Incorporating ITS Into the Transportation Planning Process: An Integrated Planning Framework (ITS, M&O, Infrastructure) Practitioner's Guidebook (2002)

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.

II THE CHANGING CONTEXT OF PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING: FORCES LEADING TO INTEGRATED PLANNING This chapter provides the background on why a new framework for integrated planning is evolving and most important, why it is needed. Key Points of Chapter II • Emerging forces and issues are pushing public decision making and planning beyond the traditional focus of capital investments and towards integrated planning (build, maintain, operate, and manage). - Congestion & inability to expand capacity. - Increasing disruptions. - Changing public concerns and wants. - Private sector provision of services. • Relevant Concerns and the approach to take depend on the local context. - World I: Available capacity, unconnected, low density, stable. - World II: Congested, connected, built/dense, unstable. • New governmental requirements must also be met - ISTEA and ITS Program. - TEA –21 M&O Planning Factor. - TEA – 21 National ITS Architecture Conformity. • ITS is bridging the gap between operations and planning. It is fundamentally different from alternatives typically considered in traditional planning, ITS has attributes of both operational and major infrastructure projects. ITS maybe the catalyst for integrated planning. • All lead towards the evolving framework for integrated planning. Section II.A describes the many forces that are driving the mainstreaming of ITS and system management into transportation planning and decision making. These include new issues/concerns that have emerged as we enter the 21st century centered on increasing stress and demands on our transportation network, congestion and the growing impacts of disruptions. As new technologies are introduced throughout our world they are also shifting the wants and concerns of the public and its decision makers. People are demanding more reliable services, up to date information and rapid response in everything that effects their lives. New opportunities for private sector provision of transportation services and public- private partnerships must also be incorporated. Section II.B examines the contexts and conditions for Integrated Planning. The forces and trends pushing towards integration are not taking place everywhere with the same intensity. It is useful to think of each area of the country as being part of two worlds. In World I congestion may not yet be at break down levels and conditions relatively stable. While growth may be occurring there is still room for capacity expansion. Continuing to “connect” and/or maintain the system are often key concerns. In World II the system is for the most part complete and “connected”. When there are no breakdowns people can get where they want to go. However, there is little or no room for capacity expansion and the system is over congested at critical levels for large parts of the day. Small incidents or events can consequently cause major disruptions as their effects cascade through the network. The focus has, from necessity, become one of day-to-day management and operation of the transportation system. Each world has different demands for integrated planning and the mix of traditional and ITS M&O to solve its problems. Consequently, the approach a region or state may take depends on where it lies between the two. Section II.C highlights the growing governmental emphasis and requirements towards better management of the transportation system and including ITS as a potential solution. This includes early efforts of transportation system management (TSM), through ISTEA’s initiation of the ITS program and focus on efficient use of resources, to TEA-21’s M&O Planning Factor, and requirements for conformity to the National ITS Architecture. CHANGING CONTEXT II-1

Section II.D examines why ITS is fundamentally different from traditional transportation solutions making it difficult to integrate into existing planning/decision making processes. ITS combines attributes of both traditional operations and major transportation investments that have been the focus of transportation planning. ITS is operations oriented, yet has system wide impacts, has significant costs, takes time to implement, and needs coordination. It also has attributes not addressed by traditional planning. Consequently, integration requires the decision processes for both ITS and operations and transportation planning to evolve. This chapter ends with a review and transition assessment in Section II.E. II.A RE-ORIENTATION TO MATCH 21ST CENTURY ISSUES A principal reason that planning and ITS & M&O decision making need to come together is the environment and concerns within which transportation decisions are made have changed dramatically since the traditional planning process was developed 40 years ago. There is increasing recognition that “we cannot build our way out of congestion”. Revolutionary advances in communications and technology are having large impacts on how we live and travel from place to place. Our concept of a transportation agency’s role has changed – turning it from construction to service delivery. Both transportation planning and operations need to adapt accordingly to more effectively address the issues that transportation decision makers face today. Some of the more important issues are discussed below. Growing and Changing Transportation Demands Figure II-1 highlights that over the last 20 years capacity expansion has not kept up with growing demands leading to an overall stress of the system. The situation can only get worse. With growing economies, urban areas are facing continued rapid growth in travel over the next 20 or more years. Travel patterns are changing as well – suburb-to-suburb and off-peak travel are growing more rapidly than travel in general. It will be difficult to meet this demand with new infrastructure alone. Indeed, many transportation agencies acknowledge that there are limits to their ability to increase the capacity of the existing system because of: Figure II-1 Forces Towards Integrated Planning Source: C. Johnson, 2001 • Limited funding for capacity expansion • Lack of available rights-of- way, making capacity expansion more costly and disruptive • Environmental concerns and public opposition to some projects Those who recognize these constraints understand that transportation agencies must manage the existing system more effectively to squeeze as much mobility from it as possible. ITS provides some of the principal tools for this management through it’s ability to react to incidents and other events. Growing Impacts of Disruptions As congestion grows, the system is likely to become ever more congested, fragile, and subject to break down as incidents and other inevitable disruptions occur. These disruptions are now almost routine causing The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2001 Urban Mobility Report to conclude “ In general, more delay is caused by incidents than heavy traffic demand. The small and medium areas have a greater percentage of CHANGING CONTEXT II-2

