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.

III AN INTEGRATED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK Planning is a process that leads to decisions – decisions on what facilities to build, on what services to provide, and on how the facilities and services should be operated. This Chapter offers a new planning and decision-making framework that integrates decision-making for facilities and services with decision-making for ITS, system management, and operations. Key Points of Chapter III • Desired properties of an Integrated system include: - Single process. - Balanced treatment of near and far term decisions. - Performance based feedback. - Account for system orientation of ITS. - Be incremental. - Include consideration of technological change and public-private roles. • New focus on near-term problems and systems management - A path of development is created through incremental cycles of planning (short, mid, long). - Both operational and long-range goals, objectives, and concepts/principles included in all time frames. - System performance is continually assessed through feedback. • New elements for an integrated alternative - ITS infrastructure and services. - Regional ITS Architecture. - Concept of Operations. - Operating principals/concepts/ and characteristics. • Integrated functions and activities merge operations and planning. - Institutional/organizational change captured in “Concept of Planning”. - There is no one way to organize. - Must include new stakeholders and relationships including the public sector. - Technical activities are similar to traditional planning but now include operational characteristics. • Can meet current Federal and other governmental planning requirements within the Integrated Framework. Section III.A provides desired characteristics for an integrated process. An integrated process should: • Be a single process (ITS, M&O, System Preservation, and capital expansion) • Be Balanced (near term management and long-term infrastructure needs and improvements) • Be performance based (both average and unusual conditions) • Account for continual performance feedback • Account for the system orientation of ITS • Be incremental (time stream of actions and their impacts, life cycle, and development cycles of all transportation decisions) • Address rapid technological development and penetration • Address the public/private roles in provision of ITS services • Meet all Federal and other governmental requirements. Section III.B describes a new Integrated Framework designed around the above characteristics. It provides a single process for determining current and future capital facility needs, ITS and system management solutions, operations, and maintenance. This contrasts with more traditional approaches that use separate processes because capital facilities, ITS, and/or operations each relied upon different funding different sources; or because they require planning for different time horizons. The Framework is a natural extension of current practice as it evolves to meet emerging concerns and include ITS, system management and operations in its decisions. It changes planning and decision-making in three key ways: FRAMEWORK III-1

1. New orientation of planning/decision making on the management of the existing transportation system and its problems in the near-term using existing resources first, then on mid and long-term concerns. The new orientation results in a new incremental process and the “cycles of planning” shown in Figure III-1. Features of the iterative process shown include: • The process focuses first on the problems of today and managing, preserving, and operating the existing system and its assets. • System performance is continually assessed against goals objectives and criteria. How the system is operated and future plans are adjusted accordingly through “feedback”. • It is resource driven and aims at solving as many problems as possible based upon the resources available for each cycle (time frame). The costs associated with operating and maintaining the system and problems that can’t be solved in one cycle are carried forward to the next time frame and set of decisions. • It provides a bridge between operations and planning across all time frames. Long-range planning sets goals and objectives for the short and mid-range periods within which they operate and plan. Similarly, Operational goals and objectives are carried forward to the mid and long-range time frame and adjustments made to assumptions on how the system will be operated and how it will perform. • It produces a “path of development”, or the time stream of all actions needed to implement, operate, and maintain the transportation system from now and into the future for each alternative. The horizon year system is not only identified, but also shows how that system will evolve and function during the intervening years. It allows the costs and benefits of short and long-range options to be compared, and financial feasibility to be evaluated. Figure III-1 Near to Far Focus and Cycles in the Integrated Framework FRAMEWORK III-2

2. Incorporation of the new elements needed for integrated alternatives that Include capital facilities, traditional transportation services, ITS and system management, and operations. ITS brings new system, infrastructure, and communication/info-structure requirements to decision making that must be included in the system inventory and definition of each alternative within the integrated process. Because ITS can also change how the system operates and functions, the operating assumptions and characteristics at each point in time must now be explicitly addressed. The new elements include: • ITS and communications infrastructure (facilities, equipment, hardware, and software) • ITS and operations services (information systems, fare cards, etc.) • Regional ITS Architecture • Concept Of Operations on how the system operates and who is responsible for what • Operating principles and relationships (including predictions on how system performance will change due future technologies and their penetration) 3. Evolution of planning and operations decision making relationships, activities, and functions into to a single integrated process. Bringing planning, ITS and system management, and operations together will also cause institutions/organizations, their relationships, and the activities and functions they carry out to change and evolve. Pioneering areas around the country are already forging new lines of communication, partnership, and joint activities/functions between operations and planning. The activities and functions of the integrated approach that is emerging are: • Institutional/Organizational – Identify New Stakeholders. Expand to include operating agencies and their customers (ITS, Transit, Public Safety). – Redefine Institutional Relationships. Overcome departmental, funding, and other barriers to implementing, operating, and maintaining an integrated system. – Determine Public/Private Roles. The type of service, and who will use it may vary greatly depending on who provides it. Consequently, the role the private sector should play in both planning and providing transportation services must be addressed. – Determine How to Organize to Support ITS and M&O. The appropriate way to organize to carry out the ITS and M&O functions within the Integrated Framework depends on the local context. – Develop “Concept of Planning”. The Concept of Planning describes how the roles and responsibilities for planning/decision making evolves along with changes in the system and other conditions. • Technical – Identification of Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Measures. Expand to include emerging issues of congestion, reliability, safety, security, etc. – Needs/Deficiency Analysis. Include an extended inventory, operational issues, and causal analysis. – Integrated Alternative Definition. Include new components, and the path of development. – Estimating Impacts (Benefits & Costs). Must account for ITS and operational features and unusual conditions. Requires new methods. – Evaluation of Alternatives. Include the time stream of actions, impacts, and costs. Use life cycle costs. Account for system operations and asset management. – Expansion of Programming /Resource Allocation. Include ITS and M&O in programming criteria. Account for system focus of ITS. Fund integrated solutions based upon life-cycle costs and actions. – Performance Measurement (ITS Data) and Feedback. ITS data provides new opportunities for performance measurement and feedback including the monitoring of both recurrent and non-recurrent conditions Each of these is carried out or reassessed within each cycle of the overall process. FRAMEWORK III-3

