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.

40 This appendix provides detailed information about each of the case studies conducted for this effort. Findings from these case studies were integrated into the scenario chapters of the guidebook. They are presented here related to the primary scenario they supported. Regional Scenario—Defining Community Goals Across Jurisdictions State and regional policy, program, project, and operational decisions can have significant implications for local commu- nities. Conversely, local transportation projects and opera- tional strategies can have impacts far beyond the borders of the municipal boundaries. This scenario documents statewide and regional entities working collaboratively with local gov- ernments and transportation providers to assess the impacts of these decisions on a systems level and fully understand and plan for the implications. Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany, New York Agency Name: Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) Scale: Regional Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnership Description of the Program/Initiative The CDTC is the designated MPO for the Albany, New York, area. The CDTC study area covers Albany, Rensselaer, Schenec- tady, and Saratoga counties, encompassing a total population of almost 800,000 (U.S. Census, 2000). The majority of the population is centered in the Albany metro area. Within the regional long-range planning process, CDTC has explored questions about the region’s future by under- taking extensive engagement with individuals, groups, and parties that extend beyond traditional MPO outreach efforts. They use core performance measures relating to both aggre- gate system performance and supplemental performance measures relating to specific elements of the systems. CDTC’s performance measures have been used as a national proto- type. The agency was one of the earlier MPOs to pay atten- tion to system reliability, land use compatibility, and a wide range of environmental impacts. CDTC and its members have been active in providing significant support for com- munity planning, transit service design, intermodal develop- ment, ITS deployment, demand management, and public participation. A regional vision is carried out at the local level to a degree that is exemplary (FHWA and FTA Certification Report, 2008). A high level of collaboration is evident in their many part- nerships. At the policy and planning level, CDTC has transit agency, airport, port, and Thruway Authority representatives serving as voting members. The collaborative ITS deployment on NY 5 involving five municipalities, CDTA, and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is a significant achievement and prototype. A regional ITS archi- tecture has been cooperatively established. CDTC also has undertaken extensive community outreach programs though its Community and Transportation Linkages program. CDTC has focused its efforts on many areas, including VMT reduction, congestion, environmental issues, land use planning, sustainability, and safety. There is a high level of planning and operational coordination among state and local governments, transit providers, the public, and other agencies. The collaborative planning processes have helped cultivate a planning environment that has increased CDTC’s impact on the region. The MPO staff view transportation as a means to an end. This “end” is not just “Point B” but rather outcome-based A P P E N D I X B Detailed Case Studies

community goals such as “quality of life.” A key goal that guides all of CDTC’s work is creating a “quality region.” The MPO has developed qualitative methods to measure quality of life and new quantitative measures, including reliability of network performance. Description of Systems-Level Effort CDTC’s long-range plan, New Visions, is performance- based and stakeholder-driven. The updated 2030 plan con- tinues CDTC’s focus on travel behavior and land use issues that provided the foundation for the 2021 plan.7 CDTC makes connections to its visioning and planning processes and fur- ther links these with performance measures to assess the sys- tem. New Visions 2030 stresses the need for urban investment and concentrated land use that will lead to sustainable growth and an improved quality of life. CDTC’s approach to large- scale, presently unfunded “big-ticket” initiatives is to consider them as part of a vision toward which the Region can strive (http://www.cdtcmpo.org/rtp2030/c-bigideas2.pdf). These big-ticket items in the recent update of New Visions include • Land use, transit, and environment: – Suburban town development centers; – Bus service expansion, BRT program with bus-oriented development; – Guideway transit system with transit-oriented develop- ment; – Travel demand management program; and – Clean, efficient vehicle program. • Highway/corridor: – Managed lane program; – Street reconstruction and reconfiguration; – Roadway widening and connection programs; – Intelligent traffic management program; – Video surveillance and enforcement program (ITS); and – Comprehensive traffic safety program. CDTC’s highway strategies do not include major capacity expansion. CDTC has discovered through its planning and public engagement processes that a focus on highway expan- sion will not help reach many of its systemwide goals. Although the region experiences congestion, delay often results from incidents and other causes of non-recurrent congestion rather than excess demand. CDTC chooses strategies that are more aligned with regional goals, such as increasing highway reli- ability. Strategies that will improve reliability include man- agement and operations strategies to improve network performance, such as ITSs and traffic management systems. A major strategy CDTC undertakes is the Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program. CDTC established this program to provide funding to communities to integrate land use and transportation planning. The driving force of the program is the idea that transportation and land use plan- ning play a role in reaching the region’s potential. It also has been an avenue to link regional plans with local projects and a tool to reach consensus on how the transportation network should perform. The Linkage program’s objectives are to • Support urban revitalization and redevelopment of exist- ing areas; • Improve street connectivity through access management; • Enhance and develop activity centers and town centers; • Enhance and develop transit corridors and environments that support transit; • Encourage a greater mix and intensity of land uses; • Develop bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly design standards; • Create an integrated multimodal transportation network; and • Protect open space. Since 2000, CDTC has initiated a total of 61 Linkage studies in the region, making its integrated transportation–land use program one of the most extensive in the nation. By provid- ing funding for cities, towns, and villages to prepare local transportation plans consistent with the New Visions plan, CDTC has helped increase the amount of local commitment to the regional plan and improve local coordination of trans- portation and land use planning (FHWA and FTA Certifica- tion Report, 2008). CDTC also has focused efforts over the past several years on transportation demand management (TDM) activities. In partnership with CDTA and other organizations, CDTC began a pilot TDM program in 2001 and continues TDM efforts today. Jointly administered TDM programs include a web-based carpool matching program, guaranteed-ride- home program for transit users and carpoolers, a cash sub- sidy for transit passes through public employee unions, and a 6-month cash subsidy toward public or private transit services to encourage downtown employers to establish commuter programs. In the planning process, CDTC widely engages the public to help link strategies and measures to goals. CDTC staff believes that all performance measures should be first approved through public process. For example, public opinion polls have shown that people are willing to tolerate traffic conges- tion levels if there are improvements to transit, walking, biking, safety, and landscaping. This interest in and under- standing of public opinion helps CDTC choose appropriate measures that will help align network performance with community goals. 41 7http://www.cdtcmpo.org/rtp2030/say.htm

Performance Measures CDTC is a best practice case for systemwide performance measures because it makes decisions based on broad commu- nity goals and highlights the most important links in the system for achieving efficiency rather than focusing on indi- vidually owned networks. The agency uses long-term mea- sures to address the impacts of the connection between land use and transportation planning. Systemwide measures are used to achieve such outcomes as regional mobility, accessi- bility, connectivity, reliability, improved environment, and quality of life. By adopting a broad perspective on the trans- portation system, CDTC is collaboratively working toward improving network performance in the region—across juris- dictions and modes. CDTC has both aggregate and supplemental performance measures (Table B.1). CDTC refers to aggregate performance measures as core measures. These measures are targeted at improving outcomes of network-level performance. Besides the traditional MPO focus on congestion delay and LOS, CDTC measures reliability and level of community compatibility. In addition to CDTC’s core measures, “supplemental” per- formance measures are used to describe more specific, facility- related targets such as infrastructure and service. Supplemental measures include highway infrastructure, transit infrastruc- ture, goods movement, transit service, and human service. CDTC also has specific bicycle and pedestrian transport mea- sures, such as center lane-miles with bicycle accommodations. GHG emissions are an increasingly important measure for CDTC. The agency incorporates analysis of GHG emissions into its planning process through “full cost analysis,” including emissions analysis and an analysis of the cost of the potential effects of climate change in the region. CDTC applies a cost analysis that includes an analysis of global warming costs to major system decisions such as the evaluation of TIP projects when applicable. CDTC also estimates the GHG emissions resulting from its long-range transportation plan, complying with New York State Energy Plan Section 3.2 requirements that require MPOs to estimate the energy and CO2 emissions from their long-range plans and TIPs. CDTC has gone beyond the state requirements and produced GHG emissions specific to year, operating speed, and functional class. 42 Table B.1. CDTC core performance measures. Measurement Area Core Performance Measures Access Percentage of p.m. peak-hour trips transit accessible Percentage of p.m. peak-hour trips with transit advantage Percentage of p.m. peak-hour trips accessible by bicycle and walking Accessibility Travel time between representative locations Congestion p.m. peak-hour recurring excess person-hours of delay Excess person-hours of peak-hour delay per person miles traveled Excess person-hours of peak-hour delay per person Flexibility Reserve capacity on the urban expressway and arterial system (p.m. peak-hour vehicle miles of capacity) Safety Estimated annual societal cost of transportation accidents, millions of dollars ($M) [New PMs are under development] Energy p.m. peak-hour fuel consumption (thousands of gallons) Economic cost Annual vehicle ownership and operating costs for autos and trucks, millions of dollars ($M) Other monetary costs of transport: highway and transit facilities and service, parking facilities, environmental damage, millions of dollars ($M) Air quality p.m. peak-hour daily hydrocarbon (HC) emissions (kg) p.m. peak-hour daily nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions (kg) Land use Residential use traffic conflict: miles at LOS “E” or “F” Arterial land access conflict: miles at LOS “E” or “F” Dislocation of existing residences and businesses Community quality of life—factors that reflect community quality of life in the central cities, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, small cities and villages, and rural areas. Environmental Number of major environmental issues to be resolved to implement existing commitments Economic How does the transportation system support the economic health of the region? Source: CDTC Congestion Management Process, 2007. http://www.cdtcmpo.org/rtp2030/materials/cm-doc.pdf.

Congestion management is another area in which CDTC has used performance-based planning measures. CDTC’s new CMP is an update of the CDTC Congestion Management System. The CMP incorporates a new performance measure related to the reliability of the transportation system called the planning time index (PTI). CDTC’s New Visions Working Group B, consisting of state and regional members, works to identify new meaningful performance measures and methods for evaluating travel needs.8 The need for a measure of relia- bility came from CDTC discussions about quality of travel. The question being considered was, “Is 15 minutes of recur- ring traffic worse than occasional, nonrecurring congestion that lasts one hour?” Addressing this question led to the real- ization that reliability and LOS are different measures. For example, I-87 has the same LOS as I-90 but a worse planning time index, meaning that nonrecurring congestion disrupts travel time. Therefore, widening roads may not be a strategy to alleviate congestion because this is not a major solution for this kind of traffic. Rather, operational strategies would prob- ably be most useful. CDTC considers the planning time index to be one of its most effective systemwide measures for determining network performance. This index is developed using the NYSDOT’s MIST database that records expressway speed and volume by lane every 15 minutes. CDTC collaborates with NYSDOT to manage the database. To support this extensive network performance measure- ment program, CDTC has a robust data collection and report- ing program. CDTC’s data collection includes automatic traffic recorder counts; intersection traffic counts; vehicle, truck, and pedestrian trip generation; vehicle classification counts; bicycle and pedestrian shared-path volumes; transit ridership and park-and-ride lot usage; a variety of safety data, including crash location and frequency; and other data as nec- essary. All data collected by CDTC is organized and main- tained for access by state government, local municipalities, public and nonprofit agencies and groups, consultants, and other interested parties. CDTC uses an extensive new database that records express- way speed and volume by lane every 15 minutes (the MIST database). With the assistance of NYSDOT, CDTC developed new performance measures related to reliability. New oppor- tunities for monitoring speed and delay on arterial corridors using GPS technology are being developed for data collection. These new databases and expanded performance measures will be used to revise the critical congestion corridors articu- lated in the CMP documents. New opportunities for monitoring speed and delay on arte- rial corridors using GPS and other technologies also are being examined for data collection. CDTC is conducting tradeoff analyses to help analyze the actual congestion relief benefits achieved from CMS projects. Other potential data sources are emerging for CDTC, including data from the NYSDOT TRANSMIT program. The CDTC Regional Operations Com- mittee also will continue to develop performance measures for operations and management. CDTC’s core performance measures will continue to be incorporated into the CMP. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions CDTC’s collaborative planning processes have resulted in a high level of consensus within the region. CDTC works with NYSDOT, CDTA, CDRPC, local and state governments, and local stakeholders. The MPO has worked with more than 34 municipal communities in its Community and Transporta- tion Linkage joint planning studies. CDTC funnels almost one-third of its federal money toward local communities through the Linkage program. This program is a cornerstone of CDTC partnerships with the community. CDTC also is working with the Regional Operations Committee to refine new congestion management performance measures and is collaborating with NYSDOT to develop procedures for the tradeoff analysis and strategy analysis measures to help ana- lyze the actual congestion relief benefits achieved from CMS projects. CDTC also is part of the New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NYSMPO). This orga- nization is working on planning and research efforts toward 43 Planning Time Index Ratio of driving time on a “worse than average delay day” (95th percentile) to a “free-flow day”: • PTI >1.0: trip would take longer time; • PTI =1.0: trip would take no extra time; and • PTI <1.0: speed would be >55 mph even on the Òworst” day. 8http://www.cdtcmpo.org/rtp2030/materials/wb-doc.pdf Qualitative measures are employed to measure community compatibility and quality of life. The use of these quality-of- life indicators emerged in the 1990s. At the time, a major inter- state interchange was proposed to be built on the front lawn of a community college. Impacts were not considered about how the plan would affect community quality of life; most of the focus was on improving LOS for the area. CDTC began making subjective measures about how compatible transporta- tion plans were with the community quality of life, assigning Levels A through F for community impact.

