Regional Concept for Transportation Operations

4. Developing an RCTO

4.1 Motivation

4.2 Operations Objective

4.3 Approach

4.4 Relationships and Procedures

4.5 Physical Improvements

4.6 Resource Arrangements

At the core, an RCTO defines what the participants would like to achieve and how they are going to achieve it. This core takes form in six standard elements that serve as a framework for developing an RCTO for a specific region. Central to the RCTO, the operations objective defines the desired outcome, the "what," in specific and measurable terms. The motivation supports the operations objective by grounding the collaborative action in regional needs, agency goals, or operational concerns. The other five elements - approach, relationships and procedures, resource arrangements, and physical improvements - work in concert to define "how" the partners will attain the operations objective. While the approach is the overall scheme for the collaborative effort, the remaining elements, relationships and procedures, resource arrangements, and physical improvements, translate the approach into the specific, tangible elements that are required to achieve the operations objective. The requirements should be described in sufficient detail for decisionmakers to make informed commitments regarding resources and institutional arrangements.

In summary, a Regional Concept for Transportation Operations contains six key elements as follows:

• Motivation ("Why"): Reasons for developing an RCTO based on regional needs, goals, or operational concerns.
• Operations Objective ("What"): Desired near-term outcome(s) in terms of transportation system performance.
• Approach ("How"): Overall description of how the operations objective will be achieved.
• Relationships and Procedures: Institutional arrangements, MOUs, protocols, information sharing, etc.
• Physical Improvements: Facilities, equipment, systems, etc.
• Resource Arrangements: Sources and use of funding, staff, equipment, etc.

The following diagram illustrates how an RCTO could be developed. There are three distinct phases. As shown, the motivation element is not created during the development of the RCTO. It is an issue observed by the partners that prompts the initiation of the RCTO and is then recorded. The first phase is largely driven by values and needs, and it consists of forming the operations objective which establishes the desired outcome. The second phase identifies possible approaches to achieving the operations objective and culminates in the selection of a particular course of action. The third phase translates the approach into more specific, tangible elements that guide joint or coordinated actions including system design, resource allocation, and inter-agency and multi-jurisdictional agreements.

Figure 3: Development of an RCTO.

This process is inherently iterative in nature in that a number of operations objectives may be considered for addressing the need (i.e., motivation) and similarly a number of approaches may be considered for achieving the operations objective. Once the approach is selected, it is further specified in terms of the physical, relational, and resource elements of the RCTO. However, this may lead to revisiting the approach and even the operations objective once the full implications of the approach are specified in greater detail.

Three RCTO examples are used throughout this section to illustrate each element. The examples do not prescribe a specific way to form an RCTO, but rather show how a region may choose to develop each element. Each example is inspired by a real-life collaborative effort in the United States, although the situations have been modified for the purpose of demonstrating an RCTO.

• Example 1 is based on the collaborative operations activities of the Southeast Michigan Snow and Ice Management partnership in which four road agencies and a transit agency came together to implement a coordinated snow and ice removal system.¹²
• Example 2 is motivated by the Hampton Roads, Virginia incident management RCTO working group and the activities of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission ITS Committee.¹³
• Example 3 is inspired by the High Plains Corridor Coalition, a collaborative effort between the Nebraska Department of Roads and the Colorado and Kansas Departments of Transportation to develop a web-based traveler information network to coordinate and disseminate traveler information regarding adverse weather conditions and incidents impeding travel on common interstate highways.¹⁴

4.1 Motivation

The decision to undertake an RCTO requires the commitment of agencies and individuals who want to work together to improve upon the way they currently "do business" so that they can better address common challenges. The starting point for each RCTO is unique and depends on the current state of collaboration between the interested participants. An RCTO may be created by agencies that have come together for the first time with the sole purpose of addressing a mutual concern through an RCTO. Alternatively, an RCTO may be begun by participants who have already been meeting regularly to exchange information and update each other regarding their individual activities but now want to take their collaborative relationship to the next level and take collaborative action toward achieving a set operations objective. Additionally, partners who have been jointly operating may want to advance or expand their existing effort through an RCTO.

In general, the starting point for an RCTO is an identified regional need, goal, or widely acknowledged regional operations concern. The motivation captures why the partners have decided to undertake this common effort, why their action is needed, and why the focus of the RCTO is important to the region that they collectively serve. This may originate from a political directive, regional crisis, a spike in accident rates, or a basic desire to provide good service. Additionally, the motivation for an RCTO may come out of the long-range planning process in which operations needs are derived from regional plans or the development of a regional ITS architecture or ITS strategic plan. It may also spring from a grassroots initiative among operators in the region who wish to improve transportation systems performance throughout the region. Frequently the motivation provides the linkage between regional plans and day-to-day management and operation of the transportation system and serves as the primary catalyst for collaboration. It grounds the effort in the public's interest as embodied in regional plans and agency responsibilities and priorities.