Section III.C examines how Federal and other governmental planning requirements can still be met within the Integrated Framework. Since, the full development path for each alternative is defined, all governmental requirements for planning can be produced with the integrated process. These include producing Congestion Management System (CMS) Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs and Transportation Plans at both the regional and state levels. Requirements for Air Quality Conformity analysis and National ITS Architecture consistency can also be carried out. Section III.D provides recommendations on making the transition from existing practice towards the Integrated Framework. Initial activities include: • Expanding stakeholders • Establishing advocacy and leadership for the new roles and responsibilities • Defining new measures and starting data collection to support them • Expanding the system inventory and definition of alternatives to include the new components and the path of development. • Start to develop/implement new analysis methods • Develop awareness, train staff, and gather other resources. The chapter ends with a review and transition assessment in Section III.E. III.A DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS OF INTEGRATED ITS, M&O, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING/DECISION MAKING An integrated process is one where ITS and system management, and operations are considered on an equal basis with traditional elements of the transportation system. However, as seen from the discussion in Chapter II developing an integrated process is much more than simply including ITS options in the traditional planning process. It requires that both the traditional planning process, and the ITS deployment process evolve. An integrated process should: • Be a single process that includes operations, system management, maintenance, system preservation, and infrastructure/capital expansion decisions and tradeoffs for both ITS and traditional transportation improvements. An area’s transportation problems and deficiencies can often be addressed in many different ways: by new facilities; changes in/new transportation services (e.g. transit); changes in/new ITS and operations both alone or in combination. Mainstreaming, or integration, requires that these different options can be developed and compared, and that no particular type of solution is presumed over others. • Be balanced giving proper consideration to the near term management of the system to meet ongoing operational issues/concerns while moving towards long-term regional objectives. It must also account for the changes that can be made in the near term that produce many years of benefits (and costs) versus changes that may have larger predicted impacts in a specific horizon year but take years to implement and have uncertain outcomes due to the nature of long-range forecasts. • Be Performance Based and incorporate the emerging issues and concerns (e.g. reliability, disruptions, need for information, safety, security) discussed in Chapter II. This requires new performance measures to reflect these concerns and account for the performance of the system under both recurrent (average) and non-recurrent conditions. It is especially important since more than half of urban delay is due to incidents and other non-recurrent events now, and will continue to increase in the future. • Include continual performance feedback and re-alignment of the system as time moves forward. A basic attribute of ITS and the management of the overall system that it enables is the ability to monitor how the system is functioning and make adjustments on a continual basis to account for problems. As the adjustment to the system are made they also impact the demand for current and future travel which may prompt additional adjustments. Consequently, an integrated process must account for this feedback in both how it develops alternatives and in its forecasts of future travel demand and system performance. FRAMEWORK III-4

• Account for the system orientation and inter-connectivity of ITS and other operational strategies as well as localized impacts. Through surveillance communications and control, ITS allows changes to be made in the transportation system in one location to account for conditions in another that may be miles away. More importantly, ITS can be used to manage both the system and travel to optimize overall benefits rather than each individual’s utility. These features must be incorporated into the analysis and evaluation of future decisions ITS is to be mainstreamed and its impacts fully captured. • Be incremental and address the path of development, life cycle, and development cycles of both operations and ITS (primarily near term to mid-term), and long-term system expansion and needs. This is closely to the above incorporation of performance feedback. Chapter II also discusses the difference in time frames of different decisions: operational improvements are most often short-term; implementing ITS systems may occur in both the medium and short-term. Major infrastructure and system changes often require many year of planning and development. An integrated approach requires that the incremental nature of the short and mid-term decisions and their consequences (impacts, system adjustments) be captured. This allows the “balanced” tradeoffs of decisions made in different time frames to take place. • Account for rapid technological development and penetration. ITS and other new technologies change the demand for travel and how the transportation system performs in response. Consequently, we can no longer implicitly assume that operating characteristics and services will remain the same as those that exist today. This requires predictions on the level of technological change that may occur in the future and it’s impact on both travel patterns (behavior) and how the system performs. As the time frame moves further into the future it becomes more difficult to predict specific technologies, however, assumptions on changes to system performance should still be made. Sensitivity analysis should also be used to account for the inherent uncertainty associated with long-range changes in technology and ITS. • Address the public/private sector roles in the provision of ITS and other services. In the past the desired attributes of a road or transit service could often be clearly defined. For the most part, it didn’t matter who actually implemented or operated them. However, who provides different ITS services and if they are to be “market” based can profoundly impact their characteristics and who uses them and receives their benefits. For example, providing the a subscription service the “fastest “ route to a driver on their way to work may actually cause delays to others and increase overall delay in the system. Consequently, the roles of both the public and private sectors in needs to be explicitly addressed as part of a integrated process. Equally important, is examining how the private sector can and should be included in the planning and decision making process as a partner and stakeholder. • Meet Federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. Any process must be able to continually meet the regulations and requirements that exist at all levels of government for planning, programming, operating, and maintaining the transportation system. The features of an integrated process that has the above characteristics are described next. III.B A NEW INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK Pioneering regions and states across the country are implementing planning/decision processes that meet many of the desired characteristics discussed above (see callout box). A new Integrated Framework that builds upon these efforts briefly outlined at the beginning of this Chapter. It represents the natural evolution of these pioneering efforts to overcome the remaining hurdles and gaps between traditional planning, ITS and system management, and operations It is defined by three key changes to planning and decision-making as it currently exists: FRAMEWORK III-5