common goals and has pooled some federal planning funds on joint projects. Through the ongoing development of the Safety Management System (based on NYSDOT’s Safety Management Information System), CDTC collects, analyzes, and shares available regional safety data with regional safety partners, undertakes pilot safety projects, and uses regional GIS. CDTC is involved in the statewide NYSMPO Safety Working Group, collaborating with a wide variety of state safety partners to improve crash data systems in the state, develop local crash rates, and develop standardized safety audit processes. The CDTC staff continues to work with regional partners in contributing to the regional GIS. GIS applications include the regional bike-hike trail maps, bike and pedestrian data mapping and analysis, crash data mapping, and analysis for the Linkage studies. CDTC coordinates with NYSDOT, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and others on updating natural and cultural resource maps for environ- mental planning and uses GIS in long-range planning. CDTC also works with CDRPC to process GIS data and incorporate parcel-level data and high-resolution orthophotography for the entire region. Obstacles One challenge that CDTC has been working on is using performance measures to link the congestion management process to the long-range planning process, thus aligning con- gestion management strategies with broader community goals. Reaching CDTC’s community-developed vision depends on the successful outcome of many initiatives, including the New Vision principles, strategies, and actions. SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035 Agency Name: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Scale: Regional Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnership Description of the Program/Initiative SACOG is the designated MPO for the counties of Sacra- mento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba, Placer, and El Dorado (except for the Lake Tahoe Basin). The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for 2035 is proposed to chart a 28-year course for transforming the region’s transportation system by identify- ing various problems in the metropolitan transportation sys- tem and proposing solutions that address those problems. The MTP 2035 includes proposals for new and improved transit options, safe and well-connected bicycle and pedes- trian facilities, a network of high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and real-time information about conditions on every high- way and transit route in the region. Description of Systems-Level Effort The SACOG staff has been working on interregional travel studies, identifying Sacramento’s interregional transporta- tion connections. These connections include major interstate corridors, state highways, Amtrak passenger rail, intermodal station and bus express, freight rail, airport, and inland sea- port. SACOG uses measures and indicators to determine the status and condition of this interregional system. Performance Measures • Congestion delay – Congested VMT per household (region average); – Percentage of total travel in congested conditions in peak periods; and – Percentage of total travel in congested conditions mid- day period. • Travel time – Percentage of trips less than 30 minutes long during peak periods; – Percentage of trips less than 15 minutes long during midday period; and – Percentage of total transit trips less than 45 minutes long. • Auto travel – VMT per household (regionwide average). • Transit travel – Transit trips per 100 households. • Travel mode choice – Percentage mode share of total trips. • Reasonable transit choice – Percentage of all transit stops served by at least one route with frequency 15 minutes or less. • Fairness by location – Comparative average travel time per person (in minutes). • Labor market – Percentage of work trips less than 20 minutes duration; and – Percentage of households that can access downtown within 30 minutes during peak periods. • Freight delivery – Average travel time per truck trip (3+ axle trucks). • Service delivery – Average V/C on urban freeways midday period. • Commuter carpooling – Percentage of work trips by carpool; – Air quality; 44

– Total VMT per day; and – Daily heavy truck VMT (3+ axle trucks). • Energy conservation – Total VMT per day; and – Daily heavy truck VMT (3+ axle trucks). Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions SACOG has been recognized by the Environmental Protec- tion Agency as one of the winners of a 2004 National Award for Smart Growth Achievement. Winners were recognized for innovative approaches to development that strengthen community identity and protect the environment. SACOG partnered with Valley Vision, which resulted in more than 5,000 participants in the process of refining regional alterna- tives for future growth. The Sacramento region has several ITS cooperative efforts that are facilitated via the Sacramento Region ITS Partnership, an advisory committee made up of local and state transporta- tion personnel. There also is a multimodal, multijurisdic- tional “smart corridor” collaborative effort of the County of Sacramento, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and the American River Fire District. Obstacles Traffic congestion within the region continues to signifi- cantly increase. Currently, the Sacramento Region has 2.2 mil- lion people and it is anticipated the region’s population will increase to 3.2 million in 2030. Limited interregional passen- ger options and accessibility is a significant challenge through- out the Sacramento Region. Transportation funding is not keeping up with the demand for transportation projects due to California and the Sacramento Region’s increase in popu- lation and vehicle miles traveled. SANDAG: Congestion Management Strategies Agency Name: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Scale: Regional Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnership Description of the Program/Initiative Functioning as the region’s MPO, SANDAG plans and manages major elements of San Diego’s regional transporta- tion system. This MPO has integrated the congestion man- agement process into the regional planning process and uses a comprehensive set of systemwide performance measures. SANDAG also works to integrate demand management and capacity management. There are many ITS projects, corridor- oriented projects, and strategic congestion management proj- ects, such as HOT lanes, in the region. Description of Systems-Level Effort An important strategy for maximizing the efficiency of the region’s existing transportation system is using performance measures to manage the system. Although the region’s sur- face transportation elements—freeways, roads, and transit systems—can be managed separately, they are interdepen- dent and require a comprehensive multimodal management focus to achieve SANDAG’s mobility goals. SANDAG refers to this comprehensive approach as integrated performance management. Performance Measures The RTP uses performance measures to plan for a sce- nario that, assuming reasonably expected revenue sources, decreases traffic congestion in the region. Key highway per- formance indicators used to evaluate and improve congestion include • Speed; • Volume; • Vehicle hours of delay; • VMT; • Highway network peak-hour level of service; • Carpool and transit speed; and • Work trip mode splits during peak periods. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The RTP, Mobility 2030, contains objectives that include increasing transit ridership, improving response to conges- tion problems, and regularly measuring the performance of the regional transportation system. The CMP is an integral aspect of the RTP and is updated every 2 years. The CMP analysis is within the Systems Management section of the RTP. CMP tools and strategies can be applied within the framework of an objectives-driven approach to address spe- cific transportation goals. SANDAG works with the U.S. DOT as a pioneer site in the Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) program. This fed- eral initiative encourages the application of technology and commitment by network partners to reduce congestion along corridors. SANDAG is managing the integration of corridor assets, such as tolling, value pricing, and bus rapid transit, with ICM practices in the San Diego region. 45

SANDAG works together with Caltrans on many initiatives. Within systems management, their collaboration includes HOT lanes, development of corridor systemwide deficiency plans, and performance monitoring efforts. The San Diego Transportation Management Center integrates Caltrans’ Traf- fic Operations and Maintenance in a unified communication and command center that provides communications, surveil- lance, and computer infrastructure to coordinate transporta- tion management on state highways. Obstacles The largest challenge in fighting congestion and improving the mobility of people and goods in the region is the growing population. Another large barrier to decreasing the amount of traffic in the region has been finding adequate funding. Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040 (Destination 2030 Update) Tolling Initiative Agency Name: Puget Sound Regional Council Scale: MPO/Regional Application: Tolling/ITS/TDM Description of the Program/Initiative As one strategy in their Vision 2040 (Destination 2030 Update), the Puget Sound Regional Council is integrating an impact analysis of six tolling alternatives on the region. The outcomes of the analysis will be vetted through a series of management strategies and finally expansion strategies to arrive at the final selection of alternatives. Description of Systems-Level Effort The alternatives are being analyzed based on their impact to the system and must accomplish the following: • Improve the mobility of people and goods in the Puget Sound region; • Create efficient land use patterns for the provision of infra- structure, facilities, and services; • Promote economic prosperity; • Protect the natural environment; • Promote an overall high quality of life; and • Distribute transportation benefits and costs equitably. Performance Measures System-level performance measures used in the Destina- tion 2030 Update fall under seven categories: • Transportation efficiency – Travel-time savings; – Reliability benefits; – Vehicle operating cost savings; and – Other user costs. • Finance – Facility operating costs; – Capital costs; – Operating revenues; and – Influence of finance on the economy. • Growth management – Population in regional geographies; – Employment in regional geographies; – Jobs and housing balance in counties; and – Population and jobs in regional growth centers and jobs in MICs. • Economic prosperity – Accessibility to high-wage employment; – Accessibility to cluster employment; and – Accessibility to freight generators. • Environmental stewardship – Vehicle emission cost savings; – Runoff from impervious surfaces; and – Ability to retain open space. • Quality of life – Accident cost savings; – Nonmotorized travel; and – Redundancy. • Equity – Geographic equity; – Income equity; and – Distribution of benefits to passenger and freight users. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The system-level analysis is linked to the long-range plan- ning process for the region. All involved stakeholders must be on board to understand tolling as a demand management tool, with implications across all aspects of the system (see above categories). Obstacles No major obstacles were uncovered at this point. Alameda Corridor Agency Name: Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) Scale: Corridor Application: Infrastructure Improvements Description of the Program/Initiative The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargo express- way linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. 46

The corridor runs primarily along, and adjacent to, Alameda Street. It is a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses, and street improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic and passenger trains, facilitating a more efficient trans- portation network. The project extends through or borders the cities of Vernon, Huntington Park, South Gate, Lynwood, Compton, Carson, Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles. Construction of the corridor began in April 1997. Operations began in April 2002. The Alameda Corridor project evolved from over a decade of study of increasing freight/cargo demand in the port area and the impact on the surrounding transportation infrastruc- ture and community. The ports of Long Beach and Los Ange- les are the two busiest container ports in the country and, together, the fifth busiest port complex in the world. The rail network serving the ports was not sufficient to accommodate rapidly increasing cargo volumes. The Alameda Corridor con- solidated four low-speed branch rail lines, eliminating conflicts at more than 200 at-grade crossings, providing a high-speed freight expressway, and minimizing the impact on communi- ties. Specific benefits of the project, as noted by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA), include • More efficient freight rail movements; • Reduced traffic congestion; • Improvements to Alameda Street; • Multiple community beautification projects; • Reduced train emissions and reduced emissions from idling cars and trucks; • Reduction in delays at railroad crossings; and • Reduced noise pollution from trains. Description of Systems-Level Effort Planning, constructing, and operating the Alameda Corridor was a multijurisdictional and multi-agency effort to improve transportation and economic issues associated with signifi- cantly increased growth in port-cargo demand, at a corridor and a regional level. In October 1981, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) created the Ports Advisory Committee (PAC) in response to growing concerns about the ability of the surface transportation system to accommodate increas- ing levels of traffic in the port area. PAC members included local elected officials as well as representatives of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, affected railroads, the trucking industry, and the (former) Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). In 1984, on the basis of PAC’s recommendations, the SCAG Executive Committee adopted a plan for the consolidation of all port-related railroad traffic onto the former Southern Pacific San Pedro Branch. The proposed plan promised to aug- ment train speeds in addition to reducing vehicular traffic delays at grade crossings, thus reducing air and noise pollution and improving safety. In 1985, SCAG created the Alameda Corridor Task Force, which included members of PAC with the addition of the California Public Utilities Commission and each of the eight cities along the corridor. PAC worked on the institutional arrangements and funding and developing consensus on various aspects of the project. In 1989, the two San Pedro Ports provided the seed funding for design and environmental studies and also took the lead in creating an agency to oversee design and construction. Dur- ing the same year, the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach formed a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) called “Consolidated Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority.” The JPA name was later changed to “Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority.” The goal of ACTA was (and still is) to create a more efficient rail system that would reduce traffic delays and improve environmental quality along the corridor. ACTA’s seven-member Governing Board includes two representatives from each port, a member of each city council, and a repre- sentative of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta- tion Authority (previously LACTC). The Alameda Corridor environmental impact report/environmental impact state- ment was approved in 1993. Construction started in 1997. Following the April 2002 opening, operations have been overseen by a four-member Alameda Corridor Operating Committee, staffed by ACTA personnel, which includes one representative each from the Port of Long Beach, Port of Los Angeles, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, and Union Pacific Railroad. The Governing Board continues to provide policy direction to ACTA staff regarding additional projects and planning studies. Performance Measures The first phase of the initial PAC Alameda Corridor study, completed in 1982, dealt with the problems of highway access to the ports. In this phase, the study addressed a number of problem areas and recommended a cost-effective set of high- way improvements, including the widening of certain streets. The second phase, a study of rail access, was completed in 1984. Additional highway improvements were recommended, but the focus of the second phase was concern over the impact of projected train traffic on communities north of the ports. On the basis of a review of online and published material, it is assumed that performance measures developed for the initial planning studies focused on the economic impact of the corridor (e.g., jobs created/removed, change in gross state product), community impact (e.g., neighborhood disruption, environment justice), air quality (e.g., emissions reduction), and congestion reduction (e.g., average daily train traffic and cargo volumes and the impact on on-road truck and passen- ger vehicle traffic, speeds, and level of service). 47