total delay due to incidents than larger areas”(Schrank & Lomax, 2001). Based upon 68 urban areas across the country TTI reported that for 1999 incident delay made up 54% of all delay (52% in large urban regions and 60% in small areas). And this does not include the added disruptions caused by continuing reconstruction and maintenance activities associated with the aging infrastructure, severe weather, and/or special events. Another source estimated that up to 60% of congestion can be attributed to non-recurrent delays (Lindley 1986) and this percentage will grow as our transportation networks operate closer to break down conditions for longer periods of the day. Changing Concerns of Decision-Makers and the Public State and local governments are being charged with finding new ways to deliver services more efficiently, focusing more on outcomes and less on inputs and outputs. These efforts stem in part from the pressure of budget deficits, but more broadly from a desire to make government more effective. Meanwhile, with growing uncertainty about the future – in part a result of the technological revolution – there is a natural inclination to make small incremental changes to the existing system rather than massive, costly and disruptive investments in new infrastructure. Long-range plans become less relevant in this environment. Planners are charged with helping decision-makers reach informed short-term decisions while preserving options for the long-term. There is also growing interest in ensuring the safety and security of the transportation system. While capacity expansion is often justified in terms of safety improvements, there is a more immediate desire to make the system safer today, not years in the future. Likewise, concerns over security while always important, have become critical since the events of September 11, 2001. New Service Attributes Required The service orientation of the U.S. economy is raising customer expectations – both passenger and freight – for a broader range of performance and service options. As society moves further into the information age, instant knowledge of the system and its conditions is becoming expected. There is increasing evidence that travelers are willing to accept some level of congestion and delay, provided that this delay is reasonably predictable. This suggests the need to consider strategies that keep travelers informed, in real time, of how he system is performing at any given point in time. If such systems could be put in place, travelers will become less frustrated and more willing to accept the limits on the system. Private Sector Entry into Transportation Services Private industry is increasingly offering transportation-related products and services. These range from privately owned and operated facilities, to new technologies such as smart cards and in-vehicle information systems. These services and their impacts need to be incorporated into – and perhaps facilitated by – the transportation decision-making process. All of these issues point to the need to broaden the focus of traditional planning to integrate ITS and the management and operation of the system under all conditions. II.B CONTEXTS: CONDITIONS FOR INTEGRATED PLANNING The traditional planning process and structure evolved to address specific needs and concerns faced by transportation decision makers in the expansion of the Federal Highway System and other modes since the 1940’s: • Connect the U.S. in a continuous highway network from coast to coast, and • Meet the rapid growth and expansion of our cities since World War II. Over time, new concerns like air quality and land use have been grafted onto the process, yet the main purpose and function of the traditional planning process remains the same – the identification and prioritization of capital projects. There is a growing need to expand these purposes and functions to include ITS and the operation and management of the transportation system. This expansion is most CHANGING CONTEXT II-3

relevant to those parts of the country where demand continues to increase and the options for expansion are increasingly limited. It may be useful to think of the country as being comprised of two very different sets of conditions, which might be called “World I” and “World II” (see Figure II-2). World I refers to those parts of the country that are relatively stable from day to day. Connecting the system to improve the ability to get from one place to another is often of prime importance. When system expansion is needed, the required land for future rights-of-way is often available, and conflicts between the transportation system expansion and other public objectives can often be resolved relatively easily. Small towns and rural areas with stable system needs and low congestion, where preservation and maintenance of the infrastructure has become the primary focus, are considered to be World I environments. Some growth areas in the South and Southwest still may have many World I characteristics. Figure II-2: World 1 and World II Contexts In contrast, for World II environments the thrust of the decisions facing the transportation community has shifted away from infrastructure expansion and toward preservation and management. The transportation network is for the most part complete and connected. When there are no disruptions or system failures travelers can reach their destinations. However, congestion exists and system performance becomes unstable as increased demand for travel exceeds the system’s ability to expand. Expansion is difficult due to conflicts with the built environment surrounding the transportation system and competing community interests. Land for expansion also is at a premium. Efficient management and use of the system therefore becomes more and more important. Responding to non-recurrent conditions and correcting for breakdowns in performance start to dominate the concerns of the transportation community. As a consequence, the focus of the decision process also shifts to the short and mid-term. Since ITS is aimed changing the system to respond to unusual conditions and providing information to travelers about the changing conditions, it becomes an important potential component of the World II transportation system. CHANGING CONTEXT II-4