Although the motivation may be clear in the minds of the participants as they begin developing an RCTO, by making this explicit, the partners can use it as a guide amid inevitable challenges encountered during the implementation.

Motivation Example 1: Tri-County Winter Maintenance RCTO

A major snowstorm in December of 2005 overwhelmed Able City's and Baker County's capabilities to clear snow emergency routes and other major arterials within their respective jurisdictions. In response, Marlin and Quincy counties volunteered staff and equipment to assist. Because of this unprecedented level of cooperation, Able City and Baker County were able to resume transit and other public services far earlier than anticipated, saving residents and businesses of Able and Baker thousands of dollars in potentially lost wages and revenue. This event heightened awareness among the four agencies of the need for a regional concept for winter road maintenance.

During this time, Baker County was finishing a study focused on the application of automatic vehicle location (AVL) on maintenance vehicles as a means to improve fleet management and resource allocation. When Baker County shared the results of this study with the Marlin and Quincy counties and Able City, the transportation department managers of the four agencies recognized this as an opportunity to leverage Baker County's study and develop a coordinated approach to winter road maintenance in the region. This approach would help the four agencies address their respective goals for effective and efficient snow removal.

Motivation Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

The Janesville region faces unusual transportation challenges that stem from its coastal geography. Three rivers divide this region and flow into the Foster Bay which separates the peninsula in the north from South Janesville where most of the population lives. One bridge and two bridge-tunnels allow traffic to pass between the peninsula and the southern land. Because even minor incidents on a bridge or bridge-tunnel can trigger severe congestion and delay for travelers, the Janesville Planning District Commission's (JPDC) developed a regional goal to improve traffic incident management. The JPDC Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Committee put special emphasis on that goal during the 2004 update of the regional ITS architecture and strategic plan. As part of the update, the ITS Committee held joint workshops with the public safety community where a common vision for regional incident management was established. The vision states "In 2026, surface transportation managers are prepared with systems and operational procedures for handling day-to-day incidents on the transportation grid that enable quick response and quick clearance. Effective coordination and data-exchange between transportation officials and emergency managers and responders are routine."¹⁵ To bring about this vision, the ITS Committee initiated a 7-year project to develop an integrated communications system between the State and local police and State and local departments of transportation in the Janesville region.

Less than a year into the communications project, a multiple car accident on a major commuter bridge-tunnel caused over 8 hours of delay for most commuters. In response to numerous complaints from the public, Janesville MPO Board tasked the State department of transportation and JPDC to act to ensure more efficient and coordinated incident clearance in the near term and to put into practice the region's goal for improved traffic incident management.

The Janesville Planning District Commission and the State DOT brought together the JPDC ITS committee and an existing incident management committee to agree on strategies for incident clearance. A Joint ITS/IM Committee was formed.

Motivation Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

In June of 2005, the Warren State Department of Transportation was forced to close a 20-mile section of Interstate 40 due to wild fires. The manager of the Warren Transportation Management Center (TMC) wanted to be able to warn long-distance travelers of the closing in Grover State where drivers have an opportunity to choose an alternate route. The TMC manager placed a call to the Grover ITS Program Specialist to inquire about deploying a Warren DOT portable variable message sign in Grover. Since this would be difficult institutionally, the Grover specialist posted messages on her signs about the fire in Warren.

Travelers in this primarily rural multi-State region have few alternate routes available to them and even fewer are accessible to commercial vehicle operators who have difficulty taking detours on smaller, State routes. In many cases, alternate routes for major highway routes must be chosen in a previous State. Additionally, the multi-State region frequently experiences severe winter storms that force extended road closures. Interstate travelers caught unaware by a road closure have often complained to the State DOTs that they need road condition information on the other side of the states' lines.

The variable message sign request from Warren State provided the catalyst for the ITS and operations managers of Cantwell, Warren, Byrd, and Grover States to come together to better coordinate traveler information on adverse weather conditions and incidents impeding travel on their common interstate highways.

4.2 Operations Objective

The operations objective expresses the desired outcome that can be achieved by the partners through operations strategies. In the context of an RCTO, it is multi-jurisdictional in nature and cannot be achieved by a single entity or jurisdiction. In conjunction with deciding on an operations objective, performance measures are developed by the participants to assess whether or not the operations objective has been met. There are two types of operations objectives: user-oriented objectives and operator-oriented objectives.

