Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (2012)

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.

Table A.1. U.S. Institutional Arrangements Compared with England and Australia International Differences Institutional Issues Related to Preconditions for Effective United States England Congestion Management (Typical Large State DOT) The Highways Agency (HA) Australia A P P E N D I X A U.S. Institutional Arrangements Compared with England and Australia 71 Accommodation in strategy portfolio • Overall priority/visibility in DOT program • Contact with/support of rel- evant external stakeholders • Key strategies employed Integration: How operations are budgeted and planned in context of other programs (construction, maintenance) • Not highest priority—even in congested states • Not discussed with legislature • No direct reporting, accounta- bility to legislature or public • Different strategy mixes among states • Practice varies widely among states—urban and rural • Operations not in formal planning or budgeting process at state level; rarely at regional level (via MPOs) • No line item in state budget for operations • Functional divisions do not include operations at first level—stovepiping • Congestion management is given high priority • HA has a Network Opera- tions division covering traffic operations and network strategy • Single strategy for Strategic Road Network • Performance measures relat- ing to journey time reliability, maintenance standards, and response times • Operations (on road and control room) included in planning and budgeting process at national level for the next four years • HA and police roles clearly set out following review in 2003 • Traffic Management Act requires highway authorities to work together to secure the expeditious movement of traffic • Congestion management is becoming more impor- tant, but priority is still given to providing new highway infrastructure • Congestion management is responsibility of state and/or local government • Different strategies among the states • Privately owned toll roads are operated by the concessionaire • Performance measures tend to focus on reducing accidents rather than improving journey time reli- ability or congestion • Operations is not listed separately in most state budgets • Queensland identifies opera- tions as 2% of total high- ways budget (continued on next page) P la n

• Most states have a traffic management center. Some are joint ventures with city councils—e.g., Queensland and Brisbane. • Some states, including New South Wales (NSW), Queensland, and Western Australia, have recently set up on-road patrols • Federal ITS framework architecture to allow devel- opment of local projects while ensuring interoper- ability • Level of resourcing and functionality varies between states and within states. Brisbane Traffic Response Units have target response time of 10 min; there is a lower level of patrol outside of the city. Sydney has 10 traffic commanders on patrol 24/7, with reduced resources elsewhere in NSW. Western Australia only patrols between 06:00 and 18:30. • Emergency services have incident command • Incident response units support and provide infor- mation to traffic manage- ment center • Formal relationship with police. In some cases (e.g., NSW), officers are perma- nently based in the traffic management center. • Targets tend to focus on improving safety but only on maintaining the status quo with regard to conges- tion and journey time relia- bility • Focus tends to be on pro- viding new infrastructure 72 Systems engineering technical capacity • Organizational structure • Allocation of responsibilities between central office and regions Regional, situational awareness Sustainability and transparency of budget for congestion management Interagency cooperation • Operational; management and coordination; agency cultures and priorities • Formality of relationships Coordinated execution Performance focus via use of objective-related perfor- mance measures • DOT regions quite indepen- dent in program development • Lack of availability of trained technical and management staff • Police and fire have incident command by law but different priorities form DOTs • DOTs support and communicate • Some outsourcing of TMCs, SSP, ITS maintenance • Relationship with public safety agencies subsidiary and informal • Cultures of law enforcement not interested in traffic • Performance measures limited to outputs, not outcomes • Operations is a key part of Highway Agency’s work • HA directly employs and trains traffic officers and con- trol room operators • Regional structure based around seven regional control centers • National Traffic Control Cen- tre provides traffic information and strategic diversion rout- ing on a national basis • HA is at forefront in using ITS to deal with recurrent con- gestion • National standards for tech- nology on motorways and trunk roads • Adequate resources for motorway network • HA is looking into diverting some existing resources onto trunk road network • HA is taking on vehicle recov- ery role for broken down vehicles on trunk road net- work • Incidents are generally led by HA • Police have different priorities than HA and only take lead for injury accidents and sus- pected criminality • Roles and responsibilities of HA and police are formally agreed upon • Highway infrastructure and ITS maintenance is outsourced • Formal relationship between HA, police, and other emer- gency services • HA is measured on safety and journey time reliability • Culture of continuous improvement Table A.1. U.S. Institutional Arrangements Compared with England and Australia (continued) International Differences Institutional Issues Related to Preconditions for Effective United States England Congestion Management (Typical Large State DOT) The Highways Agency (HA) Australia Im p le m en t O p er at e (continued on next page)

73 • Federal government funds maintenance of AusLink roads. Some states claim they receive too little to properly maintain aging assets. • ITS maintenance is not sep- arately identified in budgets • Privately owned toll facili- ties maintain their own equipment ITS asset management • ITS assets undermaintained (lack line-item budget) • Asset management is included in planning and budgeting process • ITS maintenance is out- sourced • Database of all ITS assets, including age and condition Table A.1. U.S. Institutional Arrangements Compared with England and Australia (continued) International Differences Institutional Issues Related to Preconditions for Effective United States England Congestion Management (Typical Large State DOT) The Highways Agency (HA) Australia M ai nt ai n