The Alameda Corridor Air Quality Benefits Report (Final Report June 2005) was published on the ACTA website. This study was commissioned to quantify the direct air quality ben- efits of the corridor as well as the benefits of new infrastruc- ture projects that would support more use of the corridor and therefore create additional air quality benefits. Perfor- mance measures used for this study include Emissions Reduc- tion (tons)—Reactive Organic Gas, CO, NOx, PM10, and SOx. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The Alameda Corridor passes through jurisdictions of eight cities: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Vernon, Huntington Park, Lynwood, South Gate, Compton, and Carson. In addition to these cities, the Alameda Corridor study efforts involved pri- vate railroads, the two San Pedro Bay ports, and other state, regional, and local public agencies, including SCAG. Coordi- nation and consensus building with various agencies (as well as with the general public) was a complex process but essential to the success of the project. The process involved multiple stake- holders, each with its own self-interest: ports that were invest- ing large sums of money, private railroads that were going to share a common right of way with their competitors, regional agencies such as SCAG and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority that were interested in easing traffic congestion, and the cities through which the corridor passed. The informal process of building consensus and more formal- ized process to define ACTA Board membership and author- ity took time and was difficult to negotiate, but ultimately ensured successful implementation of the project. ACTA addressed many community issues by implement- ing a large number of economic development programs for local residents. It also developed the Alameda Corridor Busi- ness Outreach Program to assist disadvantaged businesses in learning about and competing for work on the project. ACTA also developed formal MOU agreements with each city along the corridor to address construction mitigation measures. Innovative funding arrangements were developed to pay for the project itself. The $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor was funded through a unique blend of public and private sources. Revenues from user fees paid by the railroads will be used to retire debts incurred in planning and building the project. Obstacles A key obstacle was the mid-Corridor cities that were con- cerned about the local effects of construction activity, increased rail traffic, and other negative impacts on residents and busi- nesses adjacent to the corridor. These cities argued that while the benefits of the project were widely dispersed regionally and even nationally, its external costs and adverse impacts were highly concentrated in the areas through which the corridor passed. The dissenting cities were focused primarily on the local economic benefits of the project and believed inadequate attention was being paid to their economic development needs (this ultimately led to a lawsuit which ACTA won)—hence the multiple local economic development incentive programs that ACTA eventually implemented. This should be inves- tigated to assess if/how ACTA used technical analysis and particular performance measures to highlight economic, or other, benefits of the project for either the courts involved in the lawsuit or the jurisdictions and communities affected by the project. Information used for this description, and more on the Alameda Corridor, can be found at the following web pages: http://www.acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm. http://www.acta.org/. http://www.acta.org/PDF/Alameda%20Corridor%20AQ %20Benefits%20Report_061005.pdf. http://www.metrans.org/pdfs/AlamedaCorridorWhite Paper.pdf. I-15 Integrated Corridor Management Project Agency Name: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Scale: Corridor Application: Data collection, evaluation, and dissemination Description of the Program/Initiative The San Diego ICM Project is one of eight sites selected by U.S. DOT under the national Integrated Corridor Manage- ment Initiative. The I-15 Corridor is the primary artery for the movement of commuters, goods, and services from inland northern San Diego County to downtown San Diego. The I-15 ICM effort will allow the corridor to serve a growing number of inter- regional trips through a multi-institutional partnership and the use of multimodal transportation improvement strategies. The I-15 ICM will allow the region to address regional trans- portation needs by accelerating existing SANDAG “Regional Transportation Plan” planning efforts; optimizing operations from an overall network perspective as opposed to individual network perspective; and allowing for more efficient response to variations in demand among networks. Description of Systems-Level Effort The I-15 ICM operational goals are as follows: • The corridor will give travelers the opportunity to make seamless and convenient shifts among modes; 48

• The corridor will enhance mobility for people, goods, and services; • ICM will enhance current levels of existing interoperabil- ity between field elements and functional environments or systems; and • ICM places a focus on improving throughput, productivity, connectivity, safety, and accessibility. The I-15 Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS) includes a number of integrated systems and facilities: • Lane control systems; • Advanced transportation management systems; • Advanced traveler information system (511); • Regional transit management systems; • Emergency management systems (e.g., WebEOC); • Managed-lane control system; • Regional event management system—public safety CAD systems; and • Regional high-bandwidth microwave network. Performance Measures I-15 ICM performance measures will be based on existing RTP performance measures such as • Average travel time (minutes) by mode (door-to-door); • Work trip average travel speed (per auto trip); • Work trip average travel speed (per transit trip); • Work trip average speed (per carpool trip); and • Percentage of total travel in congested conditions (peak period and all day). Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The San Diego I-15 ICM will be managed collaboratively and cooperatively through ongoing partnerships among the SANDAG, Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transit System, the North County Transit District, the California Highway Patrol, and the cities of San Diego, Poway, and Escondido. The San Diego I-15 ICM partners have improved the level of institutional coordination among stakeholders by develop- ing and executing an MOU and developing a project charter. They are leveraging the existing regional institutional infra- structure. The San Diego I-15 ICM has been selected by U.S. DOT for participation in Stage 2: Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation, under the national ICM initiative. This funding support and the strength of the regional partnership increase the potential for successful future ICM deployment. Ultimate deployment will likely hinge on selection by U.S. DOT for Stage 3: ICM Deployment. Obstacles No major obstacles were uncovered. Maryland I-270 Integrated Corridor Management Project Agency Name: Agency Lead: Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) Scale: Corridor Application: Data collection, evaluation, and dissemination Description of the Program/Initiative The Maryland I-270 ICM Project is one of eight sites selected by U.S. DOT under the national Integrated Corridor Management Initiative. Agencies/organizations currently partnering for the I-270 ICM project include the • FHWA; • FTA; • Research and Innovative Technology Administration; • Maryland SHA; • Maryland Transit Administration; • Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation; • The University of Maryland; and • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The I-270 Corridor is in Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside Washington, DC. The corridor is approximately 20 miles long and consists of various transportation networks, including • The Freeway Network (including I-270); • The Arterial and Connector Route Network (including MD-355); • The MARC Commuter Rail Network; • The WMATA Metrorail Network; • The Maryland Transit Administration Commuter Bus Network; • The WMATA Metrobus Network; and • The Montgomery County Ride-On Bus Network. The I-270 Corridor, also referred to as the Technology Cor- ridor, links significant suburban residential concentrations with the major employment regions of Northern Virginia, downtown Washington, DC, and the Capital Beltway, and along the I-270 Corridor itself. As with most urban areas in the United States, the trend in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area has been that development expands outward from the city. However, most commuters in the I-270 Corridor are 49

heading not into downtown Washington but to other sub- urban locations. Because of high-traffic volumes in the corri- dor, and the impact that incidents even outside the corridor can have on I-270 conditions, congestion has become a mon- umental problem. The goals of the Maryland I-270 ICM project include the following: • Optimize mobility, reliability, and safety; • Strengthen corridor-level decision support; • Enhance reliable, real-time information to customers; and • Promote multimodal operations support and travel within the corridor. Description of Systems-Level Effort The I-270 ICMS will focus on traveler and operations management decision support by emphasizing corridor transportation systems management, traveler information dissemination, and systems evaluation by leveraging and improving upon current data collection, fusion capabilities, and corridor transportation system integration. By consoli- dating, disseminating, and archiving transportation-related data from stakeholder agencies in the corridor, the I-270 ICMS will • Provide improved information for a variety of purposes, including corridor transportation planning, management, traveler information, and emergency response; • Provide corridor transportation data fusion to allow an overall view of the corridor’s transportation network; • Upgrade transportation data exchange capabilities of par- ticipating agency systems in the corridor as well as the region; • Upgrade the multimodal transportation systems manage- ment capabilities of the stakeholder jurisdictions for corri- dor transportation operations; • Upgrade traveler information dissemination capabilities at the corridor system level; • Upgrade corridor multimodal incident response and emer- gency preparedness capabilities; and • Provide the means to easily access corridor transportation data and produce corridor-level performance measures reports for decisionmakers. Funding for the initial planning of the I-270 ICM and the creation of a Concept of Operations, System Requirements, and Data Collection Plan has come from U.S. DOT under the national ICM initiative along with matching funds from the Maryland SHA. The critical operational needs of the corridor, as identified in the Concept of Operations, include the following: • Addressing nonrecurring congestion through – Enhanced multimodal approaches to managing inci- dents; – Better tools/mechanisms for sharing multimodal real- time information; and – Better tools to support operations-oriented and traveler decision-making capabilities. • Enhanced signal operation/optimization capabilities on the corridor arterial network and improved arterial net- work system monitoring. • Improved transit management and transit parking system management capabilities. • Improved traveler information delivered pretrip and en route along with multimodal decision support capabilities for individual trips. • Improved real-time system monitoring capabilities across all modes and networks. An I-270 ICM System Requirements document has been developed to identify the initial set of requirements necessary to build the Maryland I-270 ICMS in a manner that will ensure the combined stakeholder vision of having transporta- tion operations within the I-270 ICM corridor work at peak efficiency by optimizing the use of the capacities of the trans- portation modes in the corridor. Though the project has developed a specific ICM Steering Committee, future plans are to integrate the institutional infrastructure within existing entities such as the newly formed Metropolitan Area Transportation Operations Coor- dination (MATOC) Partnership. MATOC has been formal- ized through a regional MOU and includes representation from the • Maryland DOT; • Virginia DOT; • District of Columbia DOT; • Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and • Transportation Planning Board (TPB) at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments [Note: The TPB is the designated MPO for the National Capital Region]. The rationale for moving ICM into the MATOC partner- ship is that successes and lessons learned in the I-270 Corri- dor could be duplicated in other metropolitan-area corridors. Performance Measures In developing the Maryland I-270 ICM Concept of Opera- tions, a list of potential performance measures was identified based on Corridor operational goals. During Stage 2: Analy- sis, Modeling, and Simulation (AMS), the I-270 ICM Team, with support from the University of Maryland and the U.S. 50

DOT AMS Team, will use the TransModeler simulation pack- age to validate the potential performance measures. TransModeler will be used to help answer questions related to whether the strategy will result in an improvement, where and when the operational impacts will occur, and who will benefit. In some instances, modifications may be required so that the TransModeler tool can be successfully applied or alter- native modeling and simulation tools may be used. Following is a summary description as to how the TransModeler package will be used to validate select key performance measures: • Average Travel Time Under Normal Conditions. Using TransModeler, travel time can be reported as (1) a system- wide average; (2) by specific time periods, locations, or origin–destination pairs; or (3) by vehicle/driver type. Additional relevant measures of effectiveness (MOE) might include average speed, number of stops, and delays (see average delay per trip, below). • Travel Time Index (TTI). This index is a ratio of travel times in the peak period or other corridor condition to a target or acceptable travel time (typically, free-flow/on- schedule conditions are used). The TTI indicates how much longer a trip will take during a peak time. Using Trans- Modeler, travel-time delay can be used as a surrogate for TTI in that travel-time delay represents the difference between the experienced travel time and travel time under free-flow conditions. In applying this performance mea- sure, for example, the percent change in travel time for the entire I-270 ICM network can be analyzed by examining the application of an operational strategy to select O–D pairs (e.g., local residents or through travelers). • Buffer Time Index (BTI). This measure expresses the amount of extra “buffer” time needed to achieve on-time performance 95 percent of the time (i.e., late one day per month). Travelers could multiply their average trip time by the BTI, and then add that buffer time to their trip to ensure they will be on time 95% of all trips. An advantage of expressing the reliability (or lack thereof) in this way is that a percent value is distance and time neutral. • Average Delay per Trip. TransModeler supports simulation of several types of incidents and events, including stalled vehicles or traffic accidents blocking one or more lanes in a road section, or closure of a road to all or some types of vehi- cles. For analysis purposes, the simulation can “schedule” the occurrence and clearance of an incident/event and its severity in terms of impact to the traffic capacity. For exam- ple, a construction work zone may block or slow down traf- fic in a specific set of lanes during a given period; a roadway may be closed for a special event; or an incident might occur at a particular location and time. • Incident Response. Incident response performance mea- sures will continue to be addressed through the existing MD CHART system along with existing CORSIM-based simulation models that have been used for a number of years to measure and evaluate incident response and clear- ance times. • Time Required to Channel a Potential Evacuation. Given the proximity of the I-270 Corridor to Washington, D.C., considerable attention has been given to evacuation plans in response to terrorist threats and specifically the time required to implement these plans. The University of Mary- land has developed models based on CORSIM for evacua- tion simulations of the Maryland Eastern Shore and for the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. These models will be refined and expanded for I-270 ICMS purposes. • Impact of Real-Time Traveler Information. TransMod- eler can be used to analyze the conditions under which a traveler information message should be provided and, for example, where and when a DMS message is most effective. The model allows updated travel times to be available to predefined groups of travelers. These travelers will be able to use the travel information to determine whether they should choose an alternative route when their regular route has become unusually congested. By analyzing the travel time between two groups of drivers (those who receive real-time traveler information and those who do not), modelers will be able to derive indicators as to whether an information-based operational strategy is ben- eficial or not. • Modal Shares. TransModeler has extensive built-in existing capabilities for modeling transit operations, such as traffic signal priority, BRT lanes, queue jumping, transit-only sig- nal phases, and AVL. Though mode choice during run-time is not currently available, the I-270 team will work with Cambridge Systematics and TransModeler developers to implement mode-switch logic (e.g., pivot-point mode choice model application) using the built-in application program interface. • Average Parking Availability by Day and Time of Day. Parking MOEs are not currently available within Trans- Modeler; however, developers are working on this capabil- ity as part of a future release. Obstacles Maintaining funding support for the I-270 ICM through continued participation in U.S. DOT’s national ICM initia- tive will greatly facilitate implementation success. If funding is not obtained for future stages (Stage 2: Analysis Modeling and Simulation and Stage 3: Deployment), momentum may be lost while the I-270 ICM partners weigh options for con- tinuing the effort with alternative funding. The alternative funding would likely come from existing agency operational budgets. 51