User-oriented Objectives

The operations objective is preferably described in terms of system performance outcomes as experienced by users, given that the fundamental purpose of management and operations improvements is to better serve the transportation system user through increased system performance. Operations objectives focused on outcomes to the user include "improved mobility and travel opportunities, individual travel times and trip time reliability, or travel costs."¹⁶

Operator-oriented Objectives

If an outcome-based operations objective is not feasible for the partners due to factors such as lack of operations data or lack of consensus among decisionmakers around an appropriate system-level performance operations objective, the partners may develop an operations objective in terms of the performance of the system managers or operators. These operations objectives refer to indicators such as percentage of traffic signals retimed, number of variable message signs deployed, or incident response time.

Key criteria¹⁷ for an operations objective include:

• Specific: It provides sufficient specificity to guide formulation of viable approaches to achieving the operations objective without dictating the approach.
• Measurable: It is measurable in terms that are meaningful to the partners and users. Tracking progress against the operations objective provides feedback that enables the partners to assess the effectiveness of their actions. An operations objective is chosen that is measurable within the partners' means.
• Agreed: Necessary for the development and implementation of the RCTO, partners come to a consensus on a common operations objective.
• Realistic: The participants are reasonably confident that they can achieve this operations objective within resource limitations and institutional demands. Because this cannot be fully evaluated until the approach of the RCTO is defined, the partners may need to iteratively adjust the operations objective once the approach of the RCTO is determined.
• Time-bound: Partners specify when the operations objective will be achieved. This promotes efficiency and accountability.

Operations Objective Example 1: Tri-County Winter Maintenance RCTO

By 2009, the partnering agencies, Baker, Marlin, and Quincy counties, and Able City will achieve and maintain an average time to clear of no more than 5 hours on all emergency snow routes and priority arterials. In addition, the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per snow event for all partner agencies combined will decrease by 10 percent by 2009 compared to the 2000-2005 average per snow event of 1790 miles.

The partners will measure improvements in efficiency by:

• Time to clear snow emergency routes and priority arterials within the combined jurisdictions of the partner agencies. The 2005 Northern Ketchikan Association of Governments Regional ITS Architecture contains the list of designated emergency routes and priority arterials.
• Winter maintenance VMT by all partner agencies (average VMT per snow event).

The average time to clear emergency snow and priority routes within Baker, Marlin, and Quincy counties, and Able City was 7.5 hours per storm from the fall of 2000 to the spring 2005.

A snow event is defined by snow accumulation of 4″ or more in 12 hours, or 6″ in 24 hours.

Operations Objective Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

• The partners will reduce the annual average recovery time to 30 minutes or less by 2009 for minor incidents in the Janesville region. This requires a decrease in recovery time of 10 minutes from the 2005 average of 40 minutes per incident.
• The partners will reduce the annual average recovery time to 60 minutes or less by 2009 for major incident in the Janesville region. This requires a decrease in recovery time of 15 minutes from the 2005 average of 75 minutes per major incident.

For roads that are not instrumented with traffic speed detectors, the partners will work to achieve a secondary set of operations objectives:

• Reduce the annual average roadway clearance time to 25 minutes or less by 2009 for minor incidents in the Janesville region. This requires a decrease in clearance time of 10 minutes from the 2005 average of 35 minutes per minor incident.
• The partners will reduce the annual average roadway clearance time to 50 minutes or less by 2009 for major incident in the Janesville region. This requires a decrease in clearnace time of 15 minutes from the 2005 average of 65 minutes per major incident.

Major incidents are defined as incidents that require emergency medical services and cause multiple lanes to be closed. Minor incidents are all other incidents such as stalled vehicles or non-injury crashes.

Recovery time is defined as the time between the awareness of an incident and the restoration of impacted roadway/roadways to within the average non-incident range of speed for those roads and time of day.

Roadway clearance time is defined as the time between awareness of an incident and restoration of lanes to full operational status.

Operations Objective Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

The partners will decrease traveler delay associated with road closures and restrictions, major incidents and disasters, and weather and storms on I-40, I-50, I-46, I-35, and I-55 within the four-State area by 20 percent by 2011.

4.3 Approach

The approach describes how the operations objective will be achieved. It provides the needed transition from an operations objective to what is required to achieve it. The approach is not a collection of tasks, but a cohesive design containing elements that support each other to bring about a common outcome.

The approach may be based on an expansion of capabilities or services that one of the partners currently offers, adoption of best practices from similar regions, institutional arrangements that enable mutual support and cooperation, enhanced information sharing among partners, or implementation of new systems and related user services. Developing an approach allows the partners to agree on an overall strategy for achieving the operations objective so that they can determine what is needed to implement it, the relationships and procedures, the resource arrangements, and the physical improvements.

The remaining elements of an RCTO lay out the requirements of achieving the operations objective in sufficient detail for decisionmakers to make informed commitments regarding resources and institutional arrangements.

