Data on expected changes in population, land use, and travel conditions also will help to inform understanding of potential future corridor challenges that should be addressed during a corridor planning process. Data gathered during this phase also are a starting point for identifying opportunities for potential operations strategies that may be applied within the corridor and are used in analysis tools and evaluation to assess the effectiveness of these strategies. Given the critical role of data in a performance-based approach, gathering quality data and accurate information is imperative.

Often, a technical advisory committee or some other type of stakeholder partner group will play a key role in defining corridor objectives and in providing guidance on data and information gathering. Members with operations data expertise will play an important role in bringing forth operations data to inform the corridor planning process, as well as to explain data limitations.

Common sources of information include previous plans and studies; data sets on current and past system performance, including archived operations data; and forecasts of future conditions.

Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans

A review of existing studies, reports, and plans provides information about the broader planning context and may include recent multimodal transportation plans, pedestrian and bicycle plans, land use and development plans, and infrastructure condition reports. These documents offer insight into the long-term, big-picture vision for the corridor and surrounding study area. They also can provide data on anticipated future conditions in a corridor, such as population, jobs, housing units, and vehicle or passenger trips.

A range of information may be available on the current transportation system components and features within the corridor study. For instance, topographical maps provide information about the corridor surface and geographical features. Documentation of the overall transportation network also is useful, including information about the existing multimodal transportation network, such as highways, transit services, and side and perpendicular streets (intersection types and traffic control measures used). Moreover, beyond the infrastructure, baseline information also should document existing operational assets, partnerships, relationships, and programs that affect system operations. Examples include ITS components, ramp metering, traveler information systems, incident management programs, and transit signal priority (TSP), among others. Documenting the current application of these system components or strategies will be important as a baseline for understanding the existing context in the corridor.

Understanding Users of the Corridor

Understanding travel markets and users of the corridor is important in defining both needs and possible strategies that will be effective. Some corridors carry significant freight truck activity, while others do not. Some also handle significant interstate through traffic, while others carry largely localized trips.

While some freeway management and incident management strategies (e.g., variable speed limits and queue warning) will benefit all travelers and help system operators to have better information to adjust system operations, it is important to consider the needs of different types of travelers. Understanding the unique characteristics of travelers in the corridor and their key concerns also will be useful in assessing potential strategies that may be targeted to specific types of travelers.

Recognizing how they access information and make travel decisions, some will aid in tailoring TSMO strategies. Possible traveler groups may include daily commuters traveling regularly to and from work or school, leisure travelers going to local destinations (e.g., running errands, entertainment, etc.), long-distance commuters or tourist travelers passing through, and freight or commerce vehicles transporting goods. Table 2 provides a sample of potential corridor users, their concerns, and TSMO strategies that planners and operators may consider to address those concerns.

Table 2. Developing a thorough understanding of the corridor users will help determine possible transportation systems management and operations strategies.

	Local Commuter	Leisure Traveler	Long Distance/Interstate Driver	Freight/Commerce
Description	Reside locally, travel regularly between work/school.	Reside locally, traveling to local destinations (e.g., running errands, entertainment, recreation, etc.).	Non-local travelers traveling to or through the corridor, less familiar with local conditions or alternative routes.	Transportation of goods to local stores and businesses or to regional distribution centers.
Key Concerns	Reliability of route and avoidance of traffic delays, information about transportation options.	Avoiding traffic congestion, parking availability, information about transportation options.	Notification of travel delays due to construction or incidents, access to stopover points (e.g., rest stop, gas stations, restaurants, etc.).	Reliability of travel time for on-time delivery, availability of preferred routes (particularly those that can accommodate freight vehicles).
Possible Strategies	Dynamic ridesharing, predictive traveler information, real-time transit and parking information, dynamic shoulder lane use.	Dynamic parking reservation, real-time travel information, off-peak parking discounts.	Real-time travel information, advance information to take alternative route well in advance to avoid congested area.	Real-time travel information, advance information to take alternative route well in advance to avoid congested area.

Information on Current System Performance

In addition to information about the physical assets, corridor conditions, and traveler characteristics, data on current corridor performance are needed. Data on traffic volumes, peak hour volume, and travel patterns convey important information on corridor performance, and data may include average daily travel, peak-hour volume, and mode-split. Level of service (LOS), which is a function of traffic volumes, traffic composition, roadway geometry, and the traffic control at the intersection, is widely used in traffic studies and reports. However, LOS does not capture the source or extent of congestion, especially non-recurring congestion (due to traffic incidents, work zone, bad weather, special events, etc.). Better data on actual travel speeds and delay in a corridor can be critical to understanding existing conditions. To incorporate operations strategies into the corridor plan, a more detailed account of the causes and impacts of congestion along the corridor is needed.

Archived operations data, from ITS programs, also can be used to assess important operational conditions, including system reliability; on-time transit performance; and the role of factors, such as weather conditions, on traffic congestion. Archived travel time data form the basis for understanding a wide variety of performance metrics, such as congestion, reliability, and freight mobility. Chapter 5, Toolbox for Effective Transportation Systems Management and Operations Planning, contains additional information on archived operations data.

Safety data are very useful for identifying challenges and problem areas along the corridor that may be addressed by operations strategies. Types of safety data include incident data (e.g., fatalities, injuries, and property damage); crash data by type (e.g., rear-end, left-turn, etc.), weather conditions, and light condition (e.g., daylight, dusk, etc.); and the spatial distribution of crashes.

Information about Future Conditions and Contexts

Information about anticipated conditions and contexts is important as well. This includes forecasted data about socio-economic factors (e.g., population, density, employment, etc.), as well as information from transportation modeling in regard to future anticipated travel demand. It also is important to document improvements slated for implementation in the near future. Information on future projects may come from consulting the metropolitan transportation improvement program (TIP), the statewide TIPs, or local plans.

Stakeholder and Public Engagement

In addition to previous studies and information on current and future conditions, input from stakeholders and the public is critical; specifically, their opinions about the corridor and preferences for the future of the corridor. The public and stakeholders should play a key role in defining goals and objectives for the corridor, as well as the performance measures that will be used to assess system performance. In urban corridors, there often are tradeoffs to be made in terms of performance of the system in relation to passenger vehicles, public transit, bicycling, and walking, and the public and stakeholders should play a key role in defining the specific objectives for the corridor. The public, for instance, may be willing to accept lower average motor vehicle speeds to improve the safety and accessibility of pedestrian and bicycle activity. While optimizing system performance along urban and suburban highway corridors might involve diverting heavily congested freeway traffic to parallel arterials, there may be community concerns about the impacts on accessibility in neighborhoods, which need to be considered. Consequently, it is important to engage the public and stakeholders in clearly defining corridor goals and operations objectives and in articulating priorities and values.

Methods for gathering information from stakeholders and the public include conducting qualitative research (e.g., interviews, focus groups, and workshops) or quantitative research (e.g., polls, surveys), as well as hosting citizens' panels and town hall meetings. A comprehensive approach should be used for stakeholder public engagement to capture input from all affected parties along the corridor, including those traditionally underserved by the existing transportation system (e.g., low-income communities, persons with disabilities, minorities). Engaging with stakeholders and the public early in the process is important and also presents an opportunity to raise awareness about operations and the role that operational strategies can play along the corridor. Educating stakeholders and the public about operational strategies will make them better-informed participants throughout the remainder of the corridor planning process.

Once the information-gathering process is complete, there is solid understanding of the needs, deficiencies, and opportunities to address in the next step: developing an operational concept.

Developing an Outcome-Oriented Operational Concept

An effectively managed corridor involves not only the provision of highway and transit infrastructure for movement of people and freight, but also efficient ways of operating these systems to support mobility, reliability, and safety. Consequently, while corridor planning may involve consideration of, or focus on, certain types of infrastructure improvements (e.g., streetscaping, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure), the planning process should focus on desired outcomes for travelers and communities, including outcomes related to how the corridor is managed and operated.

An outcome-oriented operational concept provides the framework for developing and evaluating options for the corridor that reflect local and regional values, which may include mobility, air quality, sustainability, livability, safety, security, economic activity, and accessibility, among other considerations (Figure 12). The relative priority of these considerations may vary depending on the context, needs of system users and other stakeholders, and stakeholder groups that are affected by transportation in the corridor.

Examples of outcomes commonly used in corridor studies include safety and mobility, often defined in terms of levels of traffic congestion or hours of delay. Other outcomes may include economic vitality, community livability, environmental quality, and other community goals.

Planning for TSMO involves considering a broad range of issues and outcomes associated with how transportation systems are managed and operated. For instance, a corridor plan with a greater focus on TSMO may include specific discussion of reliability as an outcome. In addition to general travel time, travelers and freight shippers often are very concerned about the variability in travel time from day-to-day or hour-to-hour. If it typically takes 20 minutes to travel a corridor off-peak and 30 minutes during peak congestion, travelers can plan for the extra travel time. However, if travel times are highly unpredictable, sometimes 30 minutes during rush hour but other times 60 minutes or more, this creates significant problems for making tightly scheduled appointments or delivery times. Studies show that travelers and freight shippers strongly value reliability in travel time; therefore, this is an important issue. High variability in travel times often is caused by traffic incidents, poor weather conditions, special events, and construction work zones, which can be considered in the context of corridors.