On the path from World I to World II, systems start to experience periods of breakdown and increased variability. Other characteristics also may warrant movement towards the an integrated approach and the use of ITS and system management as an integral part of the area’s transportation decisions. The need for information about the transportation system and its conditions may be high due to unfamiliar travelers, or vast distances within the network. High variability may also occur in the system due to incidents, accidents, and unusual weather. The impact of system variation is especially severe when the travel and routing options are limited. Not surprisingly, areas with World II characteristics are some of the pioneers in ITS and in adopting transportation decision processes that are taking on many of the properties of the Integrated Framework. These include: • Seattle and it's use of ITS • Houston and it's balance of Mobility improvements and incident management with long range system developments • Washington D.C.’s adoption of system management objectives in its vision planning; • The Chicago region’s inclusion of system operators in the MPO process. The decision environment and context may influence an area’s adoption of an integrated approach and transition from current practice. The transition should be an evolution of practice within each area to meet its needs. II.C THE GROWING GOVERNMENTAL EMPHASIS TOWARDS BETTER MANAGEMENT AND USE OF ITS (ISTEA AND TEA-21) Since the 1960s there has been a shifting Federal emphasis towards better management of the transportation system. It has grown from the early TOPICS (Traffic Operations Improvements to Increase Capacity and Safety) program in the 60’s to requirements for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop a Transportation System Management (TSM) element as part of their regional transportation plans in the 70’s (See Wiener, 1999). The trend continued through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991’s (ISTEA) establishment of the ITS program, congestion management systems and new planning factors. It has culminated in the Transportation The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its Management and Operations Planning Factor, and new requirements for conformity with the National ITS Architecture. This shift in emphasis has also led to requirements for incorporating the issues ITS and system management address into all of planning. Highlights from ISTEA and TEA-21 are briefly explained below. II.C.1 THE ISTEA ERA The push towards integrated decision making accelerated greatly under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). ISTEA established a national program “to research, develop, and operationally test intelligent vehicle-highway systems and promote implementation of such systems….” The program ($659 Million over 6 years) is now called the Intelligent Transportation Systems program to stress its multi-modal nature. Some of ISTEA’s other key features affecting planning and ITS – and the Federal response to those ISTEA provisions – include: • Strengthened Planning and introduction of new planning factors stressing system management. • Required Management Systems (later made voluntary) including a congestion management system (CMS). • Major Investment Studies including and their required comparisons with TSM alternatives. • Establishment of The US DOT ITS Joint Programs Office in 1994, to coordinate the ITS program within the different modes. The USDOT created the Joint Programs Office (JPO) to serve as the “principal architect and executor of ITS leadership”. CHANGING CONTEXT II-5

• Definition of the National ITS Architecture, completed in 1996, that provides a master blueprint for the development of an integrated multi-modal ITS infrastructure. The architecture provides a framework and identifies information flows to be considered when planning and implementing ITS. • Development of technical methods provided by significant research and development activities to produce the necessary tools for planning ITS including the ITS Evaluation Program, creation of the National ITS Cost & Benefit Database, and development of the ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) ITS evaluation software. During this time FHWA and FTA also provided grants to state and local governments for the development of early deployment plans (EDPs) to jump start ITS deployment and the initial planning of ITS systems. A five-step process tended to be followed for EDP development: 1) Data collection/survey 2) A User Services plan 3) ITS architecture 4) Strategic deployment plan 5) Recommendations Due to the dedicated funding for ITS, EDPs were typically done outside of the traditional planning process. A review of the EDP planning process stated (Smith, 1995): “The Early Deployment Program is a first step in the necessary planning for a well-integrated regional ITS. …It is also clear that planning for ITS as a stand-alone effort is of limited effectiveness. ITS planning should be integrated within the traditional regional transportation planning framework”. Consequently, as the ISTEA authorization period drew to a close, USDOT recommended that special funding for ITS be discontinued and that ITS be “mainstreamed” into the normal Federal aid program structure. II.C.2 TEA – 21 AND THE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS (M&O) PLANNING FACTOR The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted in 1998, continued and built upon the ITS programs from ISTEA while seeking to mainstream ITS into the normal Federal-aid programs. One of its most significant modifications is the stress it places on system management through the M&O Planning Factor. TEA –21 consolidated the issues that must be considered in transportation planning for Federal funding into seven broad factors (previously there were 16 metropolitan and 23 statewide planning factors). More importantly, it added and emphasized the management and operations factor: f) Promote efficient system management and operation Work is currently under way to develop rules and/or guidance to appropriate build in an M&O orientation into both the planning and project development process with the appropriate documentation to accommodate Federal oversight. At a minimum this continued emphasis on M&O shifts the emphasis in the planning process from long-range needs to a more balanced approach incorporating short-term and mid- term needs, and their decisions and impacts. Even as the guidance is being developed the US DOT is moving ahead in supporting the M&O planning factor. A new Operations Core Business Unit within FHWA was established in February 1999. The FHWA also established a dialog on operations and created a national steering committee to recommend actions needed for the new focus on operations to advance. In April 2000 the Institute of Transportation Engineers hosted the operations conference “Transportation Operations: Moving into the 21st Century” in Irvine California. The National Dialog for Operations Summit followed this in October 2001. More CHANGING CONTEXT II-6