Approach Example 1: Tri-County Winter Maintenance RCTO¹⁸

The partnering agencies will work together to become more efficient and save money on winter road maintenance throughout the region. The effort will focus on 1) obtaining and sharing real-time information on the status of winter maintenance trucks and 2) providing mutual assistance as needed. Partner agencies will approach regional snow maintenance through increased collaboration and targeted utilization of technology and communications systems to coordinate partner operations. They will increase efficiency by reducing miles traveled by trucks and decreasing the time to clear snow and ice from the roads. This will save on the cost of fuel, vehicle maintenance, and overtime paid to drivers.

Currently, each jurisdiction acquires and maintains its own equipment without regard to other jurisdictions. Further, each jurisdiction plans and executes its snow removal program independently and is largely unaware of either road conditions or equipment status in other jurisdictions.

The partners will jointly procure an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system that allows them to observe snowplow activity throughout the region and gather real-time information on pavement conditions. With this data, partners can improve real-time management of their fleets and request winter road maintenance assistance from other partners as needed. For example, during a snow clearing effort, Baker County may view on the common AVL system that a Marlin County snow plow is close to the Baker/Marlin border, an area where Baker County roads still need to be plowed. Baker could request assistance from Marlin County.

Additionally, the AVL system includes a mobile weather monitor that will allow fleet managers to assign tasks in real-time to their drivers based on the temperature readings from the plows.

A radio communications backbone will allow the in-vehicle computers to continuously send location and weather data to a common server. The data will then be put onto the Internet where only partnering agencies can receive it. Work stations at each partnering agency will display a map-based interface that maintenance managers will view to identify weather threats, track snowplow locations, and route diversions. Each maintenance vehicle will appear on the map with a color-coded trace indicating where plows have been.

Approach Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

There are several strategies that can improve roadway recovery time after incidents, but the partners have chosen to focus their efforts on quick clearance, an area where they believe they can realize the greatest improvement. Quick clearance is defined by the Federal Highway Administration as the process of removing wreckage, debris, or any other elements that disrupt the normal flow of traffic or force lane closures, and restoring the roadway capacity to its pre-incident condition. Improvements in quick clearance have been shown to provide significant benefits to traffic flow impacts and safety. Public safety and transportation partners will work together on quick clearance through education and knowledge sharing, policy and procedure development, and expanded service.

Education and Knowledge Sharing

Cross-agency training.
The partners will develop and implement a joint transportation and public safety training program that involves both classroom instruction and exercises. The multi-agency aspect of the training will allow traffic management personnel, law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency medical, and towing and recovery to share practices and clarify roles and responsibilities. The classroom training will increase knowledge of current quick clearance laws, policies, and agreements. The exercises will provide practice in traffic incident removal procedures applicable to a wide range of incident types.

Post-incident debriefing.
Partners will establish regular post-incident debriefings between the key players from multiple agencies. The debriefings will give the responders a chance to review what went well and what needs improvement with regard to incident management.

Public information campaign on MOVE IT law. The traveling public can play a key role in reducing traffic delays due to minor, non-injury incidents. The MOVE IT law in the State of Burke declares that drivers must move their vehicles from an active traffic lane in cases of minor, non-injury incidents. The public is not widely aware of this law and in order to bring about greater compliance, the partners will undertake a public information campaign.

Policy and Procedure Development

Traffic fatality certification policy.
Currently, a body at the scene of a traffic fatality in the State of Burke cannot be moved until the medical examiner from the Burke State Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) arrives on the scene. There have been several occasions in the past few years in which the medical examiner has been unable to arrive at the scene of an accident within the first 3 hours, significantly prolonging the traffic impacts of an incident. In order to make this process more efficient, some States have developed traffic fatality certification policies. The partners aim to develop a policy that will allow law enforcement personnel to relocate accident victims in special circumstances.

Regional towing request procedure.
The partners will develop a common towing request procedure such that qualified towing and recovery operators are requested in an equitable and efficient manner. This will facilitate fast and predictable response times.

Procedures for early identification of equipment needs and mobilization of equipment.
A standard procedure regarding classification of equipment needs and mobilization will be documented and disseminated to all traffic incident responders. The partners recognize that an unnecessary source of delay and cost in the incident clearance process is lack of knowledge about towing and recovery equipment needs and equipment mobilization.