Examples of Pioneers In Integrated Planning/Decision-Making San Francisco, CA. · San Francisco’s MPO, The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), has developed a regional Management Strategy supported by the Systems Operations and Management Committee which focuses on management of the transportation system operations and uses ITS as a key component. The MTC also operates the region’s traveler information system. System management is reflected in the region’s overall goals and throughout its planning process (Dahms, L. & Klein, L., 1999). The MTC is now updating its regional ITS plan guided by a focus on customer needs and performance, and building from today. Chicago, IL. · In Chicago the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), has become a facilitator and coordinator between its myriad of operating agencies as well as the private sector. It established the Advanced Technology Task Force which includes in its mission statement, “ to prepare a long range vision and medium and short range plans … for the development and integration of ITS in the transportation system serving Northeastern Illinois”. The task force was responsible for the regions strategic early deployment plan for ITS. (Zavattero, D. & Smoliak, A., 1996). Chicago, also has created an Operations Task Force within the MPO and incorporated ITS and its evaluation into its CMS process. The region also coordinates its plans with the Gary Chicago Milwaukee Priority ITS Corridor, using a hierarchical/tiered ITS Architecture. Hampton Roads, VA. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) commissioned one of the first early deployment plans (EDP) for ITS, the 1995 “COMPARE: ITS Strategic Deployment Plan for the Hampton Roads Region” (HRPDC, 1995). This early effort was updated in 2000. Since 1995, ITS and operations have become integral parts of the region’s MPO planning process. One key feature is the region’s ITS Committee that is jointly chaired by the MPO (planning) and VDOT-Smart Traffic Center (operations). The ITS Committee includes transit, the cities, and, military in the region. Both planners and operations staff from each organization participate. The ITS committee reports directly to the planning board and ITS is a central part of the region’s Transportation Plan. An important innovation is the development of short-range, mid-range, and long-range ITS plans and the phasing strategy to implement them (path of development). The region is also currently using ITS data to evaluate performance of the system. The State’s backbone communications system is also being shared by others and has become a catalyst in the region’s coordination. Other areas of note that are advancing towards integration include Seattle and Washington State, Washington D.C., Dallas/Fort Worth Texas, Florida DOT, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. Minnesota. 1. New orientation of planning/decision making on the path of development and management of the transportation system first to solve problems in the near-term and then in longer terms. 2. Incorporation of the new elements needed for integrated alternatives that include ITS and systems management. 3. Evolution of planning and operations decision-making, relationships, activities, and functions into a single process. Each of these is described more fully below. III.B.1 NEW ORIENTATION OF PLANNING/DECISION MAKING TO THE PATH OF DEVELOPMENT FROM THE NEAR-TERM TO THE LONG-TERM Foremost in making the transition to a new integrated process is the need to bridge the gap between traditional operations and infrastructure oriented planning and their focus on different time frames, goals, objectives, and performance measures, and system feedback. In order to compare tradeoffs of near-term operational and other decisions with those that take years to develop and implement a full time stream of changes to the system and the impacts that result needs to be developed. Second, since continuous FRAMEWORK III-6

performance feedback can actually change what is feasible/possible in the future the process needs to be incremental. Third, the emerging issues described in Chapter II continue to shift the focus of decision making to balance near-term system management and ongoing operations with longer-term needs. Figure III-2 provides a more detailed view of the cycles and feedback captured within the Integrated Framework that result. Three “cycles” of planning are shown: • Cycle I: Short-Term. This cycle focuses on short-term needs and strategies. It starts with the measurement of current system performance, which leads to operations planning and decisions on the operational improvements to be made. These improvements are then made as a part of the owner’s operation and management of the system. As the system is improved, its performance is continually monitored to assess the effectiveness of the changes that have been made and to identify the need for additional corrective actions. • Cycle II: Mid-Term. Cycle II is the mid-range cycle, and considers needs and improvements with a planning horizon of perhaps 5 to 10 years. This cycle builds upon Cycle I by addressing performance deficiencies that cannot be overcome with short-term improvements alone. Deficiencies that do not exist today, but that are expected in the not too distant future, may also become apparent in this cycle. and Improvements that have a lead time of five years or more are considered. Cycle II has a short enough horizon that future travel demand can be forecast with some degree of confidence. Similarly, the evolution of technology and the availability of funding during a 5 to 10 year period are somewhat foreseeable. Thus, planning for the mid-range involves less uncertainty than exists for the long-range. Past ITS Early Deployment Plans, and Strategic Regional Architectures have typically focused on the 5- 7 year Cycle II time-frame. Figure III-2 Cycles and Feedback in the Integrated Framework FRAMEWORK III-7