information on the M&O activities can be found at the FHWA Operations website (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov) and at the Systems Management and Planning website (http://plan2op.fhwa.dot.gov). Based upon these actions there is a growing understanding of what consideration of the M&O planning factor in transportation planning means. Consequently, while the details of the final M&O guidance are still being developed the characteristics of a process which considers M&O can be highlighted and are: • Consideration of efficient operations and management of the transportation system in regional goals and objectives found at all levels of the process. • Expansion of the participants in the process to include those that operate the system and others interested in/impacted by the management and operations of the transportation network. These include the traffic and transit system operators, Emergency Service, and Police / Fire, and communications representatives, as well as the private service providers of ITS and other services. • Orientation towards service delivery and performance feedback as a central feature of the process. • Explicit definition of how the system operates in the short, medium, and long-range including the relationships between congestion and system performance and response to non-recurrent “events” such as accidents, weather conditions, or service disruptions. • Consideration of the full life cycle costs and benefits of each element of the transportation system including the costs of implementation, operations and maintenance/preservation. • Balance the near term management of the system and time stream of operations improvements with longer term capital investments and system expansion. ITS becomes a central element in the management and operation of the future transportation system since it provides for the identification of changing conditions (surveillance), communication (information), and response (control) as the conditions vary. The collection and analysis of ITS data also provides for the critical feedback from current operations to planning and the definition of the future system, its operations and performance. II.C.3 TEA –21 AND CONFORMITY WITH THE NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE TEA-21 also requires ITS projects funded with Highway Trust Fund dollars to conform to the National ITS Architecture and standards. Section 5206(e) of TEA-21 states “… the Secretary shall ensure that intelligent transportation system projects carried out using funds made available from the Highway Trust Fund, including funds made available under this subtitle to deploy intelligent transportation system technologies, conform to the national architecture, applicable standards or provisional standards, and protocols…” As the ITS Program moves into the deployment phase, major steps are being taken to facilitate national compatibility and interoperability. As discussed in Chapter IV the National ITS Architecture is a common framework for the design and implementation of ITS. The Architecture Conformity Policy aims to integrate these systems engineering tools (architecture and standards) with the transportation planning and project development processes. To implement this requirement USDOT first developed Interim Guidance, which was followed at the project level by the FHWA final rule and FTA final policy. II.C.3.1 Interim Guidance On Conformity to the National ITS Architecture Shortly after TEA - 21 was enacted the USDOT issued Interim Guidance Conformity to the National ITS Architecture (October 2, 1998) that was to remain in effect while a comprehensive final policy was developed. It included recommended practices and "guidance" at both the planning and project level. While the Final FHWA Rule and FTA Policy for project level conformity has superseded the Interim Guidance at that level as of June 2002 release of the final policy at the planning level remains on hold. Consequently, the Interim Guidance recommendations and suggested approach are described below for the insights they provide in what is "good practice" and what may be incorporated into the final planning level policy when it is released. CHANGING CONTEXT II-7