Expanded Service

Arterial incident action team.
The partners will implement an arterial incident action team similar to the existing Burke Highway Helpers program. The arterial patrol will assist in traffic management allowing first responders focus on their incident clearance responsibilities. A similar arterial incident management team, Regional Emergency Action Coordinating Team, operates in the Phoenix metropolitan area and a recent study estimated a benefit to cost ratio for the service at 6.4:1.¹⁹

Approach Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

The partners will work to decrease interstate traveler delay by providing timely and accurate traveler information on road conditions and recommended alternate routes. The partners' collaborative effort will be focused on exchanging information between the partnering DOTs that will affect travel along the I-40, I-50, I-46, I-35, and I-55 corridors. Shared information will help operations staff in the partnering States make educated decisions when disseminating traveler information based on the conditions and actions of the other states.

The partners will approach this effort by establishing 1) shared procedures, 2) an electronic, multi-State contact list, and 3) a web-based traveler information system.

1. The partners will establish procedures for sharing information and standardized regional traveler information messages.
2. The partners will also create a shared electronic contact list with current information on who to call during major incidents or emergencies. Partners will have the capability of updating the shared list almost instantaneously.
3. To facilitate information sharing among the partnering states, the partners will build a web-based system that will integrate and disseminate highway condition information to travelers and partnering operations staff. Travelers will be able to view alerts and road conditions over the Internet via a color-coded map of the 4-State area. In addition to the map, operators will be able to view other agencies highway traffic cameras and road weather information system (RWIS) data through a protected portion of the Internet site. This system will take the information that is already entered by the State DOTs into their individual systems and transfer it into a common web-based system.

4.4 Relationships and Procedures

The relationships and procedures of an RCTO define how the partners will work together to achieve the operations objective. This includes multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional working agreements, institutional arrangements, memorandums of understanding (MOUs), and interoperability standards. While the actual agreements may not be present in the RCTO, the RCTO gives a detailed description of agreements that will be created during the implementation. This is a crucial element of the RCTO as much of what it will take to achieve the operations objective depends on relationship building and information sharing.

The relationships and procedures in an RCTO should reflect the fact that although agencies and jurisdictions retain control of their operations, they may have responsibilities for operating and managing their systems and services in ways that provide for a more collective regional benefit. The relationships and procedures will typically include agency or individual responsibilities for implementation of the RCTO as well as ongoing management and operations resulting from the RCTO.

Champions Identified in the MAG RCTO to Advance Implementation

The MAG RCTO initiative areas were divided between existing committees and working groups. One or two individuals volunteered to champion each initiative. Each champion was responsible for reporting back to the ITS Committee periodically with an update on the initiative. Faisal Saleem, ITS Coordinator for Maricopa County, is the champion for the travel information initiative which is being pursued under the umbrella of AZTech, a partnership of Federal, State, local, and private entities that work together to address a variety of regional transportation issues. Saleem led the formation of an advanced traveler information system (ATIS) committee of 15 to 20 stakeholders. The committee adopted the RCTO's quantitative goals for traveler information and developed a baseline for travel time for the freeways and major arterials. Every month the committee updates its travel time information collected by the participating agencies and work on related initiatives. Contact Faisal Saleem, faisalsaleem@mail.maricopa.gov

The relationships and procedures may address:

• How will stakeholders achieve coordination, integration and/or interoperability for optimum performance?
• How is information obtained, managed, and shared?
• How do agencies and systems work together in specific situations?
• How can the RCTO leverage the regional ITS architecture?
• How will data be collected for measuring progress toward the operations objective?
• Who are the champions who will be responsible for leading individual aspects of the RCTO implementation?

Relationships and Procedures Example 1: Tri-County Snow Maintenance RCTO

Part A: Implementing the RCTO

A steering committee composed of the transportation department directors from each partner agency will provide direction for the collaborative effort and make recommendations to the city and county officials for resource investment. A users committee will be formed by staff from each agency to discuss and resolve implementation and usage issues. Committees will meet on at least a monthly basis and will work to maintain and advance the collaboration past the implementation phase of the AVL system.

Denver Traffic Signal Program Relationships and Procedures

DRCOG approaches this program as a partnership among DRCOG and the traffic signal operating agencies. Regular updates are made every few years through a collaborative dialogue led by DRCOG. Operating agencies work with each other to implement the projects defined in the program. In addition to coordinating TSSIP, DRCOG is responsible for conducting timing and coordination tasks on a project-by-project basis for those projects identified in the TSSIP and as requested by individual operating agencies. Through these tasks, DRCOG identifies corridors to retime, develops and fine-tunes timing plans, and documents improvements and benefits. In turn, the operating agencies are responsible for maintaining and operating their signals, maintaining the timing, and reviewing and approving plans.

Part B: Day-to-day operations

Legal.
The partnering agencies recognize the need for each agency to limit liability that may be incurred when maintenance is performed by a partner agency outside of its home jurisdiction. The agencies will develop an agreement that allows an agency to be assisted by a partner agency without being subject to unreasonable liabilities.