Substantial experience in TSMO planning at the regional level shows that rather than just defining goals and strategies, a key foundation for advancing TSMO in planning is to define an outcome-oriented operational concept that brings together goals, measurable operations objectives, and performance measures that are focused on outcomes important to the transportation system users. In a regional context, use of operations objectives and performance measures supports consideration and selection of TSMO strategies for the long-range transportation plan and TIP.⁴⁸

Similarly, corridor-based operations objectives and performance measures help to focus attention on system performance outcomes within a corridor and are a key element to support consideration of TSMO strategies. Developing an outcome-oriented operational concept is, by nature, an iterative process that involves developing an understanding of regional values that affect or influence priorities in the corridor and translating those priorities into observable and measurable outcomes that guide development of outcome-oriented objectives.

The outcome-oriented operational concept describes, at a high level, how the corridor would operate to realize the desired outcome(s). The operational concept does not specify strategies to be implemented in the corridor. It will likely draw upon a collection of individual and complementary strategies in response to the operations objectives for the corridor and an assessment of the costs and benefits of each. In some corridors, ATDM concepts—active traffic management, active demand management, and active parking management—may prove to be attractive strategies; in others, other strategies that rely less on real-time data may prove effective (e.g., improvements in TIM, seamless integration of public transportation alternatives, and better integration of nonmotorized alternatives).⁴⁹ These and other concepts can be incorporated into an overall operational concept for this corridor.

The operational concept can be formalized within the framework of goals, objectives, and performance measures. The goals and objectives translate the values and priorities into statements that describe what is to be achieved with respect to transportation in the corridor that supports higher-level regional goals. The corridor goals should link to these high-level regional goals, and then lead to objectives expressed in measurable terms that can be used to help develop and evaluate strategies for achieving the objectives.

Note that, in developing an outcome-oriented operational concept, specific solutions (strategies and tactics) are not considered, except to the extent that they may inform planners and operators about what is possible within available or anticipated technology solutions, legal and institutional arrangements, and fiscal constraints. Otherwise, the goals and objectives that characterize the operational concept should be open to new ideas about how to achieve the objective until after a range of feasible strategies and tactics is identified and evaluated using performance measures that relate directly to the objectives for the corridor.

Operations Goals

Operations goals are the high-level statements of what transportation in the corridor would look like if it reflects the needs, values, and priorities of the key stakeholders and transportation providers that use, depend upon, or operate transportation facilities and services. For example, the goals for the Interstate-880 Corridor in the Oakland, California area, as developed by the ICM Oakland Pioneer Site Team, are:

• "Improve the efficiency of their individual networks through shared information from, and collaborative operations with, the other networks.
• Balance demand across the networks to most efficiently utilize the available capacity.
• Enable travelers to make informed choices among transportation options, based on reliable information about travel conditions.
• Respond quickly and effectively to service disruptions that may be planned or unplanned, whether based on human or natural causes."⁵⁰

Led by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), the multi-agency ICM team for US-75 in Dallas, Texas developed a vision statement for the corridor and then four primary goals for the integrated management of the corridor. The team defined the vision as: "Operate the US-74 Corridor in a true multimodal, integrated, efficient, and safe fashion where the focus is on the transportation customer." This led the team to identify the following goals for the corridor:

• "Increase Corridor Throughput.
• Improve Travel Time Reliability.
• Improve Incident Management.
• Enable Intermodal Travel Decisions."⁵¹

Specific Outcome-based Operations Objectives

The high-level goals are the starting point for developing operations objectives, the basis for corridor TSMO planning. Operations objectives define desired outcomes for the corridor in relation to how the transportation system will perform. Operations objectives go beyond broad statements of goals, which often are loosely defined and difficult to assess. Operations objectives are specific, measurable statements developed in collaboration with a broad range of partners who have interests or who are affected by corridor transportation systems performance. They may be multijurisdictional in nature if the corridor of interest extends beyond or affects more than a single jurisdiction. Operations objectives generally lead directly to measures of performance that can be used to assess whether or not the objective has subsequently been achieved.

Operations objectives should be specific, measurable, agreed-upon, realistic, and time-bound (SMART):

• Specific — The objective provides sufficient specificity to guide formulation of viable approaches to achieving the objective without dictating the approach.
• Measurable — The objective facilitates quantitative evaluation, saying how many or how much should be accomplished. Tracking progress against the objective enables an assessment of effectiveness of actions.
• Agreed — Planners, operators, and relevant planning participants come to a consensus on a common objective. This is most effective when the planning process involves a wide range of stakeholders to facilitate collaboration and coordination among all parties that use or manage the corridor of interest.
• Realistic — The objective can reasonably be accomplished within the limitations of resources and other demands. The objective may require substantial coordination, collaboration, and investment to achieve. Factors, such as land use, also may have an impact on the feasibility of the objective and should be taken into account. Because how realistic the objective may need to be adjusted to be achievable.
• Time-Bound — The objective identifies a timeframe within which it will be achieved (e.g., "by 2017").

Specifically, an operations objective identifies targets regarding a particular aspect of corridor performance, such as traffic congestion, travel time reliability, emergency response time, or incident response. By developing SMART operations objectives, system performance can be examined and monitored over time.

Examples of operations objectives that may be applicable or could be adapted to corridor management and operations are provided in Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: An Objectives-Driven, Performance-Based Approach — A Desk Reference (Figure 13).⁵²

By including operations objectives that address system performance issues, such as recurring and non-recurring congestion, emergency response times, connectivity among modes, safety, and access to traveler information — rather than focusing primarily on system capacity — the planning effort for a corridor will elevate operations to play a more important role in investment planning, addressing both short- and long range needs.

While outcome-oriented objectives are preferred because they are most closely related to the LOS provided to systems users, in some cases, outcomes are difficult to measure or observe directly. Corridor outcome-oriented objectives focused on outcomes to the user include corridor travel times, travel time reliability, and access to traveler information. The public cares about these measures, and in many regions, data may be available to develop specific outcome-based operations objectives.

In cases where developing outcome-based objectives is difficult, agencies may develop corridor operations objectives that are activity-based and support desired system performance outcomes. For example, it may not be possible for a region to develop a specific objective related to incident-based delay experienced by travelers in the corridor if data are unavailable for this type of delay. However, it may be possible to develop an objective that relates to incident response time in the corridor, which may be more easily established and measured.

Other examples of activity-based objectives include the percentage of traffic signals re-timed in the corridor, the number of variable message signs deployed, and the share of bus stops with real-time transit information. Although these objectives are not as ideal as outcome-based objectives because they tend to focus on specific strategies or approaches, they may serve as interim objectives until more outcome-based objectives can be established and measured. Working together to develop the objectives themselves may help to elevate management and operations discussions among planners and operators and lead to initiatives to collect additional data.

One technique for organizing outcome-oriented and activity-based objectives is to develop an objectives tree that structures objectives in a hierarchical manner, with each top-level objective supported by lower-level subobjectives. The lower-level objectives, taken together, identify what must be achieved to realize the high-level objectives; the high-level objectives give the purpose for achieving the lower-level objectives. In many cases, the lower-level objectives will be activity-based objectives that relate to functions that must be performed to achieve high-level outcome-oriented objectives. Figure 14 illustrates how lower-level activity-based objectives support higher-level outcome-oriented bjectives, all acting in support of goals for the corridor or region.

Figure 14. Diagram. Illustrative objectives tree for corridor-based transportation
systems management and operations.

Performance Measures

One of the key attributes of SMART objectives is that they are measurable. Performance measures are associated with operations objectives and provide a measurable basis for:

• Understanding existing performance, including performance gaps.
• Assessing future projected gaps in performance.
• Supporting assessment of, and comparisons of, potential strategies to meet objectives.

The idea that "what gets measured gets managed," recognizes that performance measurement focuses the attention of decisionmakers, planners, stakeholders, and the public on important characteristics of the transportation system. Developing performance measures involves considering:

• How do we want to define and measure progress toward a certain operations objective? For instance, is transit ridership a key metric that is important for assessing livability and access? Or would bicycle/pedestrian activity be a better measure? Or do both provide value?
• What are the implications of selecting a specific measure? For instance, if travel speeds are a key measure of performance in a corridor, this would imply different strategies and results than focusing on improving reliability of travel times. Using a measure focused on person-travel rather than vehicle-travel might lead toward strategies that give more priority to high-occupancy modes like public transit or high-occupancy vehicle lanes than to those driving alone.

It is important to recognize that there are often tradeoffs among different goals and objectives (e.g., traffic throughput, increasing transit ridership, and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access); therefore, defining an appropriate and balanced set of performance measures for a corridor is important.

Performance measures are indicators of how well the corridor transportation system is performing and are inextricably tied to operations objectives. A range of performance measures may come from developing operations objectives. The performance measures selected should provide adequate information to planners, operators, and decisionmakers on progress toward achieving their operations objectives.

However, this is an iterative process as operations objectives may be refined once performance measures are developed and baseline data have been collected. Performance measures should be developed based on the individual needs and resources of each agency that provides services within the corridor. For example, transit agencies typically use a number of measures that are of interest to their customers, such as on-time performance, average passenger load, and total ridership. An MPO uses measures of mobility, such as facility LOS, travel time, and travel delay. These performance measures help planners focus on the day-today experience for their users. This provides important balance in settings where planners have focused exclusively on long-term development of the corridor. With greater focus on the day-today characteristics of the corridor, planners appreciate the issues faced by system operators. The result is that mid- and long-term planning now reflect greater consideration of operations and the associated investment needs within the corridor.

Some examples of performance areas and performance measures likely to be associated with corridor operations objectives are shown in Table 3. These performance measures are primarily drawn from the FHWA's Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: The Building Blocks of a Model Transportation Plan Incorporating Operations - A Desk Reference.⁵³

Table 3. Illustrative performance measures to guide corridor transportation systems management and operations planning.