The Interim Guidance Section IV.B concerning “ITS Considerations in Transportation Planning” stated: “Statewide and metropolitan planning activities should include consideration of the efficient management and operation of the transportation system. This should include the regional implementation and integration of ITS services and development of a regional ITS architecture(s), as appropriate. Regional consideration of ITS should address (a) the integration of ITS systems and components, (b) inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders, (c) flexibility in tailoring ITS deployment and operations to local needs (d) electronic information sharing between stakeholders, and (e) future ITS expansion.” A recommended approach that laid the groundwork for the Final Policy ITS and Planning considerations was also provided as part of the Interim Guidance. It listed the following suggested activities intended to “encourage sound consideration of the operations and management of the transportation system, including the development of a regional ITS architecture and related efforts to advance ITS in a region”: • Engage a broad range of stakeholders • Identify needs that can be addressed by ITS • Describe existing and planned ITS enhancements • Define a regional ITS architecture • Define operating requirements • Coordinate with planned improvements • Develop phasing schedule • Develop regional technology agreements • Identify ITS projects for incorporation into transportation planning products Note, that the above defined “ITS planning” activities presume ITS solutions are the outcome. It does not place ITS in the larger planning context to examine the tradeoffs between ITS and other strategies or the development of integrated alternatives. II.C.3.2 Final Policy on Conformity to the National ITS Architecture On January 8, 2001 the Federal Highway Administration published its Final Rule on “Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards,” in the Federal Register. The equivalent Federal Transit Administration (FTA) "National ITS Architecture Policy on Transit Projects" was also published. Both the Policy and Rule became effective on April 8, 2001. The new Rule and Policy contain provisions that help to foster integrated ITS deployment locally by requiring the development of regional ITS architectures. During a regional architecture's development, agencies that own and operate transportation systems cooperatively consider current and future needs to ensure that today's processes and projects are compatible with one another and with future ITS projects. The new Policy and Rule also require the use of a systems engineering analysis for ITS projects. The Policy directs that: • Regions currently implementing/operating ITS projects must have a regional ITS architecture in place in four years. Regions not currently implementing ITS projects must develop a regional ITS architecture within four years from the date their first ITS project advances to final design. • ITS projects funded by the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account must conform to a regional ITS Architecture. • Prior to the adoption of a regional ITS architecture “Major ITS Projects” not in Final Design by April 8, 2001 must include the development of a project level architecture that clearly reflects consistency with the National ITS Architecture. • All ITS Projects not in Final Design by April 8, 2001 must be based upon a Systems Engineering Analysis on a scale commensurate with the project’s scope and use USDOT adopted ITS CHANGING CONTEXT II-8

standards as appropriate (To date the U.S. DOT has not adopted any ITS standards. A formal rule making process will precede any such action.). • No specific documentation is required. However, regions must be able to demonstrate compliance, account for Architecture maintenance and updating, and coordinate with Federal field offices. • Monitoring compliance with the Policy will be in accordance with existing FHWA/FTA oversight procedures used for all projects. Several important definitions and concepts (bold above) are also part of the Rule/Policy. Their definitions are provided below. They are (FHWA and FTA, January 2001): ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems): “Electronics, communications or information processing used singly or in combination to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system”. ITS Project: “Any project that in whole or in part funds the acquisition of technologies or systems of technologies that provide or significantly contribute to the provision of one or more ITS User Services as defined in the National ITS Architecture”. Region: “The geographical area that identifies the boundaries of the regional ITS architecture and is defined by and based on the needs of the participating agencies and other stakeholders. A region can be specified at a metropolitan, Statewide, or corridor level. In metropolitan areas, a region should be no less than the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area”. Regional ITS Architecture: “A regional framework for ensuring institutional agreement and technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects or groups of projects”. A regional ITS architecture shall include at a minimum: • Description of the region • Identification of the participating agencies and stakeholders • An operational concept that identifies roles and responsibilities of stakeholders • Any agreements required for operations • System functional requirements (high level) • Interface requirements and information exchanges with planned and existing systems and subsystems • Identification of ITS standards supporting regional and national interoperability • Sequence of projects required for implementation A process and roles/responsibilities for maintaining the regional ITS architecture once it is developed must also be established. Systems Engineering Analysis: “A structured process for arriving at a final design of a system”. It evaluates a number of alternatives to meet the design objectives considering total life-cycle costs, technical merit, and relative value of each. A systems engineering analysis for ITS shall be on a scale commensurate with the project scope and at minimum shall include: • How the project fits into the regional ITS architecture (or applicable portions of the National ITS Architecture) • Identification of roles and responsibilities of participating agencies • Requirements definition • Analysis of alternative system configurations and technology options • Procurement options • Identification of applicable ITS standards and testing procedures • Procedures and resources necessary for operations and management of the system Major ITS Project: “Any ITS project that implements part of a regional ITS initiative that is multi- jurisdictional, multi-modal, or otherwise affects regional integration of ITS systems”. As stated above, prior to the adoption of a regional ITS architecture all Major ITS Projects must include a Project ITS Architecture. CHANGING CONTEXT II-9