Information sharing.
Participating partners will make available in real-time location and status information of their winter maintenance vehicles and roadway conditions via established protocols. Frequency, content, and format will be determined as the system is developed.

Performance measuring.
Partners will collect and share performance data on the time to clear and maintenance vehicle miles traveled. Time to clear extends from the initiation of winter maintenance operations in anticipation of snow event until all emergency snow routes and priority arterials in the partners' jurisdiction are clear. Clearance will be measured by visual inspection by the partnering agencies. Partners will send performance data electronically to the lead agency, Marlin County Department of Transportation. Additionally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for maintenance vehicles per snow event will be emailed to Marlin County DOT which will aggregate VMT across the region and track performance trends.

Procedures for mutual assistance.
Mutual assistance may occur when one jurisdiction seeks assistance that requires equipment owned and operated by one jurisdiction to operate within a partnering jurisdiction. Unless otherwise agreed in advance, mutual assistance requires consent on a per request basis. Assistance may be requested by a partner in need of additional support or may be offered by a partner whose equipment is available and positioned to provide service. However, unless both parties consent, equipment shall not cross jurisdictional boundaries. Consent may be routine (i.e., prearranged), conditional (i.e., assistance occurs when specific conditions occur), or responsive (i.e., because of current conditions, in real-time we will offer or accept assistance). Routine or conditional consent may be specified in multi-jurisdictional agreements; responsive consent requires a record of the consent.

Cost recovery for assistance.
The partners will reimburse one another for the cost of providing assistance. The partners will agree on a formula to provide appropriate compensation based on staff time, chemical use, and vehicle mileage. Mileage will be tracked on the AVL system. Staff time and chemical use will be reported to the lead agency, Marlin County Department of Transportation, by the assisting agency. At the end of each month, Marlin County DOT will settle the accounts, bill partners as needed, and then reimburse partners with outstanding costs.

Relationships and Procedures Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

Towing and recovery working group.
Representatives from the partner agencies and the region's towing and recovery operator community will form a working group to develop regional towing and recovery procedures. The group will develop the zone-based towing procedure and early identification of equipment needs and mobilization of equipment procedures. The working group will be led by a representative from the Foster Police Department and a public safety agency will be designated as the lead for each zone. The group will meet on a bi-monthly basis until the procedures have been established and documented. After that time, representatives from the lead agencies for each zone will give status reports to the JPDC ITS/IM Committee as needed. Updates to the procedures will be handled by the zone leaders with input from the Joint ITS/IM Committee on an as needed basis.

Zone-based towing procedure.
The partners will develop a common procedure for handling towing and recovery needs. The region will be divided into at most five districts and each district will create a list of pre-qualified towing and recovery operators that will be used to contact a tow operator at the time of an incident. Due to the geography of the region, a single tow list would not be as efficient. Responsibility for implementing and maintaining this list will be given to the local police departments and State police. When an incident occurs, the local dispatcher will call the first operator on the list to the incident scene and then move it to the end of the list.

The partners will decide what qualifications the towing and recovery operators must meet in order to be placed on a zone's towing list. These qualifications should minimize time to dispatch the appropriate tow equipment to the scene. Factors to be considered include maximum allowable response time, insurance, 24-hour availability, and availability of heavy-duty tow trucks.

Traffic fatality certification policy.
Led by the Burke State Police (BSP), a working group of the region's law enforcement agencies will meet with the Burke State Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to develop a policy that will define an alternative method for handling traffic fatalities in special circumstances. The policy will likely be modeled after Maryland's practice: law enforcement agencies that need to remove a fatal crash victim from the scene of an incident must follow these steps: fill out the OCME form, take pictures of crash and victim position, and then call the OCME 24-hour center to request permission to relocate the body.²⁰

Cross-agency training.
The classroom training and full-scale exercise will be developed by contractors to the Burke DOT. The overall design of the training will be guided by a working group composed of management-level representatives from each partnering agency. The classroom training will be a full day of instruction to be held four times annually. The full-scale exercise will last approximately 4 hours and will allow first responders to cooperate across agencies while working in a simulated accident scene. A different full-scale exercise will be held every 18 months. Participating agencies will require their incident management personnel to attend training on a yearly basis. Burke DOT and BSP will update training materials on an as needed basis because of new procedures, policies, or laws.

Post-incident debriefing practice.
JPDC will take the lead in developing a standard template to use for multi-agency reviews of major incidents. JPDC will host three to four post-incident debriefing sessions to be attended by all key players who participated in responding to the incident. Incidents that were not cleared within 30 minutes are candidates for a debriefing session. Other criteria will be decided upon by the Joint ITS/IM Committee. Requests for debriefings will be handled by JPDC.

