National Academies Press: OpenBook

Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (2012)

Chapter: Appendix C - AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM) Questionnaire

« Previous: Appendix B - State DOT Process and Institutional Interviews
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM) Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM) Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM) Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM) Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 79

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.

76 A P P E N D I X C AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM) Questionnaire Structure of DOT Provide numerical answers • Number of districts • Number of major metro districts • Use of operations unit incorporating more than one district (sometimes called regions) • Number of districts/regions with TMCs Legacy Culture and Degree of “Mainstreaming” of Systems Operations Mark with Mark with “X” Managed “X” Integrated Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: The potential service value (leverage) of operations is not widely appreciated in the DOT at senior management level. The value of operations is widely understood in the DOT. Operations is not yet explicitly identified in standard public DOT policy documents as a major DOT mission. DOT committed in DOT policy/plan documents to operations as equally important as construction, safety, and maintenance. DOT and MPO planners have little or no contact with DOT systems operations staff. Systems Operations and Management (or congestion management) is directly addressed as a need and strategy in the DOT’s long-range plan. There is some kind of a performance dashboard, but level of service changes (not just volumes) from month to month are not reported. There is a dashboard and Operations performance reported as outcomes (reductions in delay due to operations).

77 Leadership—In Central Office and Districts Mark with Mark with “X” Managed “X” Integrated Comments: Comments: Comments: Resource Allocation Process Mark with Mark with “X” Managed “X” Integrated Comments: Comments: Organizational Structure Mark with Mark with “X” Managed “X” Integrated Comments: Comments: There is no real champion of ITS and operations in Central Office (at either the CEO or first tier division head level). What tier (indicate below)? The CEO is a champion of ITS and operations at the top management level, as evidenced in public statements and memos to staff. District Administrators/Engineers are not champions for Operations, nor are they accountable to the Central Office regarding systems performance. District Engineers held accountable for improving Operations program in reporting to CEO. DOT Central Office relationships with public safety community are informal—on a personal basis. DOT has obtained clear legislative authority for incident- related Move It and Quick Clearance—and DOT vehicles are authorized as emergency vehicles (can use shoulders, light). Funding is ad hoc and unpredictable. There is no statewide budget and funds are allocated largely at the individual district level from capital and maintenance funds. ITS/Operations have a separate line item multiyear budget (at least for some activities) that is part of the normal agency budgeting process. Lack of funds is a major constraint to improving program as planned. Staffing is the major constraint to improving/expanding program as planned. Highest-level Central Office manager with 100% SO&M responsibility is two or three levels down from the CEO. Highest-level manager with 100% responsibility for Operations reports directly to CEO or chief engineer. Maintenance and Systems Operations are under single management at the highest or second-highest level in the Central Office and Districts. Maintenance and Systems Operations are under separate management at the highest or second-highest level in the Central Office and Districts.

78 Comments: Comments: Comments: Program/Project Development Processes Mark with Mark with “X” Managed “X” Integrated Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: Within both Central Office and Districts, ITS, Operations, and Traffic Engineering are all separate responsibilities. Within the Central Office, ITS, Operations, and Traffic Engineering have been consolidated into “Systems Operations.” Systems Operations for incidents, traveler information, and local emergencies are divided between various units within each highway district. Systems Operations for incidents, traveler information, and local emergencies are all handled in a TMC (where they exist). Technical expertise rests principally in a few individual champions. Core capacities have been identified in a document. Job specs, training, and certification exist for key operations positions at Central Office and Districts. Individual projects at both District and Central Office lev- els are developed on an ad hoc basis by individual heroes. A standard project development process for Systems Operations projects has been developed and is used for all major projects. Operational concepts, procedures, and protocols for incident management, traveler information, and freeway operations are not documented at the District level or standardized by Central Office. Documented, formal operational concepts exist for all the Operations activities. Districts do their own thing regarding selection of technology. Technology for key systems platforms has been standardized statewide. There is no statewide (business) plan for operations at the statewide level that indicates specific strategies to be developed (resources, staging). There is an up-to-date document describing the statewide operations program—a statewide Systems Operations plan. For Operations activities such as incident management, some output data (number, type, duration) are collected. For Operations activities such as incident management, some outcome measures (changes in delay) are measured and used for improving procedures.

Partnerships (public service agencies, local government, private sector) Mark with Mark with “X” Managed “X” Integrated Comments: Comments: DOT has informal working relationships with police and fire entities—principally at the District level—regarding incident management (not written). DOT has formal co-training, written agreements with police and fire entities regarding basic incident management procedures and targets. TMC operations and safety service patrol are performed by agency personnel. DOT is in its second/third generation of outsourcing some Operations functions (TMC, SSP) and has evolved a performance-based contract. 79

Next: Appendix D - Examples of Regional Operations Collaboration »
Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-L06-RR-1: Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management examines a large number of topics concerning organizational and institutional approaches that might help transportation agencies enhance highway operations and travel time reliability.

The same project that produced SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1 also produced SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-2: Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management.

An e-book version of this report is available for purchase at Google, iTunes, and Amazon.

An article on SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1 was published in the January-February 2013 issue of the TR News.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!