Performance Area	Illustrative Performance Measures
Travel Time: Travel time measures focus on the time needed to travel along a selected portion of the corridor, and can be applied for specific roadways, corridors, transit lines, or at a regional level.	Average travel time, which can be measured based on travel time surveys. Average travel speeds, which can be calculated based on travel time divided by segment length or measured based on real-time information collection. Travel time index: the ratio of peak to non-peak travel time, which provides a measure of congestion.
Congestion Extent: Congestion measures can address both the spatial and temporal extent (duration). Depending on how these measures are defined and data are collected, these measures may focus on recurring congestion or address both recurring and non-recurring congestion.	Lane miles of congested conditions (defined based on volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, level of service (LOS) measures, or travel time index). Number of intersections experiencing congestion (based on LOS). Percent of roadways congested by type of roadway (e.g., freeway, arterial, collector). Average hours of congestion per day. Share of peak period transit services experiencing overcrowding.
Delay: Delay measures take into account the amount of time that it takes to travel in excess of travel under unconstrained (ideal or freeflow) operating conditions, and the number of vehicles affected. These measures provide an indication of how problematic traffic congestion is, and can address both recurring and nonrecurring congestion-related delay.	Vehicle-hours of recurring delay associated with population and employment growth. Vehicle-hours of nonrecurring delay associated with incidents, work zones, weather conditions, special events, etc.
Incident Occurrence/Duration: Incident duration is a measure of the time elapsed from the notification of an incident until the incident has been removed or response vehicles have left the incident scene. This measure can be used to assess the performance of service patrols and incident management systems. Incident occurrence also can be used to assess the performance and reliability of transit services.	Median minutes from time of incident until incident has been removed from scene. Number of transit bus breakdowns. Average number of transit rail system delays in excess of X minutes.
Travel Time Reliability: Travel time reliability measures take into account the variation in travel times that occur on roadways and across the system.	Buffer time, which describes the additional time that must be added to a trip to ensure that travelers will arrive at their destination at, or before, the intended time 95 percent of the time. Buffer time index, which represents the percent of time that should be budgeted on top of average travel time to arrive on time 95 percent of the time (e.g., a buffer index of 40 percent means that for a trip that usually takes 20 minutes, a traveler should budget an additional 8 minutes to ensure on-time arrival most of the time). Percentage of travel when travel time is X percent (e.g., 20 percent) greater than average travel time. Planning time index, defined as the 95th percentile travel time index. 90th or 95th percentile travel times for specific travel routes or trips, which indicates how bad delay will be on the heaviest travel days. Percentage of weekdays each month that average travel speed of designated facilities fall more than X MPH below posted speed limit during peak periods.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Transportation demand management measures examine demand in the corridor as well as the impact of strategies to manage that demand.	Awareness — Portion of potential program participants aware of a TDM program. Utilization — Number or percentage of individuals using a TDM service or alternate mode. Mode split — Proportion of total person trips that uses each mode of transportation. Vehicle Trips or Peak Period Vehicle Trips — The total number of private vehicles arriving at a destination.
Person Throughput: Examines the number of people that are moved on a roadway or transit system. Efforts to improve this measure are reflected in efforts to improve the flow of traffic, increase high occupancy vehicle movement, or increase transit seat occupancy on transit.	Peak hour persons moved per lane. Peak hour persons moved on transit services.
Customer Satisfaction: Examines public perceptions about the quality of the travel experience, including the efficiency of system management and operations.	Percent of the population reporting being satisfied or highly satisfied with travel conditions. Percent of the population reporting being satisfied or highly satisfied with access to traveler information. Percent of the population reporting being satisfied or highly satisfied with the reliability of transit services
Availability of or Awareness of Information: These measures focus on public knowledge of travel alternatives or traveler information.	Percent of surveyed population aware of travel alternatives and related traveler information.

LOS = level of service.
TDM = transportation demand management.
MPH = miles per hour.

In summary, the performance measures (1) tie directly to the operations o bjectives, (2) provide the criteria for evaluating strategies and tactics for improving corridor performance, and (3) direct the gathering of data necessary to identify and prioritize needs and gaps.

Identifying Operations Performance Needs, Gaps, and Opportunities

Gathering and analyzing data for performance measures is critical to identifying gaps between desired outcomes (objectives) and current conditions and in initially identifying potential opportunities for improvements (Figure 15).

Often, a key step following the definition of performance measures is to define scenarios, or to conduct a scenario planning exercise as a basis for understanding current performance gaps and potential opportunities. Operational scenarios should be defined by stakeholders in the corridor and may include (but are not limited to):

• Normal or daily scenario — to explore recurring congestion and typical challenges faced by travelers in the corridor, during peak and/or off-peak periods.
• Incident scenario — to address major or minor incidents along a highway, arterial, or transit service, to develop operational plans for how agencies work together and respond to these incidents.
• Planned event scenario — to address a major sporting event, festival, or activity that creates an atypical level of traffic demand along the corridor.
• Weather-related, emergency, or evacuation scenario — to consider unplanned events that may require more dynamic decisionmaking and coordination among stakeholders.
• Major work zone scenario — to address a major corridor construction or reconstruction project, and how transportation services, operations, and coordination will be conducted to minimize impacts on travelers, businesses, and the local community.

By defining scenarios, the participants in the corridor often can identify existing gaps, performance needs, and potential opportunities for improvements. Moreover, discussions to identify gaps aid planners and operators in clarifying and documenting problems within the corridor and highlight opportunities for improving corridor performance. In many cases, performance data are available that clearly demonstrate where problems exist and need attention, investment, and priority in the planning process, and may be tied to specific types of situations or scenarios where performance improvements would be most important.

Planners and operators must be cautious in depending on performance measures alone to identify gaps and opportunities, especially activity-based performance measures, because the performance measures may be specific to existing systems and may focus attention on improving existing operations strategies rather than considering alternatives that take advantage of new operational concepts, new technology, new institutional arrangements, and new or emerging user expectations. For example, if the performance measures suggest the need to reduce delay in the corridor by increasing average speeds, planners and operators may be tempted to focus on strategies such as adaptive signal controls and may overlook opportunities for transportation demand management approaches that increase use of shared vehicles (e.g., transit, carpools, and parking) or shift demand to other times and routes, making more effective use of available capacity. This does not mean that adaptive signal controls are inappropriate; only that performance measures, if not taken in context, can result in focusing on "efficiency" of current approaches rather than in how well outcome-oriented objectives are achieved.

In the end, performance measures point toward deficiencies in achieving goals and objectives for the corridor and also can be helpful in identifying opportunities for improving corridor performance.

Developing an Integrated Transportation Systems Management and Operations Approach

Once the corridor TSMO planning team has agreed upon operations objectives for how the corridor should operate and identified the performance gaps, it can begin to identify a system of TSMO strategies that will be implemented on the corridor to reach the operations objectives. This system of TSMO strategies forms an integrated TSMO approach to improving performance on the corridor (Figure 16). It is important to consider TSMO strategies working together in the context of the corridor as opposed to selecting and implementing strategies in isolation. Planning for an integrated set of strategies allows planners and operators to leverage synergies between strategies. For example, the needs of first responders for managing traffic incidents should be considered when setting up work zones and, likewise, TIM plans may consider pre-positioning vehicles to support quick clearance in areas of reduced capacity due to work zones.

Key Considerations in Developing an Integrated Transportation Systems Management and Operations Approach

Ensuring a System Solution Rather than "Stand Alone" Activities

The traditional approach to transportation operations has traditionally involved individual agencies (State DOTs, local transportation agencies, toll authorities, transit service providers, etc.) managing their own assets and services (e.g., freeways, arterials, toll roads and bridges, and transit services). Yet, increasingly, a more effective and efficient approach is being used that involves a more holistic approach to managing operations on a corridor by viewing the corridor as a system, instead of a group of standalone assets. Under this approach, operators work together to make investments and real-time operations decisions to effectively shift travel demand across modes and routes to manage congestion, improve safety, and enhance system reliability. For instance, when a highway is severely congested due to a traffic incident, travelers may be directed to alternative routes, including parallel arterials, and traffic signal patterns may be adjusted to enable those arterials to better handle additional traffic.

Moving Toward Active and Dynamic Transportation Systems Management

The use of operations strategies supports proactive and dynamic management of the transportation system, in which system performance is continuously assessed, and the system is managed through real-time implementation of adjustments (via traveler information, adjustments to signal timing, ramp metering, or other freeway operations) to achieve performance objectives (e.g., travel time reliability, corridor throughput, incident management). This approach requires collaboration, engaging partners to help influence travel choice and behavior along the corridor. Travel choice and behavior are influenced through active demand management (i.e., redistributing travel to less-congested routes or times of day and reducing overall trips by promoting mode choice); active traffic management (i.e., dynamically managing recurring and non-recurring congestion by improving travel throughput); and in urban areas, active parking management (i.e., optimizing the performance and utilization of available parking). Technology and innovation are critical to active and dynamic transportation systems management, supporting this data-driven approach implemented through information technology systems.

Focusing on the Traveler, Rather than Just Vehicles

A customer-focused perspective is the underpinning of an integrated approach to corridor management; rather than looking at enhancing vehicle throughput, a traveler-focused approach begins by examining traveler mobility needs and explores the most effective ways to meet those needs. This approach sets the context for developing a more efficient system for the end user. The TSMO approach is based on a fundamental understanding of how travelers decide which mode to use, what time to travel, which route to take, and at what time. Selecting operations strategies also requires segmentation of the travel market that differentiates between the various types of travelers (including commuters, non-commuter travelers, and freight movement), and understanding their travel behaviors, needs, and challenges to inform which operations strategies to implement.