Project ITS Architecture: “A framework that identifies the institutional agreement and technical integration necessary to interface a major ITS project with other ITS projects and systems”. The project level ITS architecture needs to be based on results of the systems engineering analysis, and should include at a minimum: • A description of the scope of the ITS project • An operational concept that identifies the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies and stakeholders in the operation and implementation of the ITS project • Functional requirements of the ITS project • Interface requirements and information exchanges between the ITS project and other planned and existing systems and subsystems • Identification of applicable ITS standards The Rule/Policy also states “Development of the regional ITS architecture should be consistent with the transportation planning process for Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning (49 CFR Part 613 and 621)”. Originally, as part of the proposed revisions to the Transportation Planning Regulations the USDOT proposed another requirement to implement ITS architecture conformity, the development of a planning level ITS Integration Strategy. The Planning rule is proceeding on a different schedule and the specifics of its requirements, including the development of an integration strategy, will be available when it is published. In any case all regional and project level ITS architectures must be consistent and included in the appropriate Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs, and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs as is currently required under existing regulations. As stated the Interim Guidance provides valuable insights on what should be considered and what may be included in the final planning level policy once it is released. Additional general information concerning the Policy/Rule can be found on the ITS Architecture Conformity website at: www.its.dot.gov/aconform/aconform.html. II.D ITS IS BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN OPERATIONS AND PLANNING Understandably, there has traditionally been a gap between the operations and planning worlds. Each focused on different decisions with different time frames, decision and funding processes, goals and criteria, and scale of impacts. ITS has attributes of both and consequently provides a bridge between the two. As a result, developing and implementing ITS can become the catalyst for integrated planning. However, ITS also has different features from transportation options considered in either traditional operations or traditional planning. Most important of these is the abilities that ITS enables to actively manage the transportation system in response to changing conditions. Consequently, integrating ITS cannot simply be done by connecting two parallel processes. Each process must be redefined and evolve so that a merger can occur. The gap between operations and planning occurs along a number of dimensions including temporal, geographic scale, and budgeting/funding. Table II-1 and Figure II-3 highlight a number of these contrasts. Traditional Operations issues/decisions are quick to implement (within a budget cycle), relatively low cost (within annual operating and maintenance budgets), are usually independent with only localized impacts, passive (signage, fixed signal timing, printed transit schedules), and assume the transportation system infrastructure is constant. They have been procedure oriented aimed at operating the most efficient system in response to current conditions. CHANGING CONTEXT II-10

Figure II-3 Traditional Operations and Planning versus ITS and System Management Table II-1 Contrasts between Traditional Planning and ITS and System Management Traditional Planning ITS and Systems Management Orientation • Major capital facility – “build” • New capacity/service expansion • Addresses recurrent or average conditions • Focus on capacity, level of service, and safety • Systems operation and service provision – “do” • Efficient management and operation • Response to variation in conditions • Focus on reliability, security, incident response Temporal • Problems of tomorrow • Forecast-driven • Long-term, multi-year implementation • One time decisions • Static once in place • Fixed, predictable technology and characteristics • Problems of today • Response to current conditions • Short-term, immediate implementation • Continuous, incremental decisions • System evolves through feedback • Rapidly changing technology and characteristics Costs/Funding • Medium/high capital costs • Low/medium operating costs • Federal-aid context and requirements • Low/medium capital costs • Major life-cycle operating costs • Often implemented with non-Federal funds Providers • Public agency • Construction industry • Public and private partnerships • High tech. Industry Other Attributes • Stand alone projects • Separable • Facility based • Low/medium technology • Visible and permanent • Piggy back on other projects • Connected through communications • System based • Advanced technology • Often hard to see CHANGING CONTEXT II-11