• Cycle III: Long-Term. Cycle III is the long-range planning cycle. It complements Cycles I and II by addressing those performance problems that are projected to occur in 20 or more years, and by evaluating strategies that have very long lead times. With the longer time horizon of Cycle III, there is more uncertainty about travel demand, and about the kinds of technology that will be available. However, baseline technology forecasts and sensitivity analyses can be used to account for potential future developments. At a minimum, the technology and systems forecast for Cycle II should be carried forward into this cycle. Each of these cycles provide a performance focus and feedback through the same series of general steps: 1. Measure how well the system is performing 2. Plan what to do to overcome performance deficiencies 3. Do or carry out the plans while continuing to operate the system 4. Measure performance again to determine the effectiveness of the implemented actions and identify remaining deficiencies Problems that can’t be solved through management of the system are carried forward to the next time frame and set of decisions. If mid-term resources and management are not an answer, long-term solutions and infrastructure changes are examined. This leads to a fusion of long, mid and short-term decisions and a more balanced consideration of capital and operations. Compared with the traditional long-range planning process, far more emphasis is given to short-range operational improvements and system management. Note, that for simplicity three cycles are described. In actuality, though, the three cycles may be viewed as a simplification of a process that looks at a continuum of needs, which change continually over time, and a transportation system that evolves over time as well. Thus in practice there may be four, five, or more cycles. Also shown is the integration of both short-range “operational” and long-range “planning” considerations throughout all the cycles of the Integrated Framework. Long-range planning determines the regional vision, goals and objectives and guiding policies and strategies that provide the context for the shorter time frame decisions. At the same time operational goals, objectives, and concepts and principals define how the transportation system is managed in the short-term and provide guidance for future changes. Both help establish the performance measures used for evaluation and identifying the remaining problems that are carried forward to the next cycle. Following the process through the three cycles leads to a time stream of projects and activities, or “path of development” for each alternative. Short-term projects not only respond to short-term problems, but also lay the ground (such as the core ITS infrastructure) for subsequent mid-range and long-term projects. Major capital investments that have long lead times and require substantial funding may need to be built in stages. This may require adjustments to the previous cycles (backward pass) to account for their phasing and/or changes to the system needed for their implementation. Through the series of cycles, the planning process thus identifies the appropriate stages of the ultimate planned system and the timing of each improvement. Planning documents can then reflect how the system is expected to evolve throughout the planning period. Clearly, such documents would need to be living documents that are adjusted as conditions change. As noted above, there is a tendency to see a natural progression from one cycle to the next. Cycle II, for example, looks to solve problems that are not satisfactorily addressed in Cycle I, and so on. Ideally, however, planning for the three cycles should take place concurrently and be seen as being mutually dependent. The “path of development” is developed by carrying out each of the cycles using the long- range and operational inputs (goals, objectives, etc.) as guides. If the long-range vision, or other requirements are not met (e.g. air quality conformity, fiscal feasibility) changes in guiding policies/strategies, operating concepts/principles, and actions can be made and the path of development adjusted. This can be repeated until a desired result, or vision of the future is reached. It is useful to compare the above approach with traditional planning. The traditional planning process has typically focused on major investment decisions and the long-range “snapshot” of the infrastructure, FRAMEWORK III-8

transportation services (e.g. transit routes and frequencies), and policies for the horizon year. Typically, only a single horizon year forecasts and analysis are carried out, needs determined and a horizon year alternative chosen. Interim projects and activities simply reflect the phased implementation of the “snapshot” long-range alternative. Also, all operating characteristics and policies are implicitly assumed to remain constant. In comparison, the Integrated Framework approach uses active management and performance measurement to adjust the system for efficiency and effectiveness at each point in time and account for changes in travel and other characteristics caused by previous decisions. As performance monitoring takes place incremental changes are made to the transportation system and its management and operations. This in turn alters the range of possible alternatives to consider, and may alter travel patterns, land use, and non-recurrent conditions which in turn alters the needs/deficiencies to address as time goes on. The result is likely to be a future system that is much different than one derived from the traditional planning process. These differences are explained more fully in Section V.D: Identifying Alternatives. III.B.2 INCORPORATION OF THE NEW ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVES THAT INCLUDE ITS New elements are required in order to include ITS within each alternative in the Integrated Framework. First, the infrastructure, equipment, communications/computer systems, software, and labor required to implement, operate, and maintain the systems must be included. Second, since with ITS, operating characteristics within the transportation system will change and regional “management” of the system becomes possible, operating assumptions and characteristics must now be explicitly addressed. The alternative must, therefore, encompass development of: a regional architecture; concept of operations; future operating principals/concepts and characteristics; and supporting operational policies and programs. A brief summary of these “new” elements is provided in Table III-1. They are examined further in Chapter V. Table III-1 Summary Of New Elements For Integrated Alternatives New Element Description ITS and communications infrastructure ITS and communications facilities, equipment, hardware, and software used to implement the desired User Services. Examples include: transportation management centers, ramp meters, surveillance, variable message signs, toll and fare facilities, and communications systems. Supporting ITS infrastructure components such as a communications backbone and other equipment, and software also must be defined. ITS and operations services The ITS services that operate with/over the physical facilities and other infrastructure components must also be defined. These include the ITS User Services and market packages and the level at which they are expected to function. The costs of operating and maintaining these services must also be included. Regional ITS Architecture A regional architecture specifies the information flows, subsystems, and functions, necessary to implement the desired services (both traditional and ITS). As already stated it is now required for Federal funding. Concept of Operations The concept of operations addresses the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies in order to implement, operate, and maintain the desired transportation system (both ITS and traditional components). It includes the necessary agreements between parties as well as the allocation of resource and cost responsibilities. It also includes the roles of the public and private sector. Operating principals /concepts, and characteristics Explicit assumptions regarding the operating principals and characteristics of the system and how it will perform under different conditions. With ITS how the system is operated now directly impacts these performance characteristics. Note that this requires forecasts of the characteristics of future technologies and their FRAMEWORK III-9