Minnesota I-394 Integrated Corridor Management Project Agency Name: Agency Lead: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Scale: Corridor Application: Data collection, evaluation, and dissemination Description of the Program/Initiative The Minnesota I-394 ICM Project is one of eight sites selected by U.S. DOT under the national Integrated Corridor Management Initiative. The I-394 Corridor includes I-394 from west of I-494 to the Minneapolis central business district and encompasses paral- lel State Routes 55 and 7 as well as a number of north/south connecting arterials. The I-394 ICM initiative is looking to improve operations in the corridor by addressing problems associated with • Gaps in coordination between traffic and transit centers during “normal” and incident conditions; • Gaps in incident data on arterial networks; • Lack of traveler information for arterials and transit; and • Planning for special event congestion. The I-394 ICM project seeks to address these problems by • Providing traveler information across all networks and modes, including freeway, transit, and arterial travel times as well as park-and-ride availability; • Improving interagency communication and coordination, including improved incident management and detection on arterials, coordinated incident signal timing plans, and transit rerouting during incidents; and • Reducing congestion and improving trip reliability. Description of Systems-Level Effort The primary stakeholders in the I-394 ICM effort are MnDOT, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, Metro Transit, SW Transit, Plymouth Transit, and the Minnesota State Patrol. MnDOT is the lead agency and has formed a spe- cific ICM Project Steering Committee and working groups to oversee the effort. The I-394 ICMS will create an ICMS data hub used to con- nect the following existing systems: • MnDOT Traffic Operations Center; • Metro Transit Control Center; • MnDOT Arterial Signal Group; • Hennepin County Arterial Signal Group; • City of Minneapolis Arterial Signal Group; • City of Minneapolis Emergency Management System; • Hennepin County Emergency Management System; and • Minnesota State Patrol Emergency Management System. Performance Measures Following are the proposed I-394 operational objectives and associated performance measures: • Reduce variation in travel times across the network – BTI: Time that travelers must allow to ensure they are on-time 95% of the time; – Maximum travel times experienced by travelers across the network throughout the corridor; – Range of travel times (and variability) across the net- work experienced by travelers; and – Percentage of “late” bus routes throughout the corridor. • Maintain options for travelers – Average parking availability per facility and time of day; – Comparisons of transit, HOV/HOT lanes, freeways, and arterial route performance; and – Percentage of corridor (routes and modes) reported on in real time (travel times, delays, space availability, speeds, etc.); • Monitor and understand changing available capacity – Percentage of corridor (routes and modes) reported on in real time (travel times, delays, space availability, speeds, etc.). • Encourage pattern changes to better use spare capacity – Percentage of drivers altering route or mode based on traveler information; and – Average capacity utilization across all modes during incidents and normal conditions. • Inform travelers of incidents and impacts – Number of events where viable alternates are delivered to travelers (either via phone, web, or push); – Number of callers receiving alternate route/mode infor- mation; and – Web page hits and call volumes during incident events. • Manage traffic around events – Number of closures where vehicles are routed onto appropriate alternate routes; – Number of times alternate plans are implemented; and – Response/clearance times for major events. • Travelers are aware of their modal and route options – Web page hits, phone requests, and push deliveries of specific route/mode options. 52

• Travelers do not experience delays without also being informed of options – Travelers’ feedback after incidents and events. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The I-394 ICM program has significant potential for success. As a result of the I-35W bridge collapse, communications and coordination between stakeholders in responding to changing traffic conditions have greatly improved. In addition, Min- nesota was selected by U.S. DOT under the national Urban Partnership initiative. The I-394 ICM can leverage this effort, which includes converting I-35W HOV lanes to MnPass HOT lanes; enhancing arterial traffic management on Hwy 13; increasing transit traveler information (park-and-ride lot availability, next bus arrival times, travel time comparisons); and improving traveler information across all networks and modes. Obstacles No major obstacles were uncovered at this point. I-75 Integrated Corridor Management, Dallas, Texas Agency Name: Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Scale: Corridor Application: Data collection, evaluation, and dissemination Description of the Program/Initiative The U.S. 75 ICM Project is one of eight sites selected by U.S. DOT under the National Integrated Corridor Management Initiative. The Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) area is the fifth most con- gested region in the United States and the worst region for growth in congestion. The DFW population is 6 million, with 1 million added every 8 years. The U.S. 75 Corridor is a critical regional corridor in which travel demand contin- ues to grow. There is no ability to expand freeway, arterial, or alternate route infrastructure. U.S. 75 operates as a fully controlled access freeway with continuous frontage roads and HOV. The corridor includes 167 miles of arterials, the DART Bus Network (including express service), and DART light rail. There are three city Transportation Management Centers, one State Transportation Management Center, a Transit Management Center, and a Toll Authority (Dal- las North Tollway) Transportation Management Center in the corridor. The U.S. 75 ICM Vision is to “Operate the U.S. 75 Cor- ridor in a true multimodal, integrated, efficient, and safe fashion where the focus is on the transportation customer.” Description of Systems-Level Effort The U.S. 75 Corridor system network consists of • 272 lane-miles of freeways with frontage roads, • 31 lane-miles of HOV facilities, • 2 light rail lines, • 30 bus routes, • 816 signals, • 167 center-lane-miles of arterial, • 9 park-and-ride lots, • 12 miles of pedestrian/bike trails, and • 105 lane-miles of toll road. The U.S. 75 ICMS will integrate the various corridor Trans- portation Management Centers, the Freeway System, Arterial Systems, and the DART Transit System (13 member cities). Performance Measures The ICM strategies under examination are based on a per- formance measure approach that will be multimodal or modal independent, or both. Common measures will be used across agencies and jurisdictions. Specific identified strategies at this time include • Improved traveler information and operational strategies to promote modal shift; • Enhanced data sharing among stakeholders and responders; and • Development of new tools to support modeling for opera- tional prediction and optimization. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The U.S. 75 ICM partners include DART; the Cities of Dal- las, Highland Park, Richardson, Plano, and University Park; the North Central Texas Council of Governments; the North Texas Tollway Authority; and the TxDOT Dallas District. An Oper- ating Agency Team and Technical Support Team have been organized under the lead agency, DART. An existing regional ITS MOU executed in 1999 includes the team members and existing regional ITS committees provide project oversight. The U.S. 75 ICM has the following transportation goals: • Increase corridor throughput; • Improve travel-time reliability; 53

• Improve incident management; and • Enable intermodal travel decisions. Further, the following community goals have been identified: • Encourage business development; • Sustain economic activity; and • Enable emergency services. Obstacles The U.S. 75 ICM has been selected by U.S. DOT for partici- pation in Stage 2: Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation under the national ICM initiative. This funding support and the strength of the regional partnership increase the potential for successful future ICM deployment. Ultimate deployment will likely hinge on selection by U.S. DOT for Stage 3: ICM Deployment. New Jersey Future in Transportation Agency Name: New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) Scale: Local Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnership Description of the Program/Initiative New Jersey Future in Transportation (NJFIT) is an NJDOT commitment to working with local municipalities to conduct a series of integrated land use and transportation planning studies. These projects are working to balance future develop- ment and redevelopment of each community with all aspects of transportation, including accessibility, mobility, safety, multimodality, and the natural environment of the corridor. Specifically, NJFIT hopes to achieve • Affordable transportation solutions that increase commu- nity satisfaction; • Sustainable transportation solutions that break the sprawl cycle with integrated transportation and land use; and • Deliverable transportation solutions that satisfy the needs of all parties involved. Through NJFIT, NJDOT provides assistance with local land use and transportation planning and the application of various tools (context-sensitive solutions, etc.) to help communities reach the goals. Description of Systems-Level Effort NJDOT launched this effort as a result of the realization that dealing with congestion on a segment-by-segment basis did not help overall mobility. It sees NJFIT as a way to focus on improving the performance of the overall system through coordination with local and county system improvements and plans. For example, the Route 1 Regional Growth Strategy is looking at the corridor between Trenton and New Brunswick and finding ways to reduce congestion while enhancing the economy. The project is multijurisdictional and multimodal. In another project NJDOT is investigating the option of realigning a four-lane urban freeway and reconstructing it as a three-lane urban boulevard. In addition to reducing speeds along the roadway because of the new alignment, the project would improve pedestrian access between the riverfront and the rest of the city of Trenton. City officials and NJDOT staff expect the city to realize economic benefits as a result of this effort. Performance Measures Performance measures vary by project. NJFIT does not require the use of performance measures, but each project is working under the framework of impact areas and balancing the relevant issues (e.g., congestion, environment, economy) in defining the project. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions NJFIT is based on collaboration and partnerships among all levels of government (state, county, local) to determine the best and most comprehensive solutions to a problem. NJDOT provides various funding sources and local tech- nical assistance for municipalities that are conducting plan- ning studies that meet the requirements of the NJFIT program. Obstacles No obstacles are identified for this project. Regional Scenario—Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization San Francisco Bay Area Project Performance Assessment for Transportation 2035 Plan Agency Name: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Scale: Regional Application: Benefit–Cost 54

Description of the Program/Initiative The San Francisco Bay Area, the second largest economic and population center in California, is home to over 7 million people and 3.5 million jobs. The region has a robust trans- portation network, including highways, bridges, heavy rail, light rail, buses, and ferries that crisscross the Bay and serve the peninsula. Growth projections predict a 26% increase in pop- ulation and a 50% increase in jobs by 2035. This growth will continue to put strain on the region’s transportation system. Geographic constraints in the already densely developed area make capacity expansion challenging.9 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) serves as both the state-designated regional transportation planning agency and the federally mandated MPO. MTC has responsibility for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, consisting of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Fran- cisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. The organization is governed by a 19-member policy board. Four- teen commissioners are appointed by local elected officials, two members represent regional agencies, and three nonvot- ing members represent federal and state transportation agen- cies and the federal housing department. MTC is responsible for updating the RTP and reviews requests for state and federal funding grants to ensure the proj- ects are compatible with the plan. Per the 1991 Intermodal Sur- face Transportation Efficiency Act and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, MTC also is responsible for determining the mix of transportation projects needed to meet the needs of the growing region. In 2006 MTC began updating its RTP, the draft of which was released in December 2008.10 The Draft Transportation 2035 Plan: Change in Motion (T-2035) serves as the road- map for investing the $226 billion in funding that is pro- jected to be available over the next 25 years. As an outcome of the plan development process, MTC set ambitious goals to consider and incorporate current and impending issues that impact and are impacted by the transportation net- work. MTC and its partners recognized that the Bay Area was faced with issues such as climate change, foreign oil dependency, air quality, economic growth, and social equity issues. By calling the plan “Change in Motion,” they take on the challenge as a region to “anticipate change, instigate change, and, most of all, succeed in putting change in motion.”11 MTC began the process of developing this plan by setting forth the following vision: • Where mobility and accessibility are ensured for all Bay Area residents and visitors, regardless of race, age, income or dis- ability; and • Where our bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transit sys- tems, local streets and roads, and highways are all safe and well- maintained and take us when and where we need to go; and • Where an integrated, market-based pricing system for the region’s carpool lanes (via regional high-occupancy toll (HOT) network), bridges and roadways helps us not only to manage the demand on our mature transportation system but also pay for its improvements; and • Where our lively and diverse metropolitan region is trans- formed by a growth pattern that creates complete communi- ties with ready, safe and close access to jobs, shopping and services that are connected by a family of reliable and cost- effective transit services; and • Where technology advances move out of the lab and onto the street, including clean fuels and vehicles, sophisticated traffic operations systems to manage traffic flow and reduce delay and congestion on our roadways, advanced and accessible traveler information that allows us to make informed travel choices, and transit operational strategies that synchronize fare structures, schedules and routes to speed travel to our destinations; and • Where we have a viable choice to leave our autos at home and take advantage of a seamless network of accessible pedestrian and bicycle paths that connect to nearby bus, rail and ferry services that can carry us to work, school, shopping, services or recreation; and • Where we lead and mobilize a partnership of regional and local agencies, businesses and stakeholders to take effective action to protect our climate and serve as a model for national and international action; and • Where our transportation investments and travel behaviors are driven by the need to reduce our impact on the earth’s nat- ural habitats, and • Where all Bay Area residents enjoy a higher quality of life.12 Using this vision, T-2035 incorporates key changes and trends that are on the horizon, such as climate change, volatile oil prices, an aging population, rising construction costs, and the uncertainty of federal transportation funding. It described these issues through the three “E” principles— equity, economy, and environment—and set the following goals as shown in Table B.2. Description of Systems-Level Effort MTC used performance measurement at three stages to guide the RTP. The overall goal was to identify the approach that would most effectively lead to the outcomes stated in the defined vision. The performance measurement assessment was done in three stages: 1. MTC established performance objectives that would reflect the improved conditions described in the vision. In the past, goals used by MTC in long-range transportation planning were set to keep things at the same level, to keep them from worsening. The objectives in this version were 55 9http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/DRAFT/2-Trends.pdf 10At the time of this writing, the draft plan was out for public review and comment. 11http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/DRAFT/Intro.pdf 12http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/DRAFT/1-Overview.pdf, p. 6

