Measuring Transportation Network Performance (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 Scenario Many key corridors throughout the country cross state boundaries, creating a complex web of players who are respon- sible for planning and operating what users see as a single transportation network. Infrastructure improvements that directly address a problem for one mode or jurisdiction may have important impacts (both negative and positive) for other modes and jurisdictions. Without the data to analyze these improvements across state lines and among agencies, and without the forum to vet and discuss the implications, the most effective investment decisions or operations policies may be lost. For example, jurisdictions addressing operations concerns of a portion of the network in isolation from others may be prohibited from benefits of coordinated action, economy of scale, and shared knowledge and resources that occur when multiple entities cooperate to implement globally optimum solutions. The motivating elements to establish effective network per- formance measures in this scenario are major regional trans- portation networks (i.e., rail, highway, or transit) that span state boundaries. This scenario also may include private com- panies and independent transportation authorities that oper- ate autonomously. The burden to maintain and optimize highly integrated transportation networks represents large financial commitments. States and private companies recognize the benefits and cost savings from coordinated effort and are typically willing players in such efforts, provided that the effort is directed by objective goals and performance measures and is perceived as an equitable investment with financial benefits to all states and their citizens. Case Studies The primary case study is the Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study (MAROps), a rail freight cooperative initiative carried out through the I–95 Corridor Coalition. The network included freight rail systems operated by CSX and Norfolk Southern (NS) (including operations on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor) in five mid-Atlantic states (i.e., New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia). The motivating factor for the cooperative effort was the need to increase capacity in a lim- ited funding environment. Network performance measures were needed to effectively identify projects with the greatest sys- tem impact and then quantify the network benefits of the can- didate projects for the entire region. The partners acknowledged that in order to spend limited improvement dollars most effectively, a multistate perspective was needed to identify the projects that would improve goods movement conditions throughout the region. Although the focus of MAROps is on the rail system that operates within the mid-Atlantic region, by improving rail service there are inevitable impacts on the region’s highways, particularly for freight movement, and these are estimated as part of the MAROps effort. Additional case studies include the following: • The I–95 Vehicle Probe Project, a collective procurement of a traffic monitoring system by several mid-Atlantic states to provide seamless and consistent travel-time and speed- performance data to support planning and operations over a multistate area; and • A similar effort by the TRANSCOM/TRANSMIT system in the northeast areas of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to provide highway operations performance information based on data from an automated toll tag system. Building Blocks Establish Partnership Agreements The multistate scenario involves cooperation among au- tonomous, sovereign states with no fiscally or legally binding C H A P T E R 5 Peer-to-Peer Scenario—Multistate Partnership for System Operations

21 relationships. Though MPOs have a natural, federally sanc- tioned forum for cooperation on network performance, multi- state collaboration requires building new institutions that allow for collective decision making. Peer-to-peer collabora- tion at the state level is further complicated by individual state laws governing procurement policy; state-specific regulations must be carefully managed in order for all participants to benefit from multistate agreements, contracts, and pooled procurements. Establish Broad Partnership Agreements Between States Key to the enablement of a multistate initiative is the for- mation or utilization of an independent organization to pur- sue common objectives. Lead agency and other types of simple cooperative partnership agreements useful in other scenarios are less effective in coordinating state interests. Simple part- nership agreements that do not employ a neutral third-party coordinating body may lead to implied hierarchical relation- ships among states that can be disruptive to collaborative efforts. The I–95 Corridor Coalition is an independent organiza- tion that provides a partnership of state departments of trans- portation, regional and local transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations from Maine to Florida (including the District of Columbia). The coalition has strong board leadership from state champions who recognize the need for multistate collaboration. The coalition staff is dedi- cated to the benefit of the entire multistate corridor and is not encumbered with possible conflicting state agency loyalties. Such an organization serves as the foundation for an effective multistate forum. Develop Specialized Agreements for Individual Initiatives In addition to the broad partnership framework estab- lished by the I–95 Corridor Coalition, individual coalition projects often require specialized agreements tailored to the study. For the MAROps effort, the specific agreement was between the five mid-Atlantic states and three Class I railroads—Amtrak, CSX, and NS—that operated within the mid-Atlantic. Historically, relationships among the railroads and between the railroads and the states have sometimes been strained. Though the forum established for MAROps primarily focused on considering the mid-Atlantic rail system as an over- all network that needed to be evaluated and improved as such, a side benefit came from improved relationships among the states and railroads. The MAROps project helped the railroads understand the benefits of partnering with individual states or groups of states and also of working more closely together. Since the initiation of the MAROps study, both NS and CSX have developed significant individual rail corridor initiatives in cooperation with states, including the NS Heartland Corridor (connecting the Port of Norfolk to the Midwestern distribu- tion centers), the NS Crescent Corridor (connecting New Orleans along I–81 to Northern New Jersey), and the CSX National Gateway (connecting the ports of Baltimore, Mary- land; Wilmington, North Carolina; and Charlotte, North Carolina, to Midwestern distribution centers). Define Performance Measurement Framework For a multistate entity, a performance framework helps establish focused and clearly articulated goals and objectives among states and other partners. Identify the Benefits of a Multistate Approach Before considering any project, all of the partners must agree on the project parameters. In the case of the I–95 Corri- dor Coalition, this required being flexible and including par- ticipants relevant to the specific study. The MAROps study included active participation by the five mid-Atlantic states and three Class I Railroads, in recognition of the regional impact of existing rail bottlenecks. A multistate initiative held the potential to optimize the return of limited capital improvement dollars using a system approach. MAROps both identified significant rail bottlenecks and provided a forum for improved coordination among the freight rail- roads in the region and between the freight railroads and the states. The Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee (TRANSCOM) is an independent organization that provides a forum and frame- work for participants to coordinate on incident management and trip planning for highways and transit for 16 transportation and public safety agencies in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan region. It was created in 1986 to provide a cooperative, coordinated approach to regional transportation management. TRANSCOM seeks to improve mobility and safety through interagency communication and the enhanced utilization of their existing traffic and trans- portation management systems (www.xcm.org).