On the other hand, transportation planning decisions have been focused on expanding and modifying the facilities and services to meet long-term system performance/needs under average conditions and have been mostly project oriented. The resultant projects typically assume the system will continue to operate as it does currently, are very costly with regional impacts both geographically and to the transportation system’s operations, and take years to plan and implement. The planning process traditionally has been focused on meeting Federal funding requirements and other regulations (CMS, TIP, LRP, NEPA, and air quality conformity). Consequently, planning and operations decisions have been carried out in their own worlds with different perspectives, staff, policy makers, support organizations and time horizons. ITS has characteristics of both traditional roles (operations and planning). ITS is both operations oriented and aimed at managing the overall system. It usually takes several budget cycles to implement and may be too expensive to fund through traditional operating budgets. It requires coordination and is not independent or separable. It may need to cross political and other jurisdictional boundaries to be effective. It begins to have “regionally significant” impacts. Good system planning and coordination is therefore important to successful ITS implementation. ITS by its very nature is also active, with real-time feedback between performance measurement and operational/management decisions. Thus, planning for ITS impacts both operations and planning decisions and must be included in both. ITS, however, is also very different from the options considered in traditional planning. Traditional solutions to transportation problems and the analyses that support them have tended to focus on long-term facility/service improvements to meet capacity constraints arising during a typical day. Because they focus on the peak congestion conditions and major infrastructure investments these solutions and analyses have typically minimized, or not addressed: • The impact of operational strategies and improvements. Current operations are usually assumed. • The impact of non-recurrent demands, incidents, or other unusual occurrences. Major facilities are usually not designed to accommodate unusual demands, or events. Analyses focus on meeting average conditions. • Lack of information about the system, its current condition and the choices a traveler may have in making their trip. Traditional analyses assume equilibrium conditions where travelers fully know their choices, their travel times, costs, and other characteristics. As already pointed out, non-recurrent accidents and other incidents are major contributors to urban congestion. Not including these effects in an analysis can consequently distort the impacts of traditional alternatives and overlook the benefits of ITS. In contrast, ITS strategies use technology, communications, and a “systems” perspective to help adjust the system to conditions as they are realized on a day-to-day basis or evolve over a longer time frame. They focus on responding to changing conditions and thus become the “infrastructure” of the system management and operations. ITS Strategies are: • Operations Oriented. ITS strategies such as coordinated signal systems, ramp meters, and automated toll readers directly impact the operation of the transportation system by reducing delays and adjusting the performance of the system as conditions change. They also provide the ability to manage the multi-modal components as a system instead of separate units. Traditional planning analysis efforts typically assume a steady state set of conditions over the analysis period and are consequently insensitive to changes in operations. • Aimed at Events and Unusual Conditions. Non-recurrent incidents, special events, and weather conditions all add up to become significant factors in the delay and congestion found in our transportation systems. ITS strategies such as incident and emergency management systems, route guidance, highway advisory radio, and variable message signs, all help the system respond to these non-recurrent conditions. Yet, a typical analysis does not include incident occurrences in its validation of base conditions, and is based upon average, expected, conditions under “normal” conditions (i.e. no accidents, bad weather, or unusual conditions). It consequently cannot address the impact of incidents on the system or an alternative’s ability to respond to them. CHANGING CONTEXT II-12

• Information Oriented. ITS strategies focus on reducing the difference between a traveler’s expectations of the transportation network while they are traveling (congestion, delay, and cost along each route choice) and the actual conditions they will experience when they take their trip. As travelers and the system operators have better, more up-to-date information, significant improvements to an individual’s choice can occur, especially under unusual circumstances. Typical analysis techniques presume that over the long run, travelers will “know” their options and make “informed” choices. • Connected Systems. ITS services are a mixture of localized elements and area-wide systems/intelligence. As communications and system intelligence/response is introduced through ITS, individual ITS elements no longer function or can be analyzed independently. Thus, the metered rate (capacity) of a ramp meter may depend upon the traffic volumes at downstream locations along a freeway, sometimes miles away. Each of these characteristics makes ITS strategies difficult to address using traditional transportation planning and programming processes and analysis methods. Because integrated ITS systems also depend upon communications and protocols to function the development of ITS must be closely coordinated if it is to work at all. Insuring that the components communicate with one another and function properly is the role of “systems engineering” and creates the need for a system “Architecture” when implementing ITS. Thus, ITS creates a need for integrated planning and at the same time cannot simply be incorporated into traditional approaches. Decision making for operations, ITS, and traditional planning all need to evolve to achieve an integrated approach. II.E CHAPTER REVIEW AND TRANSITION ASSESSMENT This chapter describes the forces that are leading towards mainstreaming ITS & M&O into transportation decision making or integrated planning. These include the emerging issues and trends of the 21st century that today’s decision makers must contend and the parallel governmental emphasis on ITS & M&O in through changing policies and regulations. The principal forces are: • Increasing and changing travel demand and the inability to expand capacity to meet it leading to severe congestion and increased failures with the transportation system. • Increasing number and the resultant impacts of disruptions as the system operates on the verge of breakdown conditions for longer periods each day. • Changing concerns of the public and its decision makers especially concerning safety, security and reliability. • The introduction of new technologies in our society leading to new expectations for service delivery and it’s options. People are starting to expect 24 hour up-to-date information, just in time delivery, and increased reliability in all areas of life. • New opportunities for private sector provision and/or partnerships for transportation service and their associated risks. The shift in governmental emphasis towards inclusion of ITS & M&O has been occurring since the early 1960’s. Significant highlights include: • The TOPICS program and TSM requirements of the 1960’s and 1970’s • ISTEA’s: strengthened planning requirements emphasizing efficient system management; Major Investment Study requirements to examine TSM options; and creation of the ITS Program and subsequent ITS Joint Program Office, • The creation of new tools to assist in the deployment of ITS including the National ITS Architecture, the ITS cost and benefits database, and the IDAS sketch planning evaluation tool. • The TEA-21 M&O Planning Factor • The TEA-21 requirement for Conformity to the National ITS Architecture. However, these forces are not occurring everywhere at the same rate or intensity. Consequently, the demand to re-orient completely towards system management and operations depends on the local situation and applicable governmental requirements. It is useful to recall two sets of conditions or “worlds”: CHANGING CONTEXT II-13