Effort involved using performance objectives to select the most cost-effective projects and programs for inclusion in the RTP for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Analysis per- formed at the systems level used the regional travel demand model and included several modes and programs: HOT lanes, highway, transit, operations, bicycle, clean air program, trans- portation for livable communities, lifeline transportation pro- gram, local streets and roads maintenance, and transit capital maintenance. Performance Measures The performance objectives established for the Transporta- tion 2035 report are derived from the three Transportation 2035 goals: economy, environment, and equity. They were intended not to stand as simple outcomes for the long-range transportation plan but to provide a roadmap for testing sce- narios. The objectives were developed using partner agencies’ plans and policies. To gather an understanding of what it would take to reach the performance objectives, MTC conducted a What If 56 set to actually see an improvement in conditions. To determine what would be required to reach these objec- tives, MTC used the measures to analyze a series of finan- cially unconstrained What If scenarios. 2. MTC conducted the Project Performance Assessment, which measured the cost-effectiveness of individual pro- posed investments in the context of the performance measures. The outcome of this analysis highlighted those projects that were outliers—having either a large impact on the established objectives or very little impact. 3. MTC performed a program performance assessment of the proposed projects in the draft Transportation 2035 plan. This process provided MTC with the information needed to look across modes and throughout the entire nine-county transportation network to determine the projects that would most directly affect the region’s goals and objectives. 13http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035Plan-Perf_ AssessmentReport.pdf Table B.2. The three Es. Es Goals Performance Objectives13 Economy Maintenance and safety Improve maintenance Local streets and roads: Maintain pavement condition index of 75 or better. State highways: Distressed land-miles no more than 10% of system. Transit: Average asset age no more than 50% of useful life and average distance between service calls of 8,000 miles. Sources: State and local strategic plans Reduce injuries and fatalities Motor - vehicle fatalities: 15% fr om today. Bike and pedestrian injuries and fatalities: 25% each from 2000 levels. Source: California State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Reliability Reduce delays 20% per capita from today. Source: California ’ s Strategic Growth Plan Freight Environment Clean air Reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions Vehicle miles traveled: 10% per capita from today. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5): 10% from today. Course particulate matter (PM10): 455 from today. Carbon dioxide (C02): 40% below 1990 levels. Sources: State regulations and laws Equity Access Improve affordability 10% reduction from today in share of earnings spent on housing and transportation costs by low- and moderately low- income households. Source: Adapted from the Center for Housing Policy Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035Plan-Perf_AssessmentReport.pdf, p. 3.

analysis using three different infrastructure investment and policy plans: 1. A program of freeway operations strategies; 2. A regional HOT lane network with bus enhancements; and 3. Extensive rail and ferry expansion. The budgets for these projects were not constrained and ranged from $600 million to $64.2 billion in capital costs. Two sensitivity tests were conducted on the three packages, to see how each demand-based strategy would affect the objectives. The pricing-sensitivity test measured how a set of user-based pricing strategies would affect travel behav- ior, and the land use sensitivity test looked at an alternative land use forecast that shifted employment and residential growth to existing centers and areas with existing or planned transit. By means of the regional travel demand forecasting model, the analyses of these three investment packages and two sensitivity analyses provided the follow- ing conclusions: 1. The sheer magnitude of project growth in population (25%) and jobs (55%) over 25 years overwhelms transportation sys- tem capacity. 2. Infrastructure alone does not generally help us reach the objectives; however, Freeway Operations is effective for con- gestion relief. 3. Policy approaches such as land use and pricing have much bigger effects. Pricing can be introduced in the near term, though not likely to the degree examined in the pricing sensi- tivity test. Focused growth can help achieve the objective’s tar- gets in the longer term. 4. Other approaches will be needed, as well. In particular, technol- ogy advances in vehicles and fuels are needed to help meet the emissions objectives. In addition, we will need to change our behavior in ways that reduce driving, for example through cre- ating incentives to telecommute.14 Specific to the objectives, the three What If scenarios pro- vided the following insights: • Reduce congestion. This was the only objective for which an investment package had a marked impact. • Reduce VMT. None of the scenarios or strategies brought the projected VMT down to the target level. • Reduce particulate emissions. The land use and pricing strategies have more impact than the infrastructure investments, but none of them achieve the objective tar- get levels. • Reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The land use and pric- ing strategies have more impact than do the infrastructure investments, but none of them achieve the objective target levels. • Improve affordability of transportation and housing for low- and moderately low-income households. The pricing and land use strategies have much bigger impacts than do the infrastructure investments. Focused growth policies decrease the cost of transportation, but the pric- ing strategies increase the cost because many populations will need to continue to rely on vehicles for at least some trips. Finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted on the investment packages without the land use and pricing strate- gies, and then again with the two sensitivity tests. The freeway operations package remains most cost-effective under all sets of conditions; however, when the pricing and land use strate- gies are added, the gap between the freeway and the transit packages closes significantly. These performance measurement calculations provided a baseline and context for MTC to begin looking at the per- formance of specific projects. Project Performance Assessment To capture the impact of particular projects on the RTP’s objectives, MTC conducted both a qualitative and quantita- tive project performance assessment. Table B.3 lists MTC’s quantitative evaluation measures. The purpose of the exercise was to identify those projects that would most strongly sup- port the objectives and those that would most strongly under- mine the objectives. The analysis assigned each project, regardless of mode type or area of the region, a benefit–cost ratio scope (high, medium- high, mid-range, and low). The projects in each of the benefit–cost ratio categories were then looked at in terms of the other quantitative measures. The qualitative assessment provides supplemental infor- mation to the quantitative assessment by giving it a ranking of “strongly support,” “support,” or “neutral toward” a list of established criteria that are associated with each goal. Each project was looked at in the context of each goal to determine whether it addressed that goal. The number of goals that each project supported was used to identify high- performing projects. Program Assessment As the third step in the assessment process, MTC evaluated how the proposed plan meets the objectives of the adopted 57 14http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035Plan-Perf_ AssessmentReport.pdf, p. 11

58 T-2035 Performance Objective Quantitative Project Evaluation Measures Reduce congestion Benefit–cost ratio (monetized), reflecting Reduce emissions Recurrent delay (vehicle hours) Reduce collisions and fatalities Nonrecurrent delay (vehicle hours Transit travel time Particulate matter emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) Carbon dioxide emissions Fatal and injury collisions Direct user costs (vehicle operating and, in some cases, auto ownership costs) Public and private cost savings from performing on-time maintenance Reduce vehicle miles driven Reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and cost per VMT reduced Reduce emissions Reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and cost per ton reduced Improve affordability Cost per low-income household served by transit (trial measure) Transportation 2035 Goals Criteria for Determining Support Maintenance Congestion relief (reliability and efficient freight travel) — Includes roadway safety Emissions reduction Focused growth Access and safety (nonmotorized) • Advances maintenance of the existing transportation system • Improves freight mobility • Improves transit mobility, effectiveness, or efficiency • Improves local mobility or circulation • Completes a critical transportation gap (geographic or temporal) • Institutes or enables a new user-based pricing system • Implements technology-based operations or traveler information • Improves roadway safety • Provides an alternative to driving alone • Improves transit mobility, effectiveness, or efficiency • Marketing, education, and incentive programs that encourage mode shift away from driving alone or during peaks • Located within a proposed or planned priority development area • Connects to priority development areas • Provides a transit alternative to driving on a future priced facility • Provides an alternative to driving alone • Improves access for youth, the elderly, and disabled persons • Improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists • Reduces transportation or housing costs for low-income households Table B.3. MTC quantitative project evaluation measures Table B.4. MTC program assessment criteria

59 measures. Table B.4 identifies the criteria for determining consistency with MTC’s objectives. The proposed investments include roadway maintenance and rehabilitation, a regional HOT network, a regional bicycle network, funding for land use and transportation connection programs, paratransit, and other programs targeting climate change, operations, and transit. Using the regional travel demand model, MTC calculated the impact of the projects proposed in the Transportation 2035 plan. The findings of the analyses were that the planned invest- ments would point the region in the direction of meeting the stated objectives, but that there was still a gap between the tar- gets and outcome. The analysis showed that the objectives would not be met without additional land use, pricing, and technology strategies that would provide additional benefits. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The processes for creating T-2035 and the results of these processes were developed and reviewed in consultation with the Partnership Ad Hoc Committee. The Partnership Ad Hoc Committee is dedicated to performance assessment and includes representatives from state, regional, and local transportation agencies, the Bay Area Air Quality Manage- ment District, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Obstacles None. The performance assessment is complete, findings have been presented to the Commission and in public out- reach, the project approach has been documented, and the T-2035 plan currently is in the Environmental Impact Report, Air Quality Conformity Analysis, and Equity Analysis stage. Florida DOT Strategic Intermodal System Agency Name: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Central Office Scale: Statewide Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnerships Description of the Program/Initiative Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), established in 2003, is a statewide network of high-priority transportation facilities, including the state’s largest and most significant commercial service airports, spaceport, deepwater seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail and intercity bus termi- nals, rail corridors, waterways, and highways. The SIS was established to enhance Florida’s economic competitiveness by focusing limited resources on those transportation facili- ties that are critical to Florida’s economy and quality of life. Description of Systems-Level Effort The SIS includes a designated system of corridors, facilities, and services of statewide and interregional significance. The program guides funding decisions and allows for integrated funding of transportation modes to make strategic investments for the state and region. Performance Measures The SIS Strategic Plan, adopted in January 2005, identi- fies goals and recommended objectives for managing and measuring the performance of the SIS. These include the following: 1. Goal: A safer and more secure transportation system for residents, businesses, and visitors. – Performance Data: National and state fatality rates for vehicles on SIS highways; bicycle, pedestrian, and motorcycle fatality and serious injury rates on SIS high- ways; commercial vehicle crash rates on SIS highways. 2. Goal: Effective preservation and management of Florida’s transportation facilities and services. – Performance Data: Percentage of SIS highway pave- ment meeting FDOT standards; percentage of FDOT- maintained SIS bridges meeting FDOT standards; percentage of SIS highways meeting FDOT maintenance standards. 3. Goal: Increased mobility for people and for freight and efficient operations of Florida’s transportation system. – Performance Data: Person-hours of delay on Florida’s SIS highways. 4. Goal: Enhanced economic competitiveness and economic diversification. – Performance Data: Accessibility of population and employment centers to SIS facilities. 5. Goal: Enriched quality of life and responsible environ- mental stewardship. – Performance Data: Qualitative information on successes and challenges of SIS implementation, including consid- eration of lane use, community, and environmental issues, and coordination with partners and the public. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The planning process for the SIS includes system designa- tion based on adopted criteria and thresholds; needs assess- ment to identify unprogrammed SIS needs based on adopted

statewide modal plans; a project prioritization process to develop a Phased Cost Feasible Plan with 10- and 20-year com- ponents; and a finance strategy that incorporates the invest- ment policy and forecasts of anticipated revenues, innovative financing, and joint funding by public and private partners. Obstacles The first annual performance report for the SIS is still under development. Performance measures and objectives for the SIS are continuing to be refined. Washington State Department of Transportation Performance Measurement Program Agency Name: Washington State DOT (WSDOT) Scale: Statewide Application: Multimodal Assessments/Interagency Plan- ning Partnerships Description of the Program/Initiative WSDOT is well known for applying performance manage- ment tools to nearly every aspect of agency business. The agency publishes a comprehensive quarterly performance report, the Gray Notebook. WSDOT uses performance measurement to guide decision making in congestion management, including capital planning, demand management, and operations. Description of Systems-Level Effort WSDOT uses a suite of measures to identify and prioritize congested corridors. With many corridors experiencing some congestion, evaluating traditional metrics, such as LOS thresh- olds, yielded billions of dollars of needs over a 20-year time frame. To address this problem, WSDOT began to use through- put measures of efficiency such as speed thresholds to identify highway deficiencies. This approach has narrowed the defi- ciency list by roughly one-third and enables WSDOT to focus scarce resources on the most needed corridors. The depart- ment uses the maximum throughput measure to select projects for inclusion in its proposed program of highway improve- ments (the Highway System Plan), which is ultimately pre- sented to the legislature. WSDOT uses its congestion measures to support funding increases. The data has helped WSDOT gain public and leg- islative support in its ability to deliver the right programs and projects effectively. The performance measures have convinced WSDOT executive-level management that new capacity alone cannot solve their problems; operations and management must be a part of the solution. Performance measures have allowed WSDOT to establish and expand investments in operations, such as incident response and demand reduction programs. WSDOT uses before-and- after evaluations of operations projects to demonstrate their benefit in terms of reduced travel times or delay avoided. In addition to using congestion measures to plan, select, and fund projects, WSDOT has been able to use performance mea- sures to reveal trends or emerging problems that led to correc- tive action by the agency. Examples follow: • Correcting an increase in HOV travel times. Recent data revealed an increase in travel times as a result of more fre- quent use of the HOV lanes. WSDOT is developing an action plan to restore travel times on HOV lanes. • Identifying a major source of nonrecurring congestion. To decrease incident response time, WSDOT has implemented an incentive towing program that provides tow-truck oper- ators with a financial incentive to clear incidents involving heavy trucks within 90 minutes of dispatch. • Focusing the Commute Trip Reduction Program on the most congested corridors. A review of the Commute Trip Reduction Program revealed that it would be more efficient if efforts were focused on highway corridors with the most congestion. Performance Measures WSDOT tracks these specific measures: • Vehicle throughput. Measures how many vehicles move through a highway segment in an hour; • Peak travel time. Measures how long it takes to complete a route during the peak period of congestion; • 95% reliable travel time. Measures how long it takes to complete a route at 95% worst travel time; and • Annual cost of delay. Measures the cost of congestion for system users. These measures are reported in the Annual Congestion Report, included in the September edition of the Gray Notebook. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions WSDOT has managed to integrate performance measures throughout the agency’s transportation work. This creates overall agreement and buy-in and ensures that data is collected and recorded consistently and accurately. This type of commit- ment and consistency offers transparency and accountability to legislators and public officials. WSDOT also recognizes that there are limitations to performance measurement. When the data is being used for decision-making purposes, it is always presented with a thorough analysis and narrative. 60