MOVE IT campaign working group.
Led by the City of Winchester Department of Transportation, a working group of partnering agencies will determine the content, design, and distribution strategy of the MOVE IT public information brochure. A standard design for a road sign to educate drivers on this law will also be developed and transportation agency representatives will work within their agencies to get support for purchasing and posting MOVE IT signs in their jurisdictions.

Arterial incident action team.
The departments of transportation from the cities of Twinfolk, Winchester, and Foster will form an arterial incident action team. Led by the City of Twinfolk DOT, the team will jointly apply for funding, procure the necessary equipment, and provide guidance for the initiative. The City of Twinfolk will be responsible for the administration of the team. Joint funding will be used to procure equipment and contract with a private company to operate the service.

The action team will assist in traffic incident management by setting up emergency lane/road closures, installing and maintaining signed detour routes, and providing directional information to motorists. The arterial team will be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and respond to incidents when requested by local police, fire, or transportation agencies.

Relationships and Procedures Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

The State departments of transportation of Grover, Cantwell, Warren, and Byrd will form a coalition to improve coordination on interstate traveler information. The Coalition will be led by the Grover DOT and have a tiered organizational structure consisting of:

• An executive committee made up of the four DOT directors who will decide on resource commitments and the overall direction of the effort.
• A steering committee established between State DOT ITS managers who will manage the effort and provide input to the executive committee.
• A working committee made up of technical staff from the four DOTs that work together to develop the technical and day-to-day operational aspects of the collaboration.

The partners will establish a common approach for measuring their performance toward their operations objective. The roads of interest for this effort, I-40, I-50, I-46, I-35, and I-55, have existing traffic detection instrumentation that will allow for delay to be estimated during major incidents, inclement weather, road construction, and disasters based on vehicle speeds and volume. It is not anticipated that delay will need to be assessed for every event but that a sampling of events will be sufficient. Developing a common performance measurement approach will be one of the first efforts of the coalition. A baseline of delay will need to be established during the first year of the effort, prior to the implementation of the information sharing system and procedures.

An interagency agreement will be established to formalize the partner agencies' funding commitments to this effort.

Common procedures for information sharing on interstate road conditions will be developed. The partners have agreed to share information on road closures, restrictions, major incidents and disasters, and weather. Procedures to be developed will cover what information will be shared (e.g., road closures, work zone activities, inclement weather, detours), how the information will be shared (e.g., format, timing, via Internet or cell phone), and who will be responsible within each agency for gathering information. It is not expected that agencies will need to collect information beyond their current levels with the exception of delay data for performance measuring.

Standard procedures for rapid updating of the electronic contact list will also be developed. It is expected that this list will be hosted on the coalition's web-based system.

The partners will follow a standard systems engineering approach to developing the traveler information system. This will include the following steps: define requirements, perform high-level design, develop installation plan to install the system in each State, complete system integration across the 4-State region, and test the system.

4.5 Physical Improvements

The physical improvements defined in an RCTO describe the facilities, equipment, and systems that will be put in place to achieve the operations objective. Additionally, an RCTO shows what investments are needed for these improvements and how they fit together to deliver better customer service and system performance. Some partnerships may decide to construct an RCTO without significant physical improvements. For example, the MAG ITS Committee decided to focus on making operations improvements with their existing ITS infrastructure because they already had considerable ITS deployments and additional funding was not readily available.

Physical Improvements Example 1: Tri-County Snow Maintenance RCTO

The following table lists the physical improvements needed to implement the snow maintenance system.

Item	Function	Estimated Price	Quantity
Global positioning system tracking device	Each vehicle is equipped with a tracking device that allows satellites to pinpoint its exact location.	$400/unit	Marlin County: 60 Baker County: 45 Able City: 50 Quincy County: 35
Environmental sensors	Mounted on the vehicle, the sensors continuously record both air and pavement temperatures to help determine if salting is required.	$500 for both air and pavement sensors	Marlin County: 60 Baker County: 45 Able City:50 Quincy County: 35
In-vehicle Unit	Each vehicle is equipped with a dashboard-mounted computer display, known as an in-vehicle unit (IVU), which automatically collects data from the various sensors on the vehicle, displays the information for the driver, and sends this data over the radio to the data server.	$1000/unit	Marlin County: 60 Baker County: 45 Able City:50 Quincy County: 35
900 MHz Radio System	Links the in-vehicle unit in each vehicle with the data server and computer base stations at the garages.	Donated by Marlin County Transit	1
Data server	To collect the data from the radio system and put onto the Internet where only partnering agencies can receive it.	Donated by Able City	1
Software	For web-based interface.	$20,000	1

Physical Improvements Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

The necessary physical improvements are eight trucks equipped with variable message signs, radios, traffic cones, detour signs, and public address systems. The signs, cones, and public address system allow the drivers to better manage traffic during incidents. The radio communications system will enable drivers to communicate with each other and central dispatch. Cost per equipped truck is approximately $45,000.