penetration rates. Again, each of these elements must be developed along with the infrastructure and services already included in the definition of traditional alternatives (e.g. roads, bridges, transit facilities, transit services, TDM measures). Both the traditional and new elements must also be defined at each point along the development path. III.B.3 EVOLUTION OF PLANNING AND OPERATIONS DECISION-MAKING RELATIONSHIPS, ACTIVITIES, AND FUNCTIONS TO A SINGLE INTEGRATED PROCESS Last, the decision-making relationships, activities, and functions of planning, ITS and system management, and operations in areas around the country are changing to meet the emerging challenges and concerns described in Chapter II. This is the result of traditional operations and planning evolving as they move towards integration. Figure III-3 shows this evolution. The current state-of-the-practice where planning and operations co-exist separately is represented by stage I. Pioneering regions and/or states have evolved to stage II. Here ITS has started to introduce system management and influence operations. Also, ITS deployment planning and regional ITS architecture development begin to take on some of the characteristics of traditional planning. However, at this stage many of the functions and decisions for infrastructure, operations, and ITS are still carried out separately. Stage III represents final integration where tradeoffs are considered and the best combined solution to an area’s transportation problems are determined. Each of these stages is examined more completely below. Figure III-3 Evolution Toward the Integrated Framework Stage I: Separate Parallel Decision Processes (State of the Practice) The state-of-the-practice for transportation decision-making, Stage I, is depicted in Figure III-4. For all of the reasons described in Section II.D, “planning” and “operations” tend to be conducted as parallel processes with little or no interaction. Each involves separate institutions and actors, focuses on different time frames (horizons), and has differing goals and performance criteria. These factors create a rather firm “gap/hurdle” – in terms of communications, perspective, and cooperation – that makes the integration of traditional facility planning and ITS deployment planning very difficult, if not impossible. Consequently, no comparisons/tradeoffs are made of ITS and M&O with other types of improvements, or what the overall mix of services should be. The traditional planning process is shown on the left hand side of the figure. As currently practiced in most states and metropolitan areas, transportation planning focuses on identifying the capital facilities and services that will be needed 20 or more years in the future to meet peak hour demand. There are several reasons for this focus including: Federal laws and regulations; the long lead-time and life and high cost of capital facilities; and the focus of Federal funding programs on capital improvements. Planners typically FRAMEWORK III-10

take a “snapshot” of existing operations and presume that the relationships found will remain the same in the future (efficiencies, capacities, costs per service unit, etc.). Planning is followed by project development and implementation and ultimately provides the infrastructure to the system operators. Operations is shown on the right hand side of the figure. Typically, operators take the infrastructure as given. Each agency/function then tries to maximize the performance and efficiency of their system given their goals and perspectives. Operators typically have not looked at the transportation system as a whole and often compete for resources with one another in their decisions. System performance may also be measured infrequently, on an ad-hoc basis, and focused on specific problems or breakdowns. Figure III-4 Stage I: Planning and Operations as Separate Processes Often the only interchange between the planning and operations worlds is each one’s independent observation of the system. Planners collect data and validate their processes based upon their long-range goals and performance criteria. Operators take the infrastructure and services that result from the planning process that they are responsible for and operate them given their available resources. Under the “World I” fairly stable and predictable conditions where the primary focus of planning was (is) supporting major infrastructure investments and completion of the transportation system this arrangement tended to work fairly well. System performance was determined mostly by the infrastructure/service characteristics, and operators could incorporate new facilities into their activities as they were implemented. Stage II: Performance Orientation and ITS Deployment Planning (State of the ART) As areas begin to experience “World II” conditions (see Chapter II) attention on how the transportation system performs and its operation and management grows. Focus on “system performance” and how to improve current operations has increased. In response, pioneering regions and/or states have evolved to Stage II of integrated planning. In Stage II the right hand “operations” side of Figure III-4 is represented by the ITS deployment (planning) and operations process and more recently regional ITS architecture development. It has begun to take on many of the characteristics of traditional planning. However, at this stage many of the functions and decisions for infrastructure and ITS are still carried out separately. More FRAMEWORK III-11

important, tradeoffs between types of solutions (ITS and system management, operations, system enhancements), or the development of integrated solutions are not typically considered. Steps in a typical ITS Deployment (Planning) process are shown on the right hand side of Figure III-5. and include (Lockwood, 1999): • Stakeholder Identification. Include both users and providers of the potential ITS services. • Needs/Deficiencies Analysis. ITS user needs and deficiencies. Focus on what can potentially be addressed by ITS. Presume that ITS is the solution. • Select User Services and Develop ITS Concepts Plan. Creates an ITS (operations) plan to solve the identified needs and deficiencies. Again, the presumption is that ITS is the solution. • Define Concept of Operations. Determines who will implement and operate the ITS system. The roles and responsibilities of each entity. • Identify Potential Projects. Select and prioritize individual projects from the ITS User services. • Operations and Management Planning. Plan and budget for how the systems will be operated. • Implement, Operate, Monitor, Evaluate. Measures of effectiveness to evaluate the ITS services. • Feedback.. ITS data provides for continuous feedback to operations to adjust service. It can also be used to modify/update the projects that follow. This is very similar to Regional ITS Architecture Development Process suggested in Regional ITS Architecture Guidance. This process is described as (National ITS Architecture Team, 2001): Step 1: Get Started. Identify need; Define region; Identify stakeholders; Identify champions. Step 2: Gather Data. Inventory systems; Determine needs and services; Develop operational concept; Define functional requirements. Step 3: Define Interfaces. Identify Interconnects; Define information flows. Step 4: Implementation (of the architecture). Define project sequencing; Develop list of agency agreements; Identify ITS standards. Step 5: Use the Architecture. Support project definition and implementation; Support Planning. Step 6: Maintain the Architecture. Procedures, roles, and responsibilities for updating and maintaining the architecture. Iterate through above steps as needed ITS Deployment Planning and Regional Architecture Development due to the very nature of ITS have had to begin to address the issues raised by ITS's bridging the operations and planning worlds. Because of the time frame and budgets required to implement ITS a new emphasis on the mid-term system is generated. Because of the system-wide nature of ITS coordination begins to occur between operators and system performance is incorporated into the operations decisions (i.e. system wide management versus operating individual components). The ITS Deployment Process stresses this “coordination” and “integration” among ITS stakeholders and operators (see PCB course notes for Deploying Integrated ITS). FRAMEWORK III-12