Considering Community Values and Neighborhoods

Transportation within corridors plays a key role in mobility, but is more than just moving people and goods. Transportation within corridors is a lifeline for communities, often linking neighborhoods, businesses, and jobs. The context of corridors should reflect the character and values of the surrounding community. Integrating operational strategies into corridor planning is not a uniform approach; the set of strategies selected for an individual corridor should be customized and tailored to respond to the unique issues, challenges, and opportunities present. Therefore, successful TSMO integration into the planning process requires engaging the partners (i.e., the various agencies that operate along the corridor), as well as community stakeholders and the general public.

Recognizing Resource Constraints

Although TSMO strategies are typically low cost, especially in comparison to expansion projects, a successful approach to implementing operational strategies is including them as part of an integrated approach within a broader project or plan. In many cases, lower-cost solutions can be implemented, or TSMO strategies can be implemented over time, in phases, to advance operations improvements in stages over time. When prioritizing TSMO strategies for deployment, benefitcost analysis, stakeholder and public input, and exploring the logical phasing of strategies are all useful analysis methods.

Developing an Incremental Approach to Transportation Systems Management and Operations

Transportation agencies engage in TSMO activities at varying degrees of complexity. For some agencies, a basic traffic signal system meets the management needs of its transportation network, while other agencies rely on a set of advanced and integrated TSMO strategies to meet the mobility needs of the community. In either case, planning for TSMO allows agencies to advance operational strategies in a measured, organized fashion, whether in a single corridor or across a city or region.

A key distinction in implementing TSMO strategies is that installation is just the starting point. Agencies must be prepared to expend the necessary resources to operate and maintain a collection of TSMO investments. The most effective TSMO activities are differentiated not by budgets or technical skills alone, but by the existence of critical processes and institutional arrangements tailored to the unique features of TSMO applications. Applying an incremental approach to TSMO strategies in a corridor is a clearer path to successful implementation by allowing time to both gain experience with the strategy and institute operational processes.

The sections below describe the main activities necessary for developing an integrated TSMO approach to TSMO on a corridor. One of the current areas of research is in analytical tools that support consideration of multiple TSMO strategies and is expected to provide more support in the future to developing an integrated TSMO approach. Currently, there are limited options for quantitatively examining the impacts of one TSMO strategy on another.

Identifying Transportation Systems Management and Operations Strategies Based on Operations Objectives and Performance Needs

There are a variety of ways to identify TSMO strategies that could be implemented to address causes of the shortfalls in performance or gaps. This section provides examples of methods or tools for identifying TSMO strategies based on operations objectives and performance needs in a corridor. While the FHWA has developed some basic mappings between goals or objectives and TSMO-related strategies, this also has occurred at the State and regional levels as well, as practitioners look to match strategies to needs within a specific context.

Figure 17. Flowchart. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Traffic Operations
Infrastructure Plan methodology for identifying priority corridors and related
transportation systems management and operations strategies for achieving the
corridor management vision.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Traffic Operations Infrastructure Plan,
May 2008

The Wisconsin DOT developed a Traffic Operations Infrastructure Plan in 2008 that offers a methodology that begins with identifying significant corridors based on their strategic objectives, and then determines priority management corridors for which they develop a corridor management vision.⁵⁴ This process, illustrated in Figure 17, leads to selecting TSMO strategies that achieve the corridor management vision.

The approach results in a deployment density for TSMO strategies, such as is illustrated for the Milwaukee-Green Bay corridor in Figure 18. Note that the higher densities of TSMO deployment are concentrated in the most urbanized areas where traffic densities also are the greatest. WisDOT used this plan to strategically deploy ITS across the state. As WisDOT's TSMO program has evolved, the TOIP has been replaced it with a TMSO-Traffic Infrastructure Process, which is an deployment process that considers needs and solutions on an annual basis and uses a needs analysis and cost benefit tool.⁵⁵

The FHWA's 2015 Active Traffic Management Feasibility and Screening Guide provides additional guidance in the form of a series of logic flowcharts that assist in determining the appropriateness of specific ATM strategies given well-defined mobility issues to be addresses by the TSMO strategies.⁵⁶ This document also describes methods for identifying and determining the capital investments required and expected operation and maintenance costs associated with various ATM strategies. Benefits are more difficult to predict, but the ATM Feasibility Guide suggests estimating benefits based on the experience of other locations where similar strategies were implemented in response to similar needs and objectives. In addition, the ATM Feasibility Guide suggests using the FHWA's Tool for Operations Benefit Cost Analysis (TOPS-BC) tool, a spreadsheet-based tool designed to assist practitioners in conducting benefit-cost analysis of operations strategies by providing four key capabilities, including:⁵⁷

• The ability for users to investigate the expected range of impacts associated with previous deployments and analyses of many TSMO strategies.
• A screening mechanism to help users identify appropriate tools and methodologies for conducting a benefit-cost analysis based on their analysis needs.
• Framework and default cost data to estimate the life-cycle costs of various TSMO strategies, including capital, replacement, and continuing operations and maintenance costs.
• A framework and suggested impact values for conducting simple benefit-cost analysis for selected TSMO strategies.

Figure 18. Map. Milwaukee-Green Bay corridor transportation systems management
and operations deployment density.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Traffic Operations Infrastructure Plan,
May 2008.

In 2010, the FHWA took a qualitative approach to matching operations objectives to potential TSMO strategies through the development of the Fact Sheets in Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: The Building Blocks of a Model Transportation Plan Incorporating Operations - A Desk Reference.⁵⁸ Samples of these Fact Sheets tailored to corridors are at the end of this chapter. The Fact Sheets contain operations objectives that are SMART and can be tailored to an area, time period, mode or facility type, or user type. The Fact Sheets also identify TSMO strategies that could help realize the operations objectives. This is meant as a tool to assist planners and operators in generating ideas for TSMO strategies to support specific objectives. The Fact Sheets were not tailored for the specific operations context that each locality may encounter.

The current version of Turbo Architecture software, which is used to document regional ITS architectures, includes a "Planning" module that allows users to select operations objectives from the Fact Sheets or add custom objectives and link each of those to applicable service packages (essentially TSMO strategies) and performance measures.⁵⁹ The Turbo Architecture "Planning" module can be used to help identify TSMO strategies for corridors. Regional ITS or TSMO plans commonly include a toolbox of TSMO strategies to support the identification of TSMO strategies for use. For example, the regional TSMO plan for the Portland, Oregon, region includes a TSMO Toolbox of Strategies organized by operational areas (e.g., arterials, freeways, and freight). Each strategy includes a description, example applications, potential benefits, estimated costs, and influencing factors (e.g., political, institutional, and technical).⁶⁰

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission supports TSMO strategy identification in its congestion management process by rating corridors within the region against 25 strategies within their congestion management toolbox.⁶¹ The strategies seek to improve demand management, modal options, transportation operations, and capacity. Each strategy is evaluated based on its suitability, reflecting ease of implementation, and applicability to a corridor. Each strategy also is given a benefit rating based on how significant its impact may be on reducing congestion. The ratings are used to categorize strategies into high, medium, and low priorities.

Several tools for screening TSMO strategies related to ATM are currently under development. The FHWA Active Traffic Management Feasibility and Screening Guide uses regional goals and associated issues and considerations to rate each potential TSMO strategy as offering a major improvement, some improvement, or neutral or not applicable.⁶² Caltrans, District 7 developed an ATM assessment framework that can be applied to any freeway corridor in the state. The framework describes potential ATM strategies with associated costs and benefits, which will address deficiencies (e.g., safety/crashes, non-recurring congestion, recurring congestion) observed in a particular corridor. This tool will support District 7's implementation of an innovative corridor management approach to managing and optimizing performance on the freeway system.⁶³

Sample Table for Identifying Transportation Systems Management and Operations Strategies for Corridors

Table 4 provides an example of TSMO strategies to consider based on operations objectives and performance gaps. This table focuses on objectives and strategies for an urban arterial that experiences recurring congestion. The desired outcome for improving corridor operations is the reduction of recurring congestion along the corridor. The middle column, "Performance Gap," documents the corridor's shortfalls in achieving any of the corridor's operations objectives. The last column, "TSMO Strategies to Consider," identifies potential TSMO strategies to address the deficiency or gap. To help ensure that an identified TSMO strategy will address the performance gap, the strategy should go through some type of screening and evaluation. The next section describes several options for doing this.

Table 4. Example transportation systems management and operations strategy identification for a desired outcome of reducing recurring congestion on arterials.