• World I: Has available or extra capacity, available land for capacity expansion, low density, and is relatively stable from day to day. Much of the system is also unconnected and the focus of transportation decision-making is largely on building the missing segments. Rapid growth may also be occurring. • World II: Already built environment with a connected transportation network. Inability to expand capacity due to lack of land, resources, or public resistance. Existing and increasing congestion throughout the day leading to system failures and increased disruptions (unstable conditions). Increasing needs for asset management and system replacement or maintenance. As discussed throughout the rest of this Guidebook, where a region or state lies between these two worlds helps determine the most appropriate: concerns to address; participants in the process; institutional and organizational structures; and mix of ITS, M&O, and traditional transportation improvements to implement and operate. Consequently, Table II-2 provides questions for self-assessment to determine where your area is between the two worlds. Mark where you think your area’s relative position is for each question. Likewise, the need to meet the Federal requirements for Conformity with the National ITS Architecture may also play a significant role in how quickly ITS and M&O must be mainstreamed into the local planning and decision making and the organizations/institutions, stakeholders and process to do so. Therefore, a self-assessment for the National ITS Architecture Conformity requirements is provided in Table II-3. How to meet the above requirements and integrate ITS & M&O into the overall planning and decision making of an area based on your answers to the questions in these tables is the subject of the rest of this Guidebook. CHANGING CONTEXT II-14

Table II-2 Context For Integrated Planning: World I/World II Self-Assessment Question World I World II Are congestion and transit overloading a serious problem in your area causing extended peak periods, peak hour factors close to 1.0 and significant delays ? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Do accidents and other incidents that cause cascading impacts over large portions of the transportation system occur frequently (daily)? Do the effects remain long after the incident is cleared? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Do customers (travelers) complain frequently about unusual delays, or missed connections due to irregular service ? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Is the area already built and densely populated with little or no room for additional road or transit right of way and expansion? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Has there been significant opposition to transportation projects in the recent past? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Is the transportation system complete and connected? Do the facilities exist for travelers to get to where they would like to go without significant diversion? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Is the transportation system (roads, bridges, transit vehicles and facilities) in poor condition requiring an ever increasing portion of the transportation resources to maintain? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Does the area have air quality or other environmental problems? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES Is the region experiencing rapid increases in travel (trips and VMT) due to population and employment growth and starting to experience congestion on some facilities? NO - - - - - - - - - - YES CHANGING CONTEXT II-15

Table II-3 Applicability of National ITS Architecture Conformity Requirements Self-Assessment Question NO YES Are the National ITS Architecture Conformity Requirements Applicable ? Is the area currently operating or planning to implement ITS? NO - - - - - - - - YES Were any of the existing ITS systems implemented after June 9, 1998? NO - - - - - - - - YES Do planned ITS projects use funds from the U.S. Highway Trust Fund? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are any “Major ITS” projects (multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional, multi- agency) planned for implementation? NO - - - - - - - - YES If The Requirements Are Applicable? (Yes to any of the above questions) Are the area’s ITS systems included in and consistent with the appropriate Long-range Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs (both Metropolitan and Statewide)? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have a wide range of stakeholders including all ITS operators and major users participated in the development of the area’s ITS plans? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have the major information sharing requirements between stakeholders been identified? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have the needs for future ITS expansion been identified? NO - - - - - - - - YES Does a Regional ITS Architecture exist, or is one being developed? NO - - - - - - - - YES Has a region for the regional ITS architecture been defined which encompasses the boundaries of it’s major ITS systems? NO - - - - - - - - YES Does the development and continued maintenance of the regional ITS architecture include the required participating agencies and stakeholders? NO - - - - - - - - YES Has an operational concept been defined that identifies the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders to implement, operate, and maintain the ITS system? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have the other required components of a regional ITS architecture been developed? (system functional and interface requirements, standards, phasing) NO - - - - - - - - YES Are agreements in place that ensure that the ITS system can be operated and maintained? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have the roles and responsibilities for maintaining and updating the regional ITS architecture been established? NO - - - - - - - - YES Mark the relative position of your area’s advancement. CHANGING CONTEXT II-16