Figure III-5 Stage II: Performance Orientation and ITS Deployment Planning The importance of being consistent with the regional planning process goals and objectives is also recognized, and as shown in the figure these are incorporated into the analysis. However, this communication is often only one way. Regional goals and objectives are used to develop the ITS strategies for deployment and the needs addressed in the Regional ITS Architecture. However, both are most often carried out by stakeholders that are different from those for regional planning. Both also focus only on the ITS solutions to solve identified needs and meet regional goals and objectives. Management and operations goals are also rarely fed back into the overall planning process, nor are combined ITS, management, and infrastructure options and their tradeoffs examined. In addition as also shown in Figure III-5 links between the two processes are still needed for true integration. Stage III: Integrated Planning (Relationships, Activities, Functions) Last, in Phase III, the links are made between ITS and traditional planning and the activities and functions and the relationships that support them are integrated. At any point in time along the development path, the components of the transportation system (facilities, services, ITS, communications) and how they will be maintained, operated, and preserved is defined. Figure III-6 offers a more detailed look at the integrated activities, functions, and shifts in relationships for the Integrated Framework. These are the result of completing the links between the ITS deployment and traditional planning processes discussed above and merging them into one. As illustrated on the left hand side the context first sets the range of transportation problems, concerns, opportunities, and constraints that are relevant to a particular state or region. The activities and functions can then be separated into 2 areas: institutional/organizational and technical. The institutional and organizational activities identify the stakeholders, define roles and responsibilities and establish the appropriate institutional and organizational relationships to carry out integrated planning. The technical activities and functions include: establishing the goals and objectives and their measures; identifying and evaluating alternatives; programming of the system enhancements, operation, and maintenance; and performance monitoring. FRAMEWORK III-13

Figure III-6 Integrated Planning: Relationships, Activities, and Functions The right side of the chart identifies some of the issues that are associated with each of the activities and functions shown on the left side. These activities and functions and some of their integration issues are briefly summarized below: • Institutional/Organizational – Identify New Stakeholders. Expanding stakeholders is one of the key activities to successful integration. It must continue to combine the stakeholders from traditional planning with ITS and operations as well as users, communications providers, and non-transportation entities. Also it is a continuous process with stakeholders that should be included changing as the system changes. – Redefine Institutional Relationships. New institutional relationships must also be forged to merge traditional planning with ITS and operations. This includes overcoming departmental, funding, and other barriers to implementing, operating, and maintaining an integrated system both within an agency and across agencies – Determine Public/Private Roles. What should the public’s position be on private sector provision of public services? The private sector must be included in the decision making process to develop lasting concepts of operations. Also, the type of service, and who will use it may vary greatly depending on who provides it. Consequently, the role the private sector should play in both planning and providing transportation services must be explicitly determined in order to understand how the overall system will function in the future. FRAMEWORK III-14

– Determine How to Organize to Support ITS and M&O. The appropriate way to organize to carry out the ITS and M&O functions within the Integrated Framework depends on the local context. – Develop “Concept of Planning”. The Concept of Planning describes how the roles and responsibilities for planning/decision making will evolve along with changes in the system and other conditions. It includes memorandum of understanding and other agreements on both the decision-making implementing/operating responsibilities for the system. An incremental plan should be developed to match the these agreements and responsibilities with the system’s development. • Technical – Identification of Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Measures. During the transition the vision, goals, and objectives of the region should be examined to reflect the operational concerns previously not part of the planning process. These include among others the emerging issues of congestion, reliability, safety, and security. New measures reflecting these goals and objectives that can be evaluated across ITS and traditional improvements, and are predictable must also be defined. – Needs/Deficiency Analysis. Inventories of the existing system and conditions must be expanded to include ITS and the other “operational” elements of the transportation system such as the communications system. Ways to conduct a causal analysis on why problems exist and whether they are recurrent/non-recurrent must be developed. – Integrated Alternative Definition. Definition of an alternative must be extended to include the phasing of all changes to the system during its implementation. An “alternative” is now the full development path or time stream of actions and activities concerning the transportation system to the horizon year. It must also include how the system will operate/perform at each stage in its development and who is responsible for what. • Estimating Impacts (Benefits & Costs). If an integrated process is to be truly implemented then the analysis techniques and methods used must capture the changes that ITS, operational, and system enhancement options alone and in combination cause in the system. Full (life cycle) time streams of the impacts and costs must also be estimated. During the transition these new techniques must be put in place. – Evaluation of Alternatives. During the transition the evaluation processes must be expanded to account for the new definition of alternatives (path versus horizon year), and tradeoffs in: operational versus system expansion improvements; time stream of benefits; system-wide synergies and the inter-dependence of project elements. – Expansion of Programming /Resource Allocation. Must extend the programming process beyond the TIP/STIP. Changes in operations and services must be included. Must develop ways to balance project versus system impacts and synergies and to look at alternatives that include both ITS and traditional improvements. Last, it is critical that the continued operation and maintenance of the systems be incorporated into the funding needs and programming. – Performance Measurement (ITS Data) and Feedback. ITS data provides new opportunities for performance measurement and feedback including the monitoring of both recurrent and non-recurrent conditions. It is important to develop continuous feedback loops to all cycles of the integrated process. Critical to this is implementing continuous data collection processes for the performance based measures previously defined, and planning for data cleaning, management, and maintenance costs. These are more fully discussed in Chapter IV (institutional/organizational) and Chapter V (technical) of this Guidebook. FRAMEWORK III-15