Physical Improvements Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

The web-based traveler information exchange system will require the following equipment:

• Web application software.
• Database.
• Web server.
• Internet site.
• High-speed internet access within State departments of transportation.

4.6 Resource Arrangements

Resource arrangements identify how resources such as funding, staff time, and equipment will be obtained and applied in the collaborative effort to actualize and sustain the operations objective. Some of these investments involve partner agency budget allocations; others are commitments of staffing, equipment, or facilities to support regionally significant activities. The resource arrangements element may include plans to fund the regional effort by jointly applying for funding through the regional Transportation Improvement Program or a local, State, or Federal grant. In several regions, applications for regional, State, or Federal funds are given greater weight when several agencies have joined together.

Examples of resource arrangements between participants of collaborative management and operations efforts provide ideas for how resources could be organized within an RCTO:

• The High Plains Corridor Coalition State DOT partners formed a Transportation Pooled Fund Study and have committed to providing $300,000 each over 5 years.
• Phoenix International Raceway event management stakeholders have partnered to plan and implement effective event management strategies to get out timely and accurate motorist information, manage traffic, and reduce demand. Participants include Maricopa County DOT (MCDOT), Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), ADOT, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), PIR officials, and M&M Parking Consultants. The partners coordinated their ITS resources and staff time in order to stage traffic control posts staffed by public safety and transportation agencies and utilize three control centers, lane reversal, radio, freeway VMS, and limited arterial VMS.
• Funding for Southeast Michigan Snow and Ice Management (SEMSIM) has come from Federal earmark grants, CMAQ, and funds from each of the four road maintenance organizations. SEMSIM uses extra capacity in the transit agency's radio communications system.

Resource Arrangements Example 1: Tri-County Snow Maintenance RCTO

A joint purchasing agreement will be established between the four partnering agencies to share the cost of the AVL system and its components equitably. The partners will divide equally the cost of the software and radio communications system, but the cost of the workstations, vehicle transponders, and mobile weather monitors will be prorated based on the number of systems purchased by each agency.

The 900 MHz Radio System will be donated by Marlin County Transit for the ongoing use by the partners for the regional winter maintenance system. Able City will donate a spare data server for the joint initiative that will be housed at the Marlin County DOT. Software and hardware maintenance of the AVL system will be handled by a contractor. Contractor cost will be divided equally among the four partners.

Resource Arrangements Example 2: Quick Clearance RCTO

The local partnering agencies, with the City of Twinfolk DOT acting as the lead agency, will apply for CMAQ funding to cover the initial equipment costs for Arterial Incident Action Team and the annual operating costs for Action Team over the first 3 years. The funding requested will be approximately $400,000 for the first year and $300,000 for the second and third years. The first year will require a 20 percent match of approximately $100,000 be split evenly among the local jurisdictions. They second and third years will require approximately $75,000 in matching funds split evenly between the local jurisdictions. After the first 3 years, the local jurisdictions will pool their funds and will split the full cost of the team equally.

The City of Twinfolk will enter into a joint purchasing agreement with the Burke DOT to acquire the arterial incident action team trucks and equipment. The Burke DOT currently holds a contract with a private agency to supply trucks for the Burke Freeway Courtesy Patrol.

Twinfolk, Winchester, and Foster DOTs will develop an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that will allow the arterial incident action team to operate within their jurisdictions when requested. IGA will also commit each local jurisdiction to share equally the 20 percent match required for CMAQ funds.

Burke Department of Transportation will utilize its on-call consultant to support the training development of classroom instruction and a full-scale exercise. Estimated cost for the training development is $200,000.

Once developed, Burke DOT and Burke State Police will contribute two incident management experts from their staff to serve as instructors for the full-day classroom instruction twice a year.

The City of Winchester will contribute 40 hours of staff time to lead the design and development of a public information brochure on the Move It law. All partnering agencies will contribute $1000 to print the brochures. Local law enforcement and transportation partners will then contribute 8 hours each to distribute brochures at locations such as grocery stores and rest stops during a special awareness week to be agreed upon.

Resource Arrangements Example 3: Multi-State Traveler Information RCTO

The States of Cantwell, Warren, Byrd, and Grover will create a pooled fund study as part of the FHWA Transportation Pooled Fund Program. Funding will be provided in equal amounts by the four States and the administration of the pooled fund study will be carried out by FHWA. The pooled fund study will last over 5 years. In years 1 and 2, each agency will contribute $100,000 each year for implementation costs and in years 3, 4, 5, each agency will contribute $50,000 each year for operating costs.