TSMO Area	Outcome-Oriented Operations Objectives	Performance Gap	TSMO Strategies to Consider
Emergency or Incident Management	Improve emergency vehicle travel times by X percent in Y years.	Delay at traffic signals for emergency vehicles exceeds Z hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles traveled.	Emergency vehicle preemption. Emergency vehicle routing. Traffic surveillance.
Transit Operations and Management	For transit corridors, decrease delay by X percent per year. Improve average on-time performance for corridor transit route by X percent within Y years.	Delay at traffic signals for transit exceeds Z hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles traveled.	Transit signal priority. Transit queue jump.
Freight Management	For freight corridors, decrease hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles traveled by X percent in Y years.	Delay at traffic signals for trucks/freight exceeds Z hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles traveled.	Truck signal priority.
Arterial Management: Delay and Signal Systems	Decrease the seconds of control delay on the corridor by X percent in Y years. Increase the number of intersections operating at level of service Z or higher by X percent in Y years. Evaluate corridor signals for retiming every X years.	Delay at traffic signals for all modes exceeds Z seconds of control delay per traffic signal on the corridor.	Enhanced traffic signal timing (e.g., re-timing/optimization, adaptive systems, better detection). Traffic surveillance.
Access Management	Maintain a distance of X feet between corridor access points for the next Y years. Reduce driveway access points by X percent for all new developments for the next Y years.	Delay at closely spaced intersections or driveways exceeds Z minutes per vehicle at each driveway.	Access management.
System Efficiency: Travel Time	Improve average travel time during peak periods by X percent by year Y.	Delay at geometric bottlenecks exceeds Z minutes per vehicle per location.	Bottleneck removal (e.g., turn lane additions).
		Directional imbalance of volume-to-capacity ratio that varies throughout day exceeds Z percent.	Changeable lane assignment.
System Efficiency: Duration of Congestion	Reduce the daily hours of recurring corridor congestion from X to Y by year Z.	Delay throughout corridor exceeds Z hours per day.	High-capacity transit. Traffic surveillance. Traffic management center. Transportation demand management.

Evaluating Transportation Systems Management and Operations Strategies

While many operations strategies (e.g., variable speed limits, queue warning systems, and dynamic ramp metering) have benefits, because they differ from conventional capacity investments in terms of cost, service life, and requirements, it is not always clear how to assess strategies. After identifying potential TSMO strategies for a corridor, there are several methods that are available to evaluate the strategies to determine which ones are most suitable to the corridor context and work together to provide the most benefit. This often takes place in two phases: screening the strategies for feasibility, and then conducting a more detailed evaluation prior to selecting strategies to move forward with funding and implementation. The evaluation factors may include technical and institutional feasibility, return on investment, or others relevant to the corridor stakeholders.

Numerous methods and tools are currently available to evaluate TSMO strategies as part of corridor planning. They vary in purpose served, complexity, input and output data, and the strategies that they analyze. Four main categories of analysis tools could apply to the evaluation of TSMO strategies: (1) travel demand models; (2) sketch-planning tools; (3) analytical/deterministic tools; and (4) simulation models, as well as many hybrid approaches. Sketch-planning tools allow for the basic screening of strategies, while deterministic tools and simulation typically go beyond the results of travel demand models to enable more detailed analysis of TSMO strategies. When selecting a tool, it is important to not only match the tool's capabilities to the corridor team's objectives, but also to consider other factors (e.g., budget, schedule, and resource requirements). The team should avoid trying to apply a tool that is more complex and time-consuming than needed. Conversely, the team should not use a tool that lacks the sensitivity or detail to address its need.

Travel demand models are useful in screening and evaluating corridor-wide strategies, such as congestion pricing and ridesharing programs, because they support an assessing mode choice and travel pattern or volume impacts. Travel demand models supply data to simulation models, sketch-planning tools, and post-processors that can analyze TSMO strategies. They are useful for generating traffic origin-destination patterns or volumes for input into simulation models. They are limited in their ability to analyze TSMO strategies, however, as they miss the impacts of incidents, work zones, and special events.

Sketch-planning tools are intended to provide quick analysis using generally available information and data. They provide a quick order-of-magnitude estimate with minimal input data in support of preliminary screening assessments. Sketch-planning tools are appropriate early on when prioritizing large numbers of strategies or investments for more detailed evaluation. They are typically spreadsheets or simple databases that are based on built-in assumptions of impacts and benefits for various strategies.

The FHWA developed the TOPS-BC, a benefit-cost analysis sketch-planning tool that is available to help corridor teams screen multiple TSMO strategies. It provides order-of-magnitude benefit cost estimates using default parameters that can be customized using local data. The TOPS-BC is available for download from the FHWA Planning for Operations Website.⁶⁴ The FHWA is continuing to develop products to assist practitioners in applying benefit-cost analysis for TSMO strategies.

Analytical or deterministic tools typically implement the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual.⁶⁵ These tools quickly predict capacity, density, speed, delay, and queuing on a variety of transportation facilities and are validated with field data, laboratory test beds, or small-scale experiments. The primary example of a tool within this category is the Highway Capacity Software, which implements the procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual for analyzing capacity and determining LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections, urban streets, freeways, weaving areas, ramp junctions, multilane highways, two-lane highways, and transit. These tools have somewhat-limited application for evaluating TSMO strategies for a corridor. They are mainly for individual intersections or small-scale facilities and are widely accepted for examining different types of traffic control strategies (e.g., uncontrolled, stop controlled, and signalized).

Simulation tools cover a range of software that is available to model transportation system operations and can be applied specifically to corridors. Simulation models are typically classified according to the level of detail at which they represent the traffic stream. Macroscopic simulation models simulate traffic flow, taking into consideration aggregate traffic stream characteristics (i.e., speed, flow, and density) and their relationships. Microscopic simulation models simulate the characteristics and interactions of individual vehicles. Mesoscopic simulation models simulate individual vehicles, but describe their activities and interactions based on aggregate (macroscopic) relationships.

Agencies use simulation tools to analyze operations of both traffic and transit to conduct needs assessments, alternatives analysis, and environmental impact studies. A key advantage of these tools is their ability to simulate conditions, such as incidents, and analyze conditions under multiple scenarios. Some specific strategies that can be simulated include ramp metering, express lanes, and variable speeds limits. Most simulation models also produce graphical or animated displays of the results. These can be invaluable in presenting key findings and results to a broad range of audiences beyond transportation professionals. The primary challenges associated with simulation tools are related to the resources required to develop and apply such models. These include the level of expertise needed, data and computing requirements, and the amount of time required to adequately and accurately calibrate models to real-world conditions.

Activity-based models are increasingly being used as a region's travel demand model and may be useful in evaluating TSMO strategies within corridors. They typically function at the level of individual traveler and represent how the person travels across the entire day. They provide detailed performance metrics but take much longer to run and have greater development and maintenance costs. They can evaluate pricing strategies, transportation demand management programs, and many other TSMO strategies.

Dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) also is emerging as a practical tool for numerous planning and operations applications. DTA is a type of modeling tool that combines network assignment models, used primarily in conjunction with travel demand forecasting procedures for planning applications, with traffic simulation models, used primarily for traffic operational studies. DTA involves the capability to assign or re-assign vehicle trip paths based on prevailing conditions. For example, a vehicle may be re-assigned to a different path in the middle of its trip due to the congestion on its original path. DTA enables evaluating operational strategies that are likely to induce a temporal or spatial pattern shift of traffic. It enables estimating travel behavior from various demand and supply changes and interactions. It is suitable for analyses involving incidents, construction zones, ATDM strategies, ICM strategies, ITS, managed lanes, congestion pricing, and other TSMO strategies. However, the application of DTA does generally require a significant investment of resources and expertise in both demand and simulation modeling.

Selecting Strategies to Best Achieve Objectives

Building on the assessment of potential strategies using analysis tools, the corridor plan will involve selecting a set of promising strategies to achieve the operations objectives for the corridor. Given the wide array of potential strategies to consider, including those that focus on highway/ traffic operations, transit operations, demand management, and capacity, selecting strategies for a corridor often will involve both quantitative analysis, as well as qualitative assessments of what would work best to fit within the specific context of the corridor. It is important to recognize that effective corridor management will typically involve implementation of a number of complementary strategies, rather than a single strategy, or even a set of strategies applied to different modes. One of the key values of exploring corridor operations is recognizing the interconnections between different roadway facilities, transit, and other modal options. Consequently, a number of individual strategies may be grouped together and considered as a package of improvements. For instance, improving arterial operations may involve a combination of traffic signal coordination, TSP, and parking management strategies. Typically, planners and operators will work together to identify and evaluate potential strategies, and then define a package or several possible packages of improvements. The alternative corridor strategies can then be evaluated in relation to their performance in relation to defined operations objectives, within the context of community values, and with recognition of available resources for implementation. Some strategies also may not require investments in infrastructure or technology deployment in the field, but could be fostered through improved data sharing and communications practices.

Prioritizing strategies or packages of strategies for selection often involves making tradeoffs in deciding what approach would be most effective to meet corridor objectives. For instance, use of a highway shoulder as a lane for buses could help improve transit reliability, but it needs to be considered in the context of road safety and the potential benefit for travelers in relation to the costs of upgrading the shoulder and lane markings, in comparison to other potential strategies. Similarly, on an urban arterial, traffic signal improvements, including retiming or TSP, need to consider an array of issues and potential impacts, including effects on road traffic, transit, and bicycles and pedestrians in terms of travel time and safety.

To the extent possible, using common evaluation methods for comparative assessments of strategy alternatives is valuable. For instance, if travel time reliability (i.e., consistent or predictable travel times and on-time transit performance) is a key objective for the corridor, then integrating reliability performance measures into the selection of strategies can help ensure that strategies are prioritized that best support the TSMO objectives for the corridor. TSMO strategies that improve reliability include a wide range of strategies: information systems, incident management, managed lanes, TSP, and transit and freight vehicle tracking. As a result, using reliability performance measures does not define a singular strategy but is helpful in comparing the estimating impacts of different strategies.