III.C MEETING FEDERAL AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS While the Integrated Framework re-orients the planning process and expands its focus to include ITS and management and operations, as shown above it is the result of an evolving process rather than a replacement of existing practice. Consequently, all Federal and other governmental planning and documentation requirements can be met within the Integrated Framework. This is explained below in a brief review of the typical process and products needed to meet current Federal planning regulations. It is followed by an explanation of how each of the Federal process products fits into the Integrated Framework. Figure III-7 provides one common depiction of the transportation planning process as envisioned in the FHWA/FTA regulations. The required products of this process are the metropolitan and statewide transportation plans (LRP) and the metropolitan and statewide transportation improvement programs (TIPs & STIPs). Other important products include the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality (SIP), Congestion Management System Plans (CMS), and special studies for major investments (e/g/ environmental impact assessments, FTA alternatives analyses). In the past, the activities carried out as part of the process typically had a long-range focus and are aimed at producing LRPs and TIPs. As discussed in Chapter II, TEA-21 also added a new requirement for National ITS Conformity that requires that a regional ITS architecture be developed that is consistent with both the LRP and TIP (See FHWA/FTA, 1993, Siwek, 1995; Siwek 1996; Weiner, 1997; Mickelson, 1998; Transcore 1998, and ITE 1999 for more on the history and details of the process). A number of other requirements must also be considered in developing the LRP, TIP, STIP and other products of the traditional planning process. TEA-21, consolidated many of the considerations into seven planning “Focus Areas” including “Promote efficient system management and operation”, and “Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system”. Plans must be financially constrained to reflect funds reasonably expected to be available over the time period they cover. With ITS and active system management, the costs of continual operation of the system must also be included. Public participation, collaborative decision-making, and environmental justice have also become central elements required in developing the Federal products (NARC, 1995, Wiener, 1997). Figure III-7 also highlights the similarities between the traditional Federally oriented process and the Integrated Framework described in this chapter. Most important, both are cyclic and continuous in nature. Conceptually, however, the traditional process starts with the establishment of the long-range needs, goals, objectives and LRP. Then TIP/STIP programs are derived and implemented. Performance evaluation is done for feedback into the planning activities but only periodically (This cycle is in Bold in Figure III-7). Also shown is a cycle to connect the short-range and mid-range development of CMS plans and congestion strategies with the LRP and TIP/STIP. This “strategy” cycle is also where regional ITS architectures should be developed. Last, there is the feedback of the travel monitoring programs to the planning process. Again, this process has traditionally been focused on the long-term, and the performance monitoring and travel monitoring feedback have been relatively infrequent due to data collection costs and processing requirements. The Integrated Framework re-orients the elements of Figure III-7 focusing first on the short-term and then spiraling out to the mid and long-term issues and solutions. It shifts the emphasis and order of activities rather than creating new efforts. Thus, it is an evolution of the existing process rather than a replacement. Once the three cycles (short, mid, long-range) have been carried out, reconciled, and a full development path chosen the inputs exist to create each of the documents and products needed to meet Federal regulations. FRAMEWORK III-16

Figure III-7 Transportation Planning Process and Federal Requirements The rest of this section briefly looks at each of the Federally required products of the planning process and describes where they fit within the new Integrated Framework, and some of the issues that may arise as they are developed. The CMS, TIP, STIP, and Regional ITS Architecture are based primarily on results from the short-term and mid-term cycles. The Transportation Plans (LRPs), major investment alternatives and environmental analyses, and air quality conformity use the full development path that results after the long-term cycle is completed. The Federal products and documents are presented since they are the primary focus of many current practitioners and activities. III.C.1 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Congestion Management Systems (CMS) are one of six “Management Systems” (plus a traffic monitoring system) originally required by ISTEA. CMS and its development process is the conceptual forerunner of both the Integrated Planning Framework and the M&O Planning Factor of TEA-21. As stated in the final management system rule, “An effective CMS is a systematic process for managing congestion that provides information on transportation system performance and on alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet State and local needs” (FHWA & FTA, 1996). Central to CMS is the use of “strategies” for managing the transportation system through continuous feedback and monitoring of the system’s performance. Suggested categories of strategies to be considered include: “Transportation demand management measures, including growth management and congestion pricing, traffic operational improvements, public transportation improvements; ITS technologies; and, where necessary, additional system capacity” (FHWA & FTA, 1996). ITS has always been seen as an FRAMEWORK III-17

integral part of the CMS strategies and their development (FHWA, 1998, ITE, 1997) because it provides. the opportunity to develop and apply regional strategies to manage the system. The Final Rule defined the components required of a CMS. Table III-2 lists these and how they are addressed within the Integrated Framework. Table III-2 CMS Components Within The Integrated Framework CMS Components Location in the Integrated Framework Methods to monitor and evaluate multimodal system performance. ITS Data & Planning New Performance Measures Congestion performance measures and evaluation of the effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility enhancement strategies New Performance Measures Re-orientation towards near-term system management and performance feedback ITS Data & Planning Data collection and system performance monitoring Program (congestion’s extent, duration, cause) ITS Data & Planning New Performance Measures Performance evaluation of appropriate traditional and non-traditional CMS strategies Addition of ITS and operational components/strategies New Analysis Methods Identification of an implementation schedule, implementation responsibilities, and possible funding sources Development path definition Programming activities Regional ITS Architecture & Concept of Operations Concept of Planning Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented strategies. ITS Data & Planning Feedback and incremental development path CMS plans are also focused on the short and mid-range solutions to current and anticipated congestion and mobility needs. The CMS uses ongoing measures of system performance to identify short-term operational solutions and remaining problems within the system. Through operations planning in the short-term and mid-term planning cycles it then identifies the combination of management strategies to help reduce congestion and increase mobility for the area in question. Remaining problems are candidates for capacity expansion (infrastructure) and other longer-term solutions (e.g. land use). Note: that while the CMS is at the conceptual start of the Integrated Planning Framework it uses the regional vision, goals, and objectives from the current (longer-term) LRP to help define its measure of performance and direct its planning efforts. Last, implementing CMS provides both institutional and organizational challenges (see FHWA’s Congestion Management System Interactive CD-ROM, FHWA, 1998). “A change in emphasis from new infrastructure development to operations and management is not easily achieved; it is likely to require the development of new patterns of organizational partnership and coordination” (FHWA, 1998). These challenges are the same that confront ITS and M&O in general and that the Integrated Framework is designed to overcome. III.C.2 REGIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT Chapter II described the new TEA-21 requirements for developing a Regional ITS Architecture that is consistent with the appropriate Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs and other planning documents required for Federal funding. Many pioneering areas have already begun developing or completed their regional architectures primarily through efforts separate from the planning process. Under the Integrated Framework the regional ITS architecture development becomes an integral part of the tradeoffs, activities and functions in the planning cycles that create an integrated alternative and its development path. The architecture simply reflects the ITS components of the overall alternative and its FRAMEWORK III-18