Obstacles WSDOT continues to struggle with the inherent difficulties of performance management. Specifically, it has found that measures often indicate the symptoms but not the cause of the problem, and at times are not sensitive enough to measure actual change. In addition, there are limitations to the data col- lection and analysis that can be conducted. Transportation MAP (Metropolitan Atlanta Performance) Initiative Agency Name: Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) Scale: MPO/Regional Application: Annual Report/Scorecard Description of the Program/Initiative GRTA spearheads the cooperative effort between the Authority and its partner agencies, FHWA, the Atlanta Regional Commission, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), to complete the annual Transportation MAP (Metropolitan Atlanta Performance) report. A steering committee composed of the representatives of the regional transportation agencies and others guides the development of this annual transporta- tion performance measurement effort. The MAP report pro- vides a regional performance snapshot of progress toward improving mobility, transit accessibility, air quality, safety, and overall Atlanta transportation system performance. Description of Systems-Level Effort Baseline and target goals for various measures (described below) were initially established based on 2000 or 2001 data. Initial targets were established for 2006. The specific targets, respecting the unique quality of each measure, were set after review and discussion by appropriate professionals from the respective agencies. Each year, after the data is collected and certified, the agencies present a report of the region’s progress in meeting the targets that have been set. New measures and targets are developed and added to the report (referred to as the Transportation MAP report) as they become necessary. The inaugural MAP report was compiled in 2003. The 2004 report included data on average travel times and the TTI on the sections of the freeway system where the GDOT’s real-time traffic monitoring system (NaviGAtor) is operational. The 2005 report added measures of travel-time reliability: the Plan- ning Time Index (PTI) and BTI. Several transportation system performance indices were included in the 2007 report. Finally, two new safety measures were introduced in the 2008 report. The 2008 Transportation MAP report can be accessed at http://www.grta.org/PDF_Files/2008_Transportation_MAP _Report.pdf. The travel times, PTI, or BTI by freeway segment can be found in the appendix to the report at http://www.grta.org/ PDF_Files/2008_Transportation_MAP_Appendix.pdf. Performance Measures The performance measures in this report are tracking the Atlanta transportation system’s performance. These mea- sures, grouped in five areas, are listed below. • Mobility – Freeway TTI; – Freeway PTI; – Freeway BTI; – Daily VMT per licensed driver/per person; – Pavement condition rating; – Transit passenger miles traveled; and – Annual transit passenger boardings. • Transit Accessibility – Population and employment within walking distance to transit; – Transit revenue service hours; and – Passenger trips per transit service hour. • Air Quality – Daily vehicle emissions (relative to 2000 levels). • Safety – Traffic crash fatalities/traffic crash fatality rate; – Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities/pedestrian and bi- cyclist fatality rate per 100,000 population; and – Roadway clearance time. • Transportation System Performance – Atlanta Transportation Performance Indices (roadway services index, transit services index, roadway emissions index, roadway safety index). Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions These performance measures are used for informing the decision makers and the general public about the state of Atlanta’s transportation system. The measurements are intended to identify problem areas and assist the region in effectively investing limited transportation funds. The collaborative process among the region’s agencies extends beyond performance measurement. In some specific cases it helped identify data collection issues and improve data quality control procedures. In other instances data gaps and needs, such as the lack of reliable arterial data, are clearly 61

identified. Another interesting feature of this performance measurement effort is that it uses some already existing data sources (such as GDOT’s archived NaviGAtor data). This allows for cost-effective data use and sharing. Obstacles GRTA and its partners made a concerted effort to choose and present measures that are relatively easy to understand, a task that was difficult because of the measures’ technical nature. Specific attention was paid to selecting, presenting, and visualizing the performance measures so that that they are clear and appeal to a broad audience. One example is choosing travel time and indices based on travel times instead of speeds because it was found that people relate to travel times better than they do to speed. Initially targets were set for some measures based on tech- nical projections or historical trends. However, these targets are regional in nature, and as a rule they are not under the con- trol of a single agency. Therefore, a structured process is required for coordinating targets, the associated responsibili- ties by individual agencies, and accountability for reaching the adopted targets. The participating regional agencies are now working on establishing such target-setting processes. Other lessons learned are as follows: • Find a performance measurement champion or become one; • Start small and gradually grow your performance mea- surement; • “Borrow” from the best practices; • Make use of already existing data; • Keep it simple and succinct; • Have a significant story or message to tell; • Keep your audience in mind; and • Get regular feedback from stakeholders and users. The Transportation MAP initiative was essentially a bottom- up attempt to impact transportation policy in the greater Atlanta region. Although the initiative was technically a suc- cess, the challenges ahead primarily involve influencing part- ner agencies to use the results of the initiative to influence policy and funding. To that end, several initiatives are in place. GRTA is working with Georgia DOT on a strategic plan of the transportation system. This high-level plan is scheduled to be available soon for legislative use. Similarly, the Atlanta Regional Commission, which is the MPO for the Atlanta region, is working cooperatively with GRTA and other part- ner agencies to establish new systemwide performance targets for the Atlanta region. The progression is one of cooperation to unified vision to coordinated action. Cooperation among regional agencies remains a struggle, though improvement in some areas is evident. Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan, Congestion Management Process, and Transportation Audit Agency Name: Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Scale: Regional Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnership Description of the Program/Initiative The Metropolitan Council (Met Council) serves the Min- neapolis–St. Paul area as the region’s MPO. The Twin Cities area has a long history of congestion management activities, with one of the nation’s most extensive and sophisticated ramp metering systems. The Met Council’s Transportation Policy Plan, under the umbrella of the 2030 Regional Development Framework, contains policies and strategies designed to slow the growth in congestion and to improve mobility in the region. The recommendations within this plan call for several strate- gies, including investing in multimodal transport, expanding transit services, and encouraging local communities to inter- connect arterials and local streets, pathways, and bikeways. The CMP is linked directly to the most recent update of the Trans- portation Policy Plan. Met Council and MnDOT work together on several corridors within the Twin Cities region. Description of Systems-Level Effort Many of Met Council’s performance measure and bench- marks are systemwide. Met Council works with MnDOT on corridor projects, ramp metering systems, and other system- level efforts. Performance Measures Met Council performs a regional transportation audit every four years per Minnesota legislative requirement. It includes a review of the transportation system’s performance since the last performance audit, a comparison of the performance to peer urban areas, and a comparison of service to existing stan- dards or benchmarks. Systemwide performance measures reported in the audit include • Number of lane-miles of new principal arterials built each year; • Miles of congested freeway; 62

• Highway traffic volume changes; • Percentage of miles in a congested condition; • Transit ridership; • Transit service (vehicle revenue miles); • VMT per capita per day; and • Peak-hour transit capacity. MnDOT produced a Statewide Transportation Plan in 2003 that uses a variety of performance measures. These perform- ance measures are placed into three categories: mature, emerging, and developmental. Performance measures include travel-time reliability, miles of managed corridors, and miles of bus-only shoulders. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The “Team Transit” concept came about in the 1990s between Met Council and MnDOT to help facilitate transit operations and usage. MnDOT now builds expressways and arterials with 12-foot shoulders that can be later converted to bus lanes as needed. The agencies involved in creating Team Transit included the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Patrol, repre- sentatives from the Twin Cities and other municipalities served by transit, MnDOT, and Metro Transit. The region’s Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) under- taking, a collaboration between Met Council and MnDOT, includes tolling/congestion pricing (including priced dynamic shoulder lanes), additional ITS deployment related to TDM (parking, transit info, etc.), BRT expansion, and public-private telecommuting initiatives. It also includes conversion of HOV lanes to tolled HOT lanes. A major underpinning of the UPA approach in the Twin Cities is the development of extensive real-time information with wide accessibility. Obstacles The Twin Cities region has been a leader in specific conges- tion management strategies in the country, yet due to several factors, including increased population growth, congestion has been on the rise. If the current congestion growth is not addressed, the lane-miles of congested metropolitan high- ways will increase from just over 1,900 miles in 2000 to over 2,500 miles in 2030. Urban Partnership Agreements—Seattle (Lake Washington) Agency Name: U.S. DOT, Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, King County Scale: MPO/Regional Application: Tolling/ITS/TDM Description of the Program/Initiative The Lake Washington Urban Partnership is a cooperative agreement to employ innovative traffic management tools for improving traffic flow along State Route 520, Interstate 90, and the Lake Washington corridor. The urban partnership includes the comprehensive use of four key strategies: tolling/congestion pricing, transit, telecommuting/flextime, and technology. The agreement calls for a new variable tolling system that could improve traffic flow on the SR 520 corridor and provide up to $500 million to replace the aging SR 520 Lake Washing- ton floating bridge over Lake Washington. “Open road” electronic tolling equipment will allow tolls to be collected at freeway speeds through the use of in-vehicle transponders. Supplemental automatic cameras will read license plates for vehicles not equipped with transponders. Substantial transit improvements also are planned to fur- ther reduce congestion and provide travelers with alterna- tives to driving and paying congestion tolls. Forty-five hybrid buses will be purchased and bus stops will be improved by providing patrons with real-time bus arrival information (at seven stops) as well as improved passenger shelters and lighting (at two stops). Park-and-ride facilities also will be expanded. The partnership will provide for expanded opportunities to travel by ferry as well. Ferry investments include supporting the Mukilteo multimodal terminal, providing high-speed, low- wake passenger ferries and other vessels for the Puget Sound, enhancing passenger-only ferry service to and from Vashon Island, supporting the Kingston Express ferry service, support- ing a Pierce County ferry system, and repairing the Guemes Island ferry dock. The region will build on its already highly acclaimed telecommuting and travel demand management efforts through outreach to employers and transportation manage- ment associations regarding alternative transportation options and incentives to use them. The region will use its own funds to improve traveler information and trip planning services for employees, as well as expand marketing of the region’s Guar- anteed Ride Home program. Finally, the region is committed to using active traffic man- agement techniques that will allow for the detection of inci- dents, facilitate the removal of disabled vehicles, and provide travelers with real-time information about traffic conditions. Technology will include the use of 511 and electronically changeable roadway signage as well as the use of variable speed limits to facilitate smoother traffic flow during peak travel periods. Description of Systems-Level Effort The partnership allows for investment across modes and jurisdictions to address congestion on a corridor level. Because 63

of the significance of SR 520 and Interstate 90 to the regional transportation system, investments made at the corridor level will have significant regional impact as well. Performance Measures There are no predetermined measures at this time, but measures involving congestion intensity, scope, duration, number of vehicles, and number of passengers are candidates for evaluating improvements. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The U.S. DOT has initiated UPAs with cities that have applied for Urban Partnership status. Five cities were selected as urban partners in August 2007: Miami, Minneapolis– St. Paul, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle. These cities received priority consideration for available federal dis- cretionary funds (about $1 billion in total) across a dozen grant programs, including transit funds, ITS funds, and Value Pricing Pilot Program funds. Obstacles No obstacles have been identified for this project. Urban Partnership Agreements—Miami Agency Name: U.S. DOT, Florida Department of Transporta- tion, Miami-Dade MPO, Broward County MPO, Broward County Transit, Miami-Dade Transit, Miami-Dade Express- way Authority, and Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise Scale: MPO/Regional Application: Tolling/ITS/TDM Description of the Program/Initiative The Miami–Ft. Lauderdale region is creating a 21-mile managed-lane facility on I-95 between I-395 and I-595. The managed-lane network will consist of four managed lanes (two in each direction) between downtown Miami and the I-95/Broward Boulevard Interchange in Broward County. The managed lanes will allow free access for registered vehi- cles with more than three occupants, while vehicles with one to two occupants will be required to pay variable tolls that will be adjusted based on demand. Toll rates will be adjusted as often as every 3 minutes in order to maintain free-flow conditions on the managed lanes at least 90% of the time. Open-road tolling at freeway speeds will occur through the use of toll transponders and video license plate readers. Changeable message signs will display variable toll rates for vehicles not meeting the occupancy requirements, and a camera-based system will be deployed for violation enforcement. The managed-lane network will be used as the backbone of a BRT system, which will be subsidized through the toll rev- enues. The BRT service will operate within the managed-lane network between downtown Miami and destinations north along I-95 to the I-95/Broward Boulevard Interchange. As a result, bus service across the county line will be seamless, eliminating the need for transfers at the Golden Glades park- and-ride facility. Reliability of bus service also will improve, as bus speeds are anticipated to increase to 50 mph once buses operate within a managed lanes environment (compared to 22 mph previously). New express bus service routes will be provided north-south along U.S. 441/SR 7 and SR 817 and east-west on Hollywood/Pines Boulevard. Other transit improvements include the implementation of transit signal priority at 50 intersections along U.S. 441/SR 7 and SR 871; improvements to the I-95/Broward Boulevard park-and-ride lot; two new uniquely branded stations for the express/BRT services; and construction of pedestrian facilities at one of the two new stations. Description of Systems-Level Effort The partnership allows for investment across modes and jurisdictions to address congestion on a regional level. Performance Measures There are no predetermined measures at this time, but measures involving congestion intensity, scope, duration, number of vehicles, and number of passengers are candidates for the improvement evaluation process. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The U.S. DOT has initiated UPAs with cities that have applied for Urban Partnership status. Five cities were selected as urban partners in August 2007: Miami, Minneapolis– St. Paul, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle. These cities received priority consideration for available federal dis- cretionary funds (about $1 billion in total) across a dozen grant programs, including transit funds, ITS funds, and Value Pricing Pilot Program funds. Obstacles No obstacles were identified for this project. 64