In addition to using the outputs of tools described above, approaches that can be used to compare strategies or packages of strategies include:

• Analyzing cost-effectiveness: Using a cost-effectiveness approach involves calculating the overall cost effectiveness (cost per unit of benefit) for each strategy based on defined benefits. Tools available to calculate reliability benefits include sketch planning, model post-processing, simulation, and multiresolution/multiscenario modeling. Once the cost effectiveness of each strategy is determined, strategies can be ranked in order from highest to lowest.
• Benefit-cost analysis: Benefit-cost analysis can be a useful tool for comparing different options, if sufficient data are available on key metrics, such as travel times and safety, to monetize these effects in relation to costs. Valuing travel time and delay is typically accomplished using surveys of travelers to determine their perceived benefit of travel time.⁶⁶
• Multicriteria scoring: Another approach is to use performance measures along with scoring criteria to assess how different alternatives support corridor performance objectives. For instance, if several key objectives have been defined for a corridor related to system operations (e.g., safety, transit on-time performance, highway reliability), then strategies are given scores in relation to each objective to prioritize the most promising strategies.

Commonly, the process of analyzing and selecting potential strategies or combinations of strategies will yield some approaches that are most promising.

Putting it All Together

As described above, operations objectives are essential elements of TSMO planning. The following section provides a set of easy-to-use reference sheets for operations objectives that are relevant to corridors. Each reference sheet provides an overview of the operations objective area, a menu of operations objective statements and associated performance measures, a description of data needs and potential providers, and possible TSMO strategies to achieve the operations objective. They are intended as a resource for corridor TSMO planning teams who are searching for ideas for operations objectives and related TSMO strategies. The quick reference sheets draw from the FHWA's Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: The Building Blocks of a Model Transportation Plan Incorporating Operations — A Desk Reference, and were adapted for application to corridor planning.⁶⁷

---

System Efficiency: Corridor Travel Time

The objectives focus on reducing the amount of time it takes to travel through a corridor. Travel time is a measure of the average time spent in travel, which is a function of both travel speed and distance. The objectives can be made multimodal to account for transit, truck, and bicycle travel in the corridor, where appropriate.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• Toll authorities.
• MPOs.
• Rideshare organizations.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Reduce corridor travel time experienced by travelers.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Improve average travel time during peak periods by X percent by year Y.
• Improve average commute trip travel time by X percent by year Y.

Performance Measures

• Average travel time during peak periods (minutes).
• Average commute trip travel time (minutes).

Anticipated Data Needs

• Peak period and free flow travel time and speeds.
• Person travel along corridor links (e.g., vehicle volume multiplied by vehicle occupancy).
• Trip length.

Data Resources and Partners

State DOTs, counties, cities, traffic management centers, and private sector sources can provide travel time data including speeds and volumes. Transit agencies can provide transit travel time, speed data, and passenger counts.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Strategies designed to reduce recurring peak period congestion, such as traffic signal coordination, and transportation demand strategies that encourage shifts in travel mode, time, or route. If the objective includes transit or bicycles, strategies can include transit signal priority or bicycle traffic signals.

---

System Reliability: Non-Recurring Delay in Corridors

This set of objectives is focused on minimizing non-recurring delay in corridors. This type of travel-time delay is caused by transient events as opposed to delay caused by geometric limitations or a lack of capacity. These objectives focus on non-recurring delay due to scheduled and unscheduled disruptions to travel.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways, including maintenance crews.
• Toll authorities.
• MPOs.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• Incident responders.
• Contractors.
• Utility agencies/companies.
• Weather forecast services.
• 911 center(s).
• Law enforcement.
• Fire and rescue agencies.
• Emergency medical agencies.
• Tow industry.
• Hazardous materials industry.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Minimize non-recurring delay (scheduled and non-scheduled disruptions) in corridors.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Reduce total person hours of delay in corridor by time period (peak, off-peak) caused by:
  • Scheduled events (i.e. work zones, system maintenance, special events) by X hours in Y years.
  • Unscheduled disruptions to travel (i.e. crashes, weather, debris) by X hours in Y years.
  • All transient scheduled and non-scheduled events by X hours in Y years.

Performance Measures

• Travel time delay during scheduled and/or unscheduled disruptions to travel in the corridor.
• Total person hours of delay during scheduled and/or unscheduled disruptions to travel in the corridor.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Average travel time by person or vehicle during non-recurring events such as traffic incidents, special events, and work zones.
• Average travel time by person or vehicle during free flow travel conditions in the corridor.

Data Resources and Partners

Travel time data during non-recurring events may be difficult to collect, particularly during unscheduled events, such as incidents and severe weather. Transportation management centers and/or public safety organizations are likely needed to assist in identifying the locations and times of traffic incidents. Road and track maintenance staff will be needed to identify upcoming work. Data on travel times during unscheduled events may need to be extracted after collection from ongoing travel time data based on the time and location of events. The National Weather Service also may need to be involved in identifying times and locations of severe weather that may have impacted travel.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Strategies to reduce non-recurring delay include those that focus on reducing the delay caused by incidents, work zones, special events, weather, and other non-recurring events that affect traffic flow.

---

System Options: Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility and Efficiency

The objectives focus on improving the accessibility and efficiency of bicycle and pedestrian modes to offer travelers feasible and attractive travel options within a corridor.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• Transportation management centers.
• Transit agencies.
• University research centers.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups.

Goals

• Improve bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and efficiency.
• Provide attractive bicycle and pedestrian travel options in a corridor.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Decrease average delay for pedestrians and bicyclists on primary pedestrian and/or bicycle routes by X percent in Y years.
• Increase system completeness in corridor for pedestrians and/or bicyclists by X percent within Y years.
• Increase the number of intersections with pedestrian and/or bicycle safety features (e.g., countdown pedestrian signal heads, bicycle signals, painted crosswalks/bike boxes) to X percent by year Y.
• Increase average pedestrian (or bicyclist) comfort level by X points in Y years.

Performance Measures

• Average delay for pedestrians and bicyclists on primary pedestrian and/or bicycle routes in the corridor.
• Percent of corridor with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.
• The percentage of intersections with pedestrian and/or bicycle safety features.
• Average pedestrian and/or bicyclist comfort level as measured by survey.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Average wait time for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections or path impediments by time period.
• An inventory of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
• Survey information on pedestrian and/or bicyclist comfort level.

Data Resources and Partners

State and local DOTs, MPOs, counties, cities, highway districts, and universities are sources for pedestrian and bicycle travel data. Private-sector crowd sourcing data also can be utilized to inventory conditions and comfort level. Pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups can be a source of data.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Pedestrian countdown signals, bicycle lanes, wayfinding signage, and crossing signals where bicycles cross major roadways.

---

Arterial Management: Traffic Signal Management

The objectives focus on improving the management of traffic signal operations in an arterial corridor through advanced technology, increased reviews, and planning.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Traffic signal technicians.
• Incident responders.
• Contractors.
• Transit agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.

Goals

• Improve arterial traffic signal operations for day-to-day operations during peak and off-peak periods.
• Improve arterial traffic signal operations during scheduled or nonscheduled events.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Evaluate signal timing in arterial corridor every Y years.
• Increase the number of arterial corridor intersections running in a coordinated, closed-loop, or adaptive system by X percent in Y years.
• Prepare and implement special arterial corridor timing plans for use during freeway incidents, roadway construction activities, or other special events by year Y.
• Crash data for arterial corridor is reviewed every X years to determine if signal adjustments can be made to address a safety issue.

Performance Measures

• Number of years between traffic signal timing evaluation in arterial corridor.
• Number of intersections running in a coordinated, closed-loop, or adaptive system.
• Completion of at least one special timing plan for incidents, construction, or events in arterial corridor.
• Number of times per year a special timing plan is used in arterial corridor.
• Number of years between reviews of crash data on all arterials for possible signal timing impacts.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Reports from operating agencies on frequency of signal retiming evaluation, current traffic signal capabilities, special timing plans, and crash data reviews.

Data Resources and Partners

Partner agencies that operate arterials and agencies that maintain traffic crash records.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Regular evaluation of corridor traffic signal timing, enhanced traffic signal systems, special corridor timing plans for events, incidents, and work zones, and regular review of corridor crash data.

---

Freeway Management: Ramp Management

The objectives focus on the application of traffic control devices, such as ramp meters, signing, and gates, to regulate the number of vehicles entering or leaving the freeway to achieve operations objectives.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• 911 center(s).
• Law enforcement.
• Fire and rescue agencies.
• Emergency medical agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Improve overall freeway corridor operations during peak periods and during scheduled or unscheduled events.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Increase the percent of interchanges in a freeway corridor operating at LOS Z or higher during peak periods by X percent by year Y.
• Reduce the number of congestion-inducing incidents occurring at freeway ramps by X percent by year Y.
• Increase the number ramps in freeway corridor currently metered by X percent by year Y.

Performance Measures

• Number and percent of freeway corridor interchanges operating at LOS Z or above during peak periods (per year).
• Total number of congestion-inducing incidents at freeway corridor interchanges during peak period (per year).
• Number of freeway corridor interchanges with ramp meters (by year of installation).

Anticipated Data Needs

• Traffic volume and LOS data (e.g., traffic counts) at freeway corridor interchanges.
• Total number of congestion-related incidents at freeway corridor interchanges.
• Number of freeway corridor ramp meters and year of installation.

Data Resources and Partners

Providers of travel data, including traffic volumes and incidents, such as State DOTs, cities, counties, and transportation management centers.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Ramp management strategies typically encompass ramp metering, ramp closure, special use treatments (e.g., High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), special events), and ramp terminal treatments.