Select Network Measures That Reflect Multistate Performance Objectives The second phase of the MAROps study (completed in 2009) built on the partnership agreement by evaluating the expected benefits of packages of investments to address the rail bottlenecks identified in the original study. Using a per- formance approach helped strengthen the basis for the set of investments identified. A framework was developed that identified the potential beneficiaries of rail system invest- ments and the likely key performance concepts that would best capture benefits for that beneficiary (Table 5.1). Devel- oping the framework ensured that the benefits of, and there- fore funding for, potential investments would be connected to the agencies and groups that benefit from a particular investment. 22 pooled procurement, the coalition acquired a traffic data service based on vehicle probe tech- nology for both freeways and major signalized arterials on a significant portion of the corridor. The information from the project has already been integrated into a follow-on effort to provide travel times on a website for common origin-destination pairs within the corridor. The I–95 Vehicle Probe study supports both individual state operation of Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) and provides travel information services for long-distance, inter- jurisdictional diversions characteristic of major incidents that have a multistate impact. The TRANSCOM/TRANSMIT objective was to secure traffic flow performance data across a multistate area. Highway operations in this tristate area require consistent and accurate highway information for appropriate manage- ment. This resulted in the central vision to use the data from the automated toll tag system being deployed in the region for traffic infor- mation. TRANSCOM was also targeted as the mechanism to coordinate operations and plan- ning issues of the multistate highway network infrastructure. States, Metro Areas, National Freight Railroads Passenger Railroads Rail Passengers Shippers Ports • Economic impacts • System efficiency • Environmental impacts • Maintenance costs • Safety • Market share • Throughput • System reliability • Environmental impacts • Operations/ maintenance costs • Safety • Ridership • Throughput • System reliability • Environmental impacts • Operations/ maintenance costs • Safety • Travel costs • Travel time • Service access • Business cost • Service access • Service reliability • Transit time • Market access • Business cost • Throughput • Safety Table 5.1. MAROps performance measure concepts by beneficiary. Develop Measurement and Data Collection Methodologies Using shared assets or common systems (either infrastruc- ture, technological, or otherwise) is an effective strategy to maximize the investment in pooled resources. The I–95 Vehicle Probe Project exemplifies the strategy of maximizing benefit from a multistate pooled procurement. The I–95 Vehicle Probe Project recognized the failure of previous approaches for delivering ubiquitous traffic monitoring and set forth an objective of providing a comprehensive multi- state traffic monitoring system based on cutting- edge probe technology. Through use of a

23 TRANSCOM/TRANSMIT used the investment of a common asset of the participating states to acquire consistent and accurate highway infor- mation. The program used data from toll tags as a common technology backbone for an effective traffic monitoring system spanning state lines. MAROps used economic models to estimate ben- efits to all beneficiaries with a focus on fitting within emerging federal programs such as proj- ects of national significance. Economic models revealed significant benefit for all states and parties and thus provided justification for con- tinued political support throughout the pro- gram. Recognizing the funding challenges of any capital improvement project, the MAROps strategy was to position the program to maxi- mize the potential for funding through emerg- ing federal initiatives, providing further benefit for MAROps’ participating members. Strategies used in this case study are transferable to other multistate initiatives, including the following: • A multistate procurement involved procurement special- ists from member states early in the project, yielding a methodology that provided the greatest flexibility. • A working group of representatives of participating states and academia directed the project, allowing the coalition access to significant experience from states that performed demonstration projects. • The request for proposals (RFP) specified full data sharing between states, allowing all states to access and view data for any state. For example, Pennsylvania has access to flow data from New Jersey. • A data rights and ownership policy allowed for liberal use of the data by the coalition and member agencies for both internal and external applications, while allowing the vendor to resell the data to commercial clients. For exam- ple, www.i95travelinfo.net provides travel times between major cities. • The traffic data are continuously validated by an indepen- dent agent across jurisdictions. This provides an objective assessment of data quality and value for agency applica- tions and helps manage information about the program status and value. Validation results help determine pay- ment to the commercial data provider.