City of Boulder, Colorado Agency Name: Boulder Public Works Department (City of Boulder, Colorado) Scale: Local Application: Multimodal Assessment/Interagency Planning Partnership Description of the Program/Initiative The City of Boulder, Colorado, is a national leader in the promotion of alternative modes such as walking, biking, and transit. The Boulder Department of Public Works Transporta- tion Division provides for the mobility of persons and goods by developing and maintaining a transportation system with emphasis on transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular trans- portation; street maintenance, and bikeway maintenance. The division also manages the Boulder Municipal Airport. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) consists of five members appointed by city council, each to 5-year terms. TAB reviews and recommends changes to the Transportation Master Plan based on metric assessments. The city has a com- prehensive performance measurement system. The Master Plan states current funding scenarios and provides action plans to improve the system further. The City of Boulder’s 2003 Transportation Master Plan has won two awards: the 2004 Metro Vision Award for the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the National 2004 Institute of Trans- portation Engineers (ITE) Best Practices Award. Description of Systems-Level Effort The city has achieved great success with both intermodal and multimodal transportation networks. Many of their per- formance measures are system-level measurements, such as the Citywide Mobility Index that was created by aggregating the corridor levels of service and facility performance mea- sures for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and roadway. Performance Measures • Alternative modes as a percentage of total trips; • VMT; • Percentage of arterial lane-miles congested; • Air quality (CO2, NOx, and VOC emissions); and • Facility performance (bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The City of Boulder creates several documents that reflect citizen opinions, transportation patterns, and other trends. These documents include citizen transportation surveys, a weekly information packet, a transportation metrics presen- tation to the city council, and modal shift reports. Obstacles No major obstacles were uncovered at this point. Peer-to-Peer Scenario— Multistate Partnership for System Operations Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study (MAROps) Phases I and II Agency Name: I-95 Corridor Coalition, NJDOT, DelDOT, PennDOT, MDOT, VDOT, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Amtrak Scale: Multistate Application: Benefit–Cost Analysis Description of the Program/Initiative Phase I: This study is an initiative of the I-95 Corridor Coali- tion, five Mid-Atlantic states, and three railroads to address regional transportation as a system. The study recognized the need to manage system capacity by building system-oriented institutional relationships and developing system-responsive funding strategies. The objective of this study was to identify choke points or physical points in the rail system (bridges, tun- nels, track segments) that have reduced capacity and opera- tional capabilities—in comparison to the rest of the system—in the Mid-Atlantic region’s rail network and develop a program to improve freight and passenger flows through those areas. Phase II (in progress): This project will undertake a more detailed analysis and explanation of the benefits outlined in the Phase I MAROps work. The key objectives of MAROps Phase II are to review improvements since Phase I, update the freight demand forecasts for the region, and review the MAROps program; detail the benefits of the revised MAROps program, moving from the regional level analyzed in Phase I to show benefits accruing to individual states, rail/highway corri- dors, industry sectors, and potentially major metropolitan areas; and develop and demonstrate transferable methods of assessing the public benefits of public–private partnerships in financing rail improvements. Description of Systems-Level Effort This multistate effort looks at congestion in the rail net- work on a regional level. The partners have come together to 65

66 identify the chokepoints that have the greatest impact on the region and in Phase II will be measuring these impacts on the many stakeholders. Performance Measures The performance analysis for MAROps Phase II focuses on determining who benefits from investments in freight rail infrastructure and who should pay for those investments. The analysis currently is in development but will use a handful of performance measures for each of several potential benefici- aries, including the Mid-Atlantic region and each of the sev- eral states and metro areas affected by the investments, the nation as a whole, the freight and passenger railroads provid- ing service in the Mid-Atlantic, and railroad passengers, ship- pers, and ports who use the rail system to travel or deliver goods. General areas for measurement are listed in Table B.5. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The project is sponsored by the I-95 Corridor Coalition, providing a forum for agencies to convene to discuss trans- portation on a regional level. Using matching funds, the coalition was able to secure additional funding from each state for this project and the necessary buy-in from DOTs and railroads to make the project effective. The culmina- tion of Phase I was a list of 71 projects that the partners agreed on as the key rail bottlenecks in the region. The opportunity to present these findings for consideration during reauthorization created an incentive for the part- ners to participate. Obstacles Turning a study into policy and implemented projects and obtaining funding for the projects remain challenges. I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Agency Name: I-95 Corridor Coalition; core participants include NJDOT, DelDOT, PennDOT, Maryland SHA, VDOT, NCDOT. Participation is open to all coalition mem- bers from Maine to Florida. Scale: Multistate Region/Corridor, including primarily free- ways and major arterials Application: Data collection, evaluation, and dissemination Description of the Program/Initiative The coalition is a partnership of state DOTs, regional and local transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations, including law enforcement, transit, and port and Area of Potential Performance Beneficiary Measurement Region, states, metro areas, and nation Freight railroads Passenger railroads Rail passengers Shippers Ports • Economic impacts • System efficiency • Environmental • Maintenance costs • Safety • Market share • Throughput • System reliability • Environmental impacts • Safety • Operations and maintenance cost • Ridership • Throughput • System reliability • Environmental impacts • Safety • Operations and maintenance cost • Travel costs • Travel time • Access to service • Business cost • Access to service • Service reliability • Transit time • Market access • Business cost • Throughput • Safety Table B.5. Potential measurement areas by beneficiary. rail organizations from Maine to Florida (including the District of Columbia), with affiliate members in Canada. I-95 Corridor Coalition members work together to reduce congestion, increase safety and security, and ensure that the entire trans- portation network supports economic vitality throughout the region. The coalition pursues a wide range of projects and activ- ities related to providing reliable and timely travel information and coordination of incident response and freight movement within the corridor and across different modes of travel.

The I-95 Corridor Coalition’s Vehicle Probe project is a ground-breaking initiative, intended to provide comprehen- sive multistate monitoring of traffic flow within the corridor. The objective of this project is the acquisition of traffic flow information using probe technology (GPS-equipped vehicle fleets, cellular geolocation, or a combination of the two) for both freeways and signalized arterials. The information pro- duced by this project will be used to support a number of coalition activities such as corridorwide traveler information, incident management, and performance measurement. The wide-area coverage provided by this project is designed to support the unique planning, engineering, and operational needs of a heavily traveled, multistate corridor encompassing several metro areas. Member agencies will benefit from the Probe Project by receiving traffic flow information relevant to their respec- tive jurisdictions, including both in-state and border-state data. The data from the system will support the operation of 511, display of travel times on variable message signs, and traffic management during incidents. The data also will be available to support all internal applications such as planning and engineering. Coalition members also will be able to utilize the contract developed for this project to expand coverage within their jurisdictions, to aid in web- site development, and to interface with existing traffic management systems. This project is unique in that, for the first time, information will be available to support implementation of long-distance, interjurisdictional diversions that are characteristic of major incidents that have a multistate impact, as well as the metrics and performance measures accompanying such large-scale events. In addition, mobility performance measures such as travel times and reliability can now be developed for the cor- ridor using a common data source that spans political and jurisdictional boundaries. Description of Systems-Level Effort The coalition and member agencies have targeted the use of the probe data for various applications and uses. Targeted applications include • Project monitoring website for use in member’s Traffic Management Centers; • Central archiving service; • Providing input to corridorwide management tools such as the Integrated Corridor Analysis Tool (ICAT) systems and the Information Systems Network (ISN); • Integration into member agency 511 and other traveler information services; • Enhancement of incident management for events that span jurisdictional boundaries; and • Corridorwide operations performance measures. Use and integration of the data has begun in several areas. The project monitoring website was implemented by the vendor (INRIX). This website provides all agencies with a common view of the corridor using a real-time color-coded map, as well as real-time speed and travel-time information through the same interface. The same website provides access to a data archive maintained by the vendor. The archive is logged at 5-minute intervals using the segmenta- tion used in the data feed (INRIX uses Traffic Message Channel codes). Other archive and data distribution net- works such as ICAT and ISN as well as member agency sys- tems have begun integrating the vehicle probe data into their data formats and network segmentation for use by their member constituents. Performance Measures Apart from the individual agency use of the data, the I-95 Corridor Coalition is preparing for corridorwide perfor- mance measures. The targeted measures include travel time, travel-time reliability, and all of their derivatives. Also of interest are incident duration metrics as they apply to major incidents of interjurisdictional impact. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a partnership of state departments of transportation, regional and local trans- portation agencies, toll authorities, and related organiza- tions, including law enforcement, transit, and port and rail organizations from Maine to Florida (including the District of Columbia), with affiliate members in Canada. I-95 Cor- ridor Coalition members work together to reduce congestion, increase safety/security, and ensure that the entire trans- portation network supports economic vitality throughout the region. The coalition pursues a wide range of projects and activities related to providing reliable and timely travel infor- mation, coordination of incident response and freight move- ment within the corridor and across different modes of travel, and electronic systems to make payment of tolls and transit fares easier. Because the efficiency of passenger and freight movement through the region is not limited to one mode or facility, the work of the coalition encompasses all modes and highway facilities, with an emphasis on facilitating long- distance transportation that traverses state jurisdictional boundaries. By leveraging resources, sharing information, and coordinating programs, the coalition adds value to the individual member organization’s activities and provides a synergy for more dynamic and seamless transportation solu- tions throughout the corridor. Seed funding for the project was provided by the coalition via federal funds. The core system, funded for 3 years, includes 67

1,500 miles of freeways and 1,000 miles of arterials spanning New Jersey to North Carolina. Member agencies have the option to expand coverage or extend the duration of cover- age up to a full 10 years. New Jersey already has added 424 miles of freeway coverage to encompass the majority of free- way miles within New Jersey. North Carolina and South Car- olina are planning similar expansions, with many other states contemplating similar actions. A key aspect of the project was the development of a data rights and ownership policy that allowed for liberal use of the data by the coalition and member agencies while still protect- ing the vendors’ ability to resell the data to other commercial clients. Key documents include the project RFP, contract, and data use agreement. All of these are available on the coalition web- site at http://www.i95coalition.org/vehicle-probe.html. Obstacles Several unanticipated difficulties arose during implemen- tation of the contract. These difficulties arose not from the language or terms of the contract but from the nature of the coalition and the structure of the procurement. As the coali- tion is not a legal business entity, the contract for the traffic monitoring system was executed between INRIX and the Uni- versity of Maryland (on behalf of the coalition and its mem- ber organizations). The difficulty in implementing the terms and conditions stemmed from the multistate nature of the coalition. Because the contract was executed in Maryland, under Maryland law, the participation of other public entities was fraught with issues of state sovereignty and contracting regulations and restrictions. To implement the contract, each participating coalition member needed to recognize and bind themselves to the terms of the contract and take upon itself the liability for any breach of terms originating from its access and use. The process involved a data use agreement (DUA) to be executed by member organizations to that effect. Because of varying state laws on contracts, the form of the DUA required customization for different coalition members, a process that required unanticipated time because of the required legal review and input. Megaregional Partnerships to Address Growth San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Agency Name: California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Scale: Megaregional Application: Multi-Agency Planning Description of the Program/Initiative The SJV region has a total population of 3.4 million resi- dents within eight counties: Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin. The California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley forecasts that the SJV will grow by an additional 1.4 million people by the year 2020—a population increase of more than 40%.15 By the year 2050, the regional population is expected to grow to more than 7 million. The forecasted growth, as well as current con- cerns that include mobility, environment, quality of life, and economic development, has motivated regional planning partnerships. Historically, SJV transportation planning agencies, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the FHWA have coordinated components of the transportation network to meet the needs of interregional travelers. In 1992, the eight Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (each within a council of government [COG] structure) entered into an MOU to ensure a coordinated regional approach to transportation and air quality planning efforts. The MOU established a coordinated system of transportation and air quality planning, programs, and data analysis/forecasting. In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-5-05 that established the California Partnership for the SJV. The main focus of the unique public–private partnership was to improve regional economic vitality and quality of life. One of the six major initiatives within the California Partnership’s 2006 Strategic Action Plan is to build a 21st-century trans- portation mobility system. The California Partnerships Trans- portation Workgroup developed a Transportation Action Plan with specific goals, objectives, and indicators that can be used by the entire region. To develop a comprehensive plan for the region, the eight valley COGs jointly applied for grants from the California Department of Business, Transportation and Housing and the SJV Air Pollution Control District. The SJV Blueprint Process has drawn on the work of the California Partnership to help support coordinated data collection and integration needs for the region. The Blueprint Process is “an unprece- dented example of local jurisdictions demonstrating increased regional identity and a unified purpose in addressing the region’s challenges.”16 All eight COGs within the valley agreed to participate in the Blueprint Process. The Blueprint Process has consisted of a substantial public outreach effort and sce- nario planning initiative that used a common set of goals and measurements. In the implementation phase, the COGs expect the Blueprint plan to be used to improve the perfor- mance of the transportation system and improve overall qual- ity of life in eight valley counties. 68 15www.sjvpartnership.org 16http://www.fresnocog.org/files/Blueprint%20Summary%20-%20Brochure.pdf