---

Transit Operations and Management: Transit Signal Priority

The objectives focus on implementing TSP systems to improve transit performance and reliability within a corridor.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Traffic signal technicians.
• Transit agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.

Goals

• Improve transit service performance and reliability on corridors with traffic signals.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Increase implementation of TSP at X number of intersections over the next Y years.
• Decrease traffic signal delay on transit routes in corridor by X percent per year.
• Decrease transit vehicle delay in corridor by X percent per year by increasing the use of queue jumping and automated vehicle location.

Performance Measures

• Number of transit routes/intersections equipped with TSP capability in corridor.
• System-wide, signalized-stop delay on transit routes.
• Travel time delay on routes with queue jumping and automated vehicle location in use.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Number of transit routes/intersections with transit signal priority capabilities.
• Automated vehicle location data with location and travel time delay.
• Signal operations/green time reports.

Data Resources and Partners

Transit agencies and traffic signal operating agencies in the region can provide information about implementation and performance of TSP. Automated vehicle location data can provide transit vehicle travel time.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

TSMO strategies to increase TSP implementation could involve identification and prioritization of transit routes and signalized intersections that are candidates for implementing TSP systems or queue jumping. Another strategy may include collaboration with the traffic management agency to leverage TSP implementation with traffic signal system upgrades.

---

Traffic Incident Management

The objectives focus on improving system efficiency, system reliability, traveler information, and agency efforts for managing traffic incidents within a corridor.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• MPOs.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• 911 center(s).
• Law enforcement.
• Fire and rescue agencies.
• Emergency medical agencies.
• Tow industry.
• Hazardous materials industry.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Reduce traffic incident duration and person hours of delay on a corridor.
• Provide travelers with accurate, timely, and actionable information and improve customer satisfaction.
• Increase coordination and communication between agencies.
• Train incident management staff.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Reduce corridor mean incident notification time by X percent over Y years.
• Reduce mean time for needed corridor responders to arrive on-scene after notification by X percent over Y years.
• Reduce corridor mean incident clearance time and mean roadway clearance time per incident by X percent over Y years.
• Reduce mean time of incident duration on transit services and corridor facilities by X percent in Y years.
• Reduce the person hours of total delay associated with corridor traffic incidents by X percent over Y years.
• Reduce time between incident verification and posting a traveler alert to traveler information outlets by X minutes in Y years.
• Reduce the time between recovery from incident and removal of traveler alerts for that incident.
• Increase number of repeat visitors to corridor traveler information outlet by X percent in Y years.
• Increase customer satisfaction with corridor incident management efforts by X percent over Y years.
• Increase the percentage of incident management agencies that participate in a coordinated corridor incident response team by X percent in Y years.
• Hold at least X multi-agency after-action review meetings each year with attendance from at least Y percent of the agencies involved in the response.
• Conduct X joint training exercises among incident/emergency operators and responders for the corridor by year Y.

Performance Measures

• Average incident notification time of necessary response agencies.
• Mean time for needed responders to arrive on-scene after notification.
• Mean incident clearance time and mean roadway clearance time per incident.
• Mean time of incident duration.
• Person hours of delay associated with corridor traffic incidents.
• Time to alert travelers of a corridor incident.
• Time between recovery from incident and removal of traveler alerts.
• Number of repeat visitors to traveler information outlet.
• Percentage of customers satisfied with corridor incident management practices.
• Number of participating agencies in a corridor coordinated incident response team.
• Number of multi-agency after-action reviews per year.
• Percentage of responding agencies participating in after-action review.
• Number of joint training exercises conducted among incident/emergency operators and responders.

Anticipated Data Needs

• For each incident of interest in the corridor, incident notification time and on-scene arrival time; specifically, the time of the awareness of an incident and one or more of the following pieces of data: the time the last responder left the scene, the time when all lanes were re-opened, and the time when traffic returned to full operational status.
• Total travel time in person hours of travel (1) during free flow conditions, and (2) impacted by incidents.
• Time of incident verification, time of traveler information outlet activation (e.g., dynamic message sign posting, 511 entry, and website log), time of corridor system recovery, and time of travel alert removal.
• Customer satisfaction surveys.
• Number of agencies participating in a corridor incident management program.
• Number of after-action reviews held.
• Number of joint training exercises conducted among incident/emergency operators and responders.

Data Resources and Partners

Data would need to be tracked by the incident responders, 9-1-1 dispatchers, or operators at a transportation management center or emergency operations center with access to video of the scene. The partners needed for these measures would be all incident responders willing to support the objectives.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Many of the incident management strategies are complementary and work together to achieve the objectives. For example, providing accurate and timely traveler information can help reduce travel time delay by encouraging travelers to avoid the incident area and also can help improve customer satisfaction. Increasing agency participation along the corridor, holding after action review meetings, and holding joint training can help improve incident detection and verification and help shorten incident clearance time. Other strategies to consider include enhancing inter-agency voice and data communications systems, using or expanding the use of roving corridor patrols, expanding surveillance camera coverage, and training on dissemination of corridor traveler information.

---

Road Weather Management

The objectives for managing road weather on a corridor focus on improving system efficiency, system reliability, traveler information, and traffic signal management within a corridor.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways, including maintenance crews.
• Weather forecast services.
• MPOs.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• 911 center(s).
• Law enforcement.
• Fire and rescue agencies.
• Emergency medical agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Improve the clearance time of weather-related debris (e.g., fallen limbs and trees, snow and ice, and power lines and poles) from the corridor transportation facilities.
• Help travelers avoid corridor segments that are dangerous and would cause them substantial delay.
• Disseminate relevant information to travelers in a timely manner regarding the impact of weather on corridor travel.
• Increase the coverage of the corridor (e.g., roadway, transit, or bicycle facilities) with weather sensors and communications.
• Improve traffic signal management during inclement weather conditions.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Reduce average time to clear corridor of weather-related debris after weather impact by X percent in Y years.
• Increase by X percent the number of significant corridor segments covered by weather-related diversion plans by year Y.
• Increase the percent of agencies that have adopted multi-agency, weather-related corridor transportation operations plans and are involved in operations during weather events to X percent by year Y.
• Reduce time to alert travelers of travel weather impacts using traveler information outlets (e.g. dynamic message signs, 511, websites, social media) by X (time period or percent) in Y years.
• Increase the percent of the corridor covered by weather sensors or a road weather information system by X percent in Y years, as defined by a road weather information system station within Z miles.
• Special timing plans are available for use during inclement weather conditions for X miles of the corridor by year Y.

Performance Measures

• Average time to clear selected corridor surface transportation facilities of weather-related debris after weather impact.
• Percent of significant corridor segments covered by weather-related diversion plans.
• Percent of agencies involved in transportation operations during weather events that have adopted multi-agency, weather-related corridor transportation operations plans.
• Time from beginning of weather event to posting of information to traveler information outlets.
• Percent of corridor within Z miles of a road weather information system station.
• Number of miles of corridor that have at least one special signal timing plan for inclement weather events.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Time in which the corridor surface transportation facilities have been impacted by the debris, and the time required to clear the corridor and restore it to full operation.
• Number of weather-related diversion plans.
• Total number of agencies involved in transportation operations during weather events that have adopted multi-agency, weather-related corridor transportation operations plans.
• Time of the start of a weather event and the time in which information is given to travelers by traveler information outlets.
• Deployment locations of each road weather information system station near the corridor and length of the corridor.
• Reports from operating agencies on corridor signal retiming, signal capabilities, and special timing plans.

Data Resources and Partners

Field data may come from fixed road or airport weather sensors (road weather information systems), observations from meteorologists, National Weather Service data, or mobile observations from connected vehicles.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Many TSMO strategies for road weather management are complementary and work towards achieving multiple objectives. TSMO strategies that support agency operations, and in turn help with system reliability and efficiency, include weather sensors/stations at key corridor locations; pre-positioned debris removal vehicles; preventative techniques, such as spreading de-icing material prior to a storm; collaboration with weather forecasting services; and development of alternate route plans in preparation for events through collaboration between jurisdictions and modes. System efficiency also can be improved by developing and implementing special signal timing plans for typical travel demand during weather events. Traveler information strategies that help travelers make informed decisions include current corridor weather and facility information, weather forecasts, status information on operational activities (e.g., map of snow plow activities), and the use of dynamic message signs on the corridor or approaches to the corridor.

---

Work Zone Management

The objectives focus on improving system efficiency, system reliability, traveler information, and agency coordination efforts for managing work zones within a corridor.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways, including maintenance crews.
• Contractors.
• Utility agencies/companies.
• MPOs.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• 911 center(s).
• Law enforcement.
• Fire and rescue agencies.
• Emergency medical agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Reduce travel time delay within corridor work zones.
• Reduce the extent of congestion for travelers within work zones.
• Reduce the variability in travel time within work zones.
• Reduce the overlap in corridor construction projects to reduce the burden on transportation system users.
• Inform travelers of ongoing corridor work zones to reduce travel time delays.
• Improve customer satisfaction with work zone management.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Reduce the person hours of total delay associated with corridor work zones by X percent over Y years.
• Increase the rate of on-time completion of corridor construction projects to X percent within Y years.
• Increase the percentage of corridor construction projects that employ night/off-peak work zones by X percent in Y years.
• Reduce the percentage of vehicles traveling through corridor work zones that are queued by X percent in Y year.
• Reduce the average and maximum length of queues, when present by X percent over Y years.
• Reduce the average time duration (in minutes) of queue length greater than Z miles by X percent in Y years.
• Reduce vehicle hours of total delay in work zones caused by incidents (e.g., traffic crashes within or near the work zone).
• Increase the number of capital projects reviewed for corridor construction coordination by X percent in Y years.
• Decrease the number of work zones on parallel routes/along the same corridor by X percent in Y years.
• Establish a work zone management system within X years to facilitate coordination of work zones in the corridor.
• Provide work zone information and multimodal alternatives to traveler information outlets for at least X percent of corridor work zones over the next Y years.
• Increase customer satisfaction with corridor work zone management efforts by X percent over Y years.

Performance Measures

• Person hours of delay associated with corridor work zones.
• Percent of corridor construction projects completed on-time.
• Percent of corridor construction projects employing night/off-peak work zones.
• Percent of vehicles experiencing queuing in corridor work zones.
• Length of average and maximum queues in corridor work zones.
• Average duration in minutes of queue length greater than Z miles.
• Vehicle hours of delay due to incidents related to work zones.
• Percent of corridor capital projects whose project schedules have been reviewed.
• Percent of work zones on parallel routes/along the same corridor.
• Presence of an established work zone management system.
• Percent of corridor work zones for which traveler information and multimodal alternatives are available through traveler information outlets.
• Percentage of customers satisfied with corridor work zone management practices.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Total travel time in person hours of travel: (1) during free flow conditions, and (2) impacted by work zones.
• Work zone information for work and non-work time periods (e.g., traffic volumes, travel time, and work zone length [average and maximum]).
• Number of construction projects completed on time.
• Number of construction projects employing night/off-peak work zones.
• Number of vehicles traveling through work zones.
• Number of vehicles traveling through work zones experiencing queuing.
• Duration of queue length greater than Z miles.
• Hours of incident-related delay in work zones.
• Corridor capital projects submitted for review.
• Corridor capital project anticipated and actual schedules.
• Map of work zones along area maps.
• Availability of traveler information and multimodal alternatives for work zones.
• Customer satisfaction surveys.

Data Resources and Partners

Data would need to be collected by agencies responsible for maintenance and operation of the transportation facilities. Partners needed may include DOTs, public safety agencies, contractors, and utility companies.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

Many of the TSMO strategies for work zone management work together in a complementary fashion to achieve the objectives. For example, providing ahead-of-time and real-time multimodal traveler information can help reduce travel time delay and extent of congestion by providing travelers with tools to help them avoid or minimize their exposure to the work zone. This strategy, along with shortening lane closure times particularly during high travel demand periods, also helps improve customer satisfaction. Multi-agency coordination, such as scheduling different work zones for different construction seasons, can help minimize the overall corridor travel impacts. Other strategies to consider include using temporary traffic control devices and practices that minimize the opportunity for crashes, which in turn shortens the incident-related delay in work zones, and using dynamic message signs or portable variable message signs to disseminate traveler information along the corridor or on approaches to the corridor.

---

Active Transportation and Demand Management

This objective set focuses on actively influencing traveler choices to better manage travel supply and demand. Active management includes proactive, predictive, and reactive elements.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways.
• Toll authorities.
• Parking providers.
• MPOs.
• Rideshare organizations.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• Law enforcement.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.
• Travelers.

Goals

• Actively manage travel supply and demand, traffic operations, and parking by influencing traveler choices related to destination, time of day, mode, route, and facility/lane to improve system efficiency and reliability.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Increase the number of corridor travelers receiving information on ATDM strategies by X percent within Y years.
• Increase customer satisfaction with ATDM efforts by X percent over Y years.
• Improve average corridor travel time during peak periods by X percent by year Y.
• Reduce corridor trips per year by X percent through dynamic ridesharing and active transit management within Y years.
• Increase the percentage of corridor travelers with electronic toll collection transponders by X percent by year Y.
• Increase the share of corridor segments or lanes that are using dynamic pricing to X percent by year Y.
• Reduce the number of congestion-inducing crashes occurring on the corridor and at corridor freeway ramps by X percent by year Y.
• Implement active parking management for X percent of the corridor within Y years.

Performance Measures

• Total number and percent of corridor travelers receiving information on ATDM strategies.
• Percent of customers satisfied with corridor ATDM practices.
• Average corridor travel time during peak periods (minutes).
• Share of household trips by each mode of travel before and after availability of dynamic ridesharing and active transit management.
• Percent of corridor travelers with electronic toll collection transponders.
• Share of corridor segments or lane miles using dynamic pricing.
• Total number of congestion-inducing crashes on corridor and at freeway ramps (per year).
• Percent of corridor parking stalls with active parking management.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Survey/count of travelers exposed to ATDM information.
• Customer satisfaction surveys.
• Corridor peak period and free flow travel times and speeds.
• Person travel time along corridor links (e.g., vehicle volume multiplied by vehicle occupancy) during free flow conditions and congested conditions.
• Trip length.
• Mode share and total trips for corridor.
• Total number of corridor users (annually) with electronic toll collection transponders.
• System information (e.g., miles of dynamically priced lanes or facilities).
• Total number of congested-related crashes by location on corridor.
• Count of total and actively managed parking stalls.

Data Resources and Partners

• Data may need to be gathered from transportation management centers, State DOTs, cities, counties, toll authorities, transit agencies, and parking providers.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

• There are numerous TSMO strategies to consider to achieve ATDM objectives. The strategies are typically categorized as they relate to demand, traffic, or parking:
• Active Demand Management:
  • Corridor monitoring.
  • Corridor specific traveler information (including predictive information).
  • Dynamic ridesharing.
  • Active transit management: dynamic fare reduction, dynamic transit capacity assignment, on-demand transit, transfer connection protection.
  • Dynamic/congestion pricing (also electronic toll collection).
• Active Traffic Management:
  • Dynamic/variable speed control.
  • Dynamic lane use control and reversal.
  • Adaptive ramp metering.
  • Dynamic merge control.
  • Dynamic queue warning.
  • Hard shoulder running.
  • Dynamic re-routing.
  • Dynamic truck restrictions.
• Active Parking Management:
  • Dynamic overflow transit parking.
  • Dynamic parking reservation.
  • Dynamic wayfinding.
  • Dynamically priced parking.
• Automated enforcement may also be considered to complement some of the strategies such as dynamic pricing and dynamic speed control.

---

Integrated Corridor Management

This objective set focuses on balancing travel demand across corridor networks and providing multi-agency management of events within a corridor.

Stakeholders

• State, county, or city agencies responsible for roadways, including maintenance crews.
• MPOs.
• Transportation management center(s).
• Transit agencies.
• Incident responders.
• Contractors.
• 911 center(s).
• Law enforcement.
• Fire and rescue agencies.
• Emergency medical agencies.
• Corridor businesses, freight distribution centers, event centers, and neighborhood associations.
• Ports, if applicable.
• Media.

Goals

• Balance travel demand across networks (freeway, arterial, transit, parking).
• Provide multi-agency management of events such as incidents, special events, inclement weather, and work zones.

Corridor Operations Objectives

• Increase the number of corridor travelers receiving information on ICM strategies by X percent within Y years.
• Increase customer satisfaction with ICM efforts by X percent over Y years.
• Balance corridor trips so that each route and mode within the corridor operate at X percent capacity within Y years.
• Improve average corridor travel time during peak periods by X percent by year Y.
• Reduce the person hours of total delay associated with non-recurrent events by X percent over Y years.
• Increase the percentage of agencies that participate in an ICM team by X percent in Y years.
• Hold at least X multi-agency, after-action review meetings following a corridor event each year, with attendance from at least Y percent of the agencies involved in the response.
• Conduct X joint-ICM training exercises for the corridor by year Y.

Performance Measures

• Total number of corridor travelers and percent receiving information on ICM strategies.
• Percent of customers satisfied with ICM practices.
• Volume-to-capacity ratios for corridor routes and modes.
• Average corridor travel time during peak periods (minutes).
• Person hours of delay for the corridor.
• Number of agencies participating in an ICM team.
• Number of multi-agency after-action reviews per year.
• Percent of responding agencies participating in after-action review.
• Number of joint ICM training exercises conducted.

Anticipated Data Needs

• Survey/count of travelers exposed to ICM information.
• Corridor peak period and free flow volumes (i.e., vehicles and occupancy), travel times, and speeds by route and mode.
• Person travel time along corridor links (e.g., vehicle volume multiplied by vehicle occupancy) during free flow conditions and congested conditions.
• Trip length.
• Mode share and total trips for corridor.
• Number of agencies participating in an ICM team.
• Number of after-action reviews held.
• Number of joint-ICM training exercises conducted.

Data Resources and Partners

Data may need to be gathered from transportation management centers, State DOTs, cities, counties, toll authorities, transit agencies, public safety agencies, the National Weather Service, and other ICM partners.

TSMO Strategies to Consider

A wide variety of TSMO strategies may be considered to support ICM objectives. Refer to the other reference sheets on TIM, ATDM, road weather management, work zone management, freeway ramp management, traffic signal management, and TSP for a detailed list of potential TSMO strategies in those areas. Providing ahead-of-time, real-time, and predictive multimodal traveler information tailored to the corridor is key to supporting balanced network demand in addition to route/mode diversion to parallel facilities, short-term ATDM strategies, and longer-term transportation demand management strategies (e.g., rideshare, employer programs, and commuter incentives). Additional TSMO strategies to consider for improving multiagency coordination include information clearinghouses, common event reporting systems, event pre-planning efforts, system coordination between ramp meters and traffic signals, and responsibility sharing for traffic operations functions (e.g., shared control of traffic signal timing plans).