The SJV faces many transportation challenges, and with a growing population, these challenges are expected to increase. Congestion on the major corridors (Highway 99 and Inter- state 5) has increased commute travel times, delayed goods movement, and worsened air quality. Land use trends in the valley have contributed to these problems. The public continues to express frustration with these issues, and other concerns, such as loss of open space and agriculture land, water supply depletion, poor air quality, lack of quality jobs and affordable housing, and a belief that the quality of life in the region is diminishing. These megaregional planning processes will help develop a macro strategy with recommendations incorporated into a regional Blueprint plan. The processes will ideally align local and regional goals and enable the region to better understand how local decisions (e.g., land use) affect the entire region. Description of Systems-Level Effort The California Partnership and the Blueprint planning process for the SJV have different yet complementary strate- gies. Each initiative has a transportation component. These joint planning efforts are helping to coordinate a regional vision and a common set of goals, performance indicators, and strategies. The California Partnership’s Strategic Action Proposal was developed in October 2006. The recommendations include the building of a 21st-century transportation mobility sys- tem. The strategic actions for this recommendation include the following: • Implement various corridor plans and help improve mobility within the region; • Implement transportation projects that support the regional land use strategy; • Implement a plan to facilitate goods movement in the region; • Develop a sustainable multimodal system; and • Ensure that any state high-speed rail system, if imple- mented, meets the needs of the region and helps achieve economic development goals. The SJV Blueprint Process involves the integration of trans- portation, housing, land use, economic development, and environmental data to produce scenarios to the year 2050. The starting point for the Blueprint Process was the creation of a “status quo” scenario projection of how all eight local commu- nities would grow based on current trends. Alternative scenar- ios were developed based on various land use, transportation, conservation, and housing plans. The Blueprint Process will hopefully provide a decision-making tool that combines cur- rently separate and distinct data sets into one that will allow for multijurisdictional planning and the coordination of infra- structure plans with broader community goals. Guiding questions for the Blueprint planning process include the following: • How should we grow? • Where should we grow? • How will we travel around the region? • How will growth affect our environment? • How will growth impact our overall quality of life? The Blueprint Process has included public meetings and scenario planning sessions that involved a broad array of stakeholders. Engaging the public at this level is an enor- mous undertaking but over the past 2 years the Blueprint Process has successfully engaged communities in a bottom- up approach. This public outreach is helping produce coor- dinated regional planning that is aimed at improving the transportation system and other outcomes. Figure B.1 illus- trates the bottom-up approach of the planning process that moves from local input to a regional vision yet ultimately keeps decision-making power and implementation strategies within the jurisdiction of local communities. The Blueprint planning processes and the California Part- nership within the SJV are megaregional planning initiatives. The results of these planning processes include the coordina- tion of a regional vision, goals, objectives, and strategies. Further, the region is sharing data and using coordinated network-level performance measurements. Coordinated planning on a widespread regional scale will potentially bring about regionwide programs and operational agreements. Corridor 99 is one example in which the coun- ties recognize the need to work together to fund and imple- ment strategies needed to reach the goals of the Blueprint Process and the California Partnership. Another example is organized data collection and monitoring efforts. Performance Measures The California Partnership Transportation Work Group developed a set of transportation system indicators. These indicators will be used to track progress on how well the region is meeting the strategic goals developed by the Califor- nia Partnership. These indicators include • Throughput and velocity, • Roadway conditions, • Vehicle hours of delay, • Quality rating of roadway conditions, • Transit availability • Goods movement productivity, • Safety, 69

• Roadway enhancements, and • Deployment of ITSs. The Blueprint Process committees developed a set of per- formance measures to be reviewed and adopted by each COG for the Blueprint planning process. Valleywide goals and per- formance measures were developed with input from COG project managers and the SJV Professional Planners Group. They are being used throughout each component of the Blue- print Process. All performance measures used by counties during the Blueprint processes were reviewed, evaluated, and selected based on the current data available and the current forecasting capabilities. Though additional performance measures could be valu- able in evaluating the scenarios, some COGs currently lack the enhanced modeling capacity necessary to generate them. Moreover, because there are differences not only between counties but also within counties, using one set of exclusive performance measures was a challenging task. Therefore, the COGs agreed to use one common set of valleywide measures as base measures and use additional measures based on their own unique planning needs and county goals. Table B.6 pre- sents the valleywide measures adopted by each COG. During the second valleywide Blueprint Summit, facilitated by GVC in January 2009, the public officially recommend a preferred scenario. Figures B.2 and B.3 show the transporta- tion-related performance measures used at the summit to compare scenarios (Scenario A is status quo). Only two trans- portation-related performance measures were used in the process: VMT and GHG emissions from mobile exhaust. Sce- nario B was the scenario chosen by each county in the county- level Blueprint processes. At the regional summit held in January 2009, participants chose Scenario C—a scenario that increases density levels almost twice as high as does Scenario B. 70 Decision Makers Other Local CountiesCities MPO Governing Boards Local Decision Process Blueprint Regional Advisory Committee San Joaquin Valley Partnership (Concepts) MPO Governing Boards Local Decision Making Process (Local Committees) Great Valley Center R eg io n a l L ev e l R eg io n a l L ev e l R eg io n a l L ev e l R eg io n a l L ev e l Lo c a l L ev e l Lo c a l L ev e l Lo c a l L ev e l Lo c a l L ev e l Local OutreachAgricultureCommunity Environmental Groups/Agencies Environ ental roups/Agencies Building Community Economic Development General Public/Other Cultural Communities Disadvantagedi t Groups & LAFCO County Member Agencies Education Community Lo ca l L ev e l Lo ca l L ev e l Lo ca l L ev e l Lo ca l L ev e l *subject to change Source: Adapted from San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint Process. Figure B.1. Blueprint planning process.

The counties within the SJV also share data and modeling techniques to monitor the transportation system and to plan for a coordinated regional system. Part of the Blueprint fund- ing was directly used for GIS, land use modeling, and visual- ization technology to forecast where urbanization will be by 2050. The land use model, UPlan, developed by the Univer- sity of California at Davis (UC Davis), provided technical and data support to the COGs and local governments in this proj- ect. This information was coordinated across the different counties to produce megaregional models. An SJV Regional Modeling Group was initiated to update valleywide traffic and land use models and to coordinate GIS and other data. Local transportation planners met to evalu- ate modeling tools and select models. In 2006, the SJV Blue- print Model Steering Committee (MSC) and the Land Use Modeling User Group were formed, resource agencies were consulted, existing data was converted and harmonized, and regional models were developed. In March, 2007 the MSC hosted an environmental resource workshop featuring map- ping and modeling data from the eight COGs and UC Davis Information Center for the Environment that had been developed in support of the California Partnership. Since the inception of the Blueprint Process, the MSC and COG mod- elers have used UPlan to coordinate modeling efforts and have collected regional GIS data to help develop the valley- wide performance measures. All county-level scenarios in each Blueprint county planning process were analyzed using land use, traffic, and air quality models in order to compare the scenarios based on performance measures. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The California Partnership for SJV is composed of 10 work- ing groups, including the Transportation Working Group, which has adopted a 10-year Strategic Action Plan for the region. The mission of the Transportation Working Group is to “build innovative transportation systems to increase travel choices and improve mobility, regional and state goods movement, air quality, and economic prosperity” (California Partnership website). 71 Source: Merced County, http://www.sjvalleyblueprint.com/process.htm. Table B.6. Blueprint valleywide performance measures.

72 Figure B.2. Performance measure for regional Blueprint Summit. Figure B.3. Performance measure for regional Blueprint Summit. The eight SJV COGs are working with the GVC. The GVC, a nonprofit community development organization, acts as the regional facilitator for the valleywide portion of the Blue- print Process. The GVC also provides the headquarters for the Transportation Working Group of the California Part- nership and is helping facilitate the regional Blueprint Process. With the help of GVC, each COG has facilitated a dialogue to engage local communities in a visioning process that has been incorporated into a valleywide vision. The bottom-up approach is anticipated to encourage local decision makers to embrace and promote the regional vision. The California Partnership’s Working Groups developed the macrostrategies for the region; these strategies are being examined through the Blueprint plan- ning process. The SJV Air Pollution Control District also has been an active partner. The COGs also have worked closely with Caltrans and UC Davis on many technical activities. The UC Davis Information Center for the Environment has supported the California Partnership and has modeled scenarios and helped develop performance measures for the Blueprint Process. The SJV members have a history of working together on air quality issues because they are part of the same regional air quality basin. Modelers that have worked together across counties on air quality issues also have joined efforts to work on the Blue- print Process. These modeling partnerships have been a key fac- tor to the success of a common set of performance measures. The Blueprint Regional Advisory Committee is central to the entire Blueprint effort. The committee has several pur- poses: to make regional recommendations pertaining to the creation of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, act as a cham- pion of the final Blueprint vision, advocate its implementation with local jurisdictions, and promote the regional strategies at the state and federal levels. There also is a Blueprint Profes- sional SJV Professional Planners Group consisting of regional land use and other professional planners from each county that provided a regional framework to develop the guiding principles used in the community outreach and scenario planning process. An interregional/intraregional/local partner- ship called the Blueprint Learning Network helps coordinate shared data and learning experiences about the megaregional planning effort. The SJV Regional Policy Council, consisting of two elected officials from each COG, made the final Blue- print scenario recommendation based on county and regional planning sessions. Obstacles Challenges lie in maintaining the bottom-up approach of the Blueprint Process. The COGs have each engaged local jurisdictions and decision makers in the Blueprint Process, discussing a very challenging issue: local land use decision making. While local jurisdictions are often weary of regional

plans that have implications for local decision making, the bottom-up approach of the Blueprint Process has facilitated a collaborative process. In the implementation phase, region- wide plans will need to be analogous to the plans developed by each county through the Blueprint planning process or local jurisdictions could view the plan as top-down. In addition, making the connection between the measures in the Attainment Report and project funding decisions has been challenging. Intra-agency Scenario—Linking Planning and Operations at a State DOT Maryland DOT Transportation Trust Fund Agency Name: Maryland DOT (MDOT) Scale: Statewide Application: Flexible funding Description of the Program/Initiative The Maryland Transportation Trust Fund is unique in that it allows complete flexibility across modes in project prioriti- zation and selection. There is no required funding level for any given mode, thereby allowing the agency to select proj- ects based on their impact to the network, regardless of modal category. Each county annually provides DOT with its Priority Let- ters, outlining each jurisdiction’s top transportation prior- ities for state funding. These project requests are then vetted by the Secretary of MDOT, the Department’s Modal Administrators, and the Maryland Transportation Author- ity to determine which projects should be added to the Con- solidated Transportation Plan (CTP). Projects are selected based on their support of the objectives and goals set in Maryland’s Transportation Plan, LOS, safety, maintenance issues, how the projects may encourage economic develop- ment, availability of funding, and the input received from the public and local officials. The governor and secretary make the final decision about which projects to include in the CTP each year. Description of Systems-Level Effort The flexibility of the Maryland Transportation Trust Fund enables a systems-level perspective, on a statewide basis, for funding across all modes and jurisdictions. However, the state lacks a process to link quantitative measures systemati- cally to this process. Performance Measures MDOT tracks performance measures in its annual Attain- ment Report. However, these measures are not linked to proj- ect selection and funding. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions Maryland transportation officials support the importance of mode-neutral funding. By facilitating the bottom-up approach of the project recommendations, they involve the perspective of all levels of government. Obstacles Creating the connection between the measures in the Attainment Report and project funding decisions remains a challenge. Oregon Transportation Plan Agency Name: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Scale: Statewide Application: Multimodal Assessments/Interagency Planning Partnerships Description of the Program/Initiative The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is the State of Oregon’s long-range transportation plan. The OTP was orig- inally developed in 1992 and the most recent update was completed in 2004. The OTP provides a 20-year vision for the Oregon DOT, identifies transportation system needs across all transportation modes in the State, and provides an evalu- ation of the level and type of investment appropriate for transportation. Description of Systems-Level Effort This statewide effort looks at transportation system needs across all transportation modes. Of note was the focus on analyzing and modeling the impacts of transportation sys- tem operations investments relative to capacity investments. The OTP included a detailed needs analysis for system oper- ations, a white paper that identified the potential for oper- ations to improve system performance in Oregon, and an analysis of a future planning scenario called “Maximum Operations” which assumed future state funding would be put toward highway and transit operations. The state plan attempted to provide a balanced analysis of different invest- ment priorities—capacity expansion, operations, tolling—as 73

well as the impact of alternative future scenarios—land use change, declining revenue, and change in fuel prices. Performance Measures The OTP included a rigorous performance analysis of sev- eral plan scenarios. Measures examined how much individual performance measures were expected to increase or decrease for a scenario relative to a baseline scenario. Specific perfor- mance measures included • Average delay, • Travel time, • Transportation costs relative to income, • Employment and employment accessibility, • Average trip distance, • VMT per trip, • Total land consumption, • Land consumption relative to economic output, • Transit accessibility, and • Safety (crash) costs. Supporting Processes, Methods, and Conditions The OTP was developed by the Transportation Develop- ment Division (TDD) of the Oregon DOT but had substan- tial support from other divisions to estimate transportation system needs and analyze scenarios. For the “Maximum Operations” scenario, TDD and the ITS Office worked closely together to define and analyze the scenarios. The analysis for the OTP was generated primarily using the state travel demand forecasting model, which is a sophisticated planning tool that analyzes the relationship between trans- portation, land use, and the economy. Obstacles The OTP presents a high-level analysis that convincingly demonstrates that the Oregon DOT should invest more in transportation system operations at a statewide level. How- ever, translating that policy guidance into specific transporta- tion projects poses a challenge. 74