operation. Table III-3 summarizes where in the Framework the required ITS architecture components may be considered. This is explored more fully in Chapter V. Table III-3 Regional ITS Architecture Components within the Integrated Framework Regional ITS Architecture Components Location in the Integrated Framework Description of the region addressed in the architecture Identified in the initial context assessment. May be updated in the inventory prepared as part of the Needs/Deficiency analysis. Participating agencies and stakeholders Identified in the initial context assessment and change in institutions and organizations. Reflected in the “Context of Planning”. Continually reviewed and updated throughout the development path cycles. Operational Concept (roles and responsibilities for implementing, operating, and maintaining ITS) Defined as the part of Integrated Alternative Identification. Examined and updated in each development path cycle. Agreements required for operations Agreements must be tied to when the ITS and operations components will be implemented and operated. This should be reflected in the “Concept of Planning”. ITS system functional requirements (high level) Defined as the part of Integrated Alternative Identification. Examined and updated in each development path cycle. Information exchanges and interface requirements Defined as the part of Integrated Alternative Identification. Examined and updated in each development path cycle. Identification of ITS standards Defined as the part of Integrated Alternative Identification. Examined and updated in each development path cycle. Sequence of projects required for implementation Explicit in the development path, once it has been defined. Addressed in “Planning to Programming”. III.C.3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS: METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE (TIP/STIP) Transportation improvement programs are short-term documents that prioritize and program the list of Federally funded projects that are to be carried out for each year that they cover (FHWA & FTA, 1993). Both the Metropolitan and Statewide improvement programs must cover a minimum of three years, and be updated at least every two years. Both programs must be financially constrained by year to resources that are reasonably expected to be available during that period. They can cover more than three years (typically 5 to 6 year programs are developed), but must also extend the project prioritization and financial analysis to cover the additional years. The projects within the TIPs/STIPs must be consistent with the appropriate LRP. Metropolitan TIPs must also meet national air quality conformity requirements and be consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. The STIP includes without modification each of the MPO TIPs within its jurisdiction. Once the “path of development” of system improvements, ITS, and operations is derived within the Integrated Framework, it is easy to see how the projects that use Federal Funding can be filtered out by year in order to produce the required TIPs and STIP. These documents are drawn from the short-term “manage and operate system decisions”, and “mid-term projects” within the integrated process. There are still, however, a number of issues to be addressed regarding the TIP, ITS, and the Integrated Framework. These are discussed below. FRAMEWORK III-19

Document precedence. The TIP serves as a strategic management tool that accomplishes the objectives of the LRP (Siwek, 1995). As such the current regulations assume that the long-range plan is developed/adopted prior to TIP development. In the Integrated Framework, the short and mid-range issues and concerns are examined and addressed prior to the long-range components. However, a forwards and backwards pass is always part each cycle. Also, the TIP and LRP may not be finalized until a full cycle (short, medium, long) of planning is complete and the “path of development” from today into the future defined. TIP/STIP represent a subset of activities. The TIP is only required to include Federally funded projects and regionally significant projects (with respect to air quality). As the Integrated Framework is implemented and ITS and system management truly incorporated into the transportation decision process this will represent a smaller and smaller percentage of key elements in the process. Operational strategies, local- agency operations and project implementation, and private sector participation all fall outside the TIP requirements. Therefore, the TIP contents as currently defined cannot continue, to be the primary documentation of the short and mid-range transportation decisions of a region. Programming and budgeting ITS. As ITS, system management, and operations are incorporated into the overall decision process a number of issues arise concerning projects vs. systems and how they should be integrated into the programming and budgeting process which is part of the TIP development. These issues include: funding eligibility, bundling projects, and capturing the tradeoffs between ITS, operations and system enhancements. They are more fully explored in Chapter V. III.C.4 METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANS (LRP) The Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Plans (LRPs) are the main Federally required products documenting an area’s transportation planning and decision process for Federal funding. They both must address at least a 20 year planning horizon. The Plans must incorporate consideration of the major elements of transportation planning as defined by ISTEA and TEA-21 including: the major planning factors, air quality conformity process, financial plans and constraints, public involvement, management systems input, project level corridor/subarea evaluations and NEPA analyses, and ITS Architecture Conformity (Siwek, 1995, FHWA and FTA, 1999). Metropolitan Transportation Plans include “both long-range and short- range strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods” (FHWA & FTA, 1993). Definition and analysis of projected travel demand of people and goods, adopted CMS strategies, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, system preservation measures, interaction with Land use plans, transportation enhancement activities and major transportation investments must be included. Detail must be sufficient to provide for cost analysis, air quality conformity, and financial planning. They must be updated at least every three years in areas with air quality concerns, and every 5 years in attainment areas. Statewide transportation plans on the other hand must reflect the associated metropolitan plans, but can be developed at a higher “policy” level. Statewide plans are updated as appropriate. Transportation Plans and air quality conformity are outputs of the final long-range cycle of the integrated process. These long-range products build upon the previous products and cycles (short and mid-range). They draw upon and reflect, the forecasts of conditions and remaining problems, the long and mid-range planning efforts and resultant long-term improvements. They also include the region’s vision, goals and objectives and capture the work described previously for the TIP and CMS plan development. The Federal requirements focus on defining the transportation system in the horizon year. As with the TIP/STIP the development of the LRP within the integrated planning process changes the LRP’s content and raises a number of issues that are highlighted below. Stakeholders. With the Integrated Framework the number and mix of stakeholders change dramatically. System operators (e.g. traffic operations, transit, ITS, communications providers) and users concerned with reliable performance (e.g. emergency services, police, fire) must now be included. This not only changes the discussion in creating the LRP but can alter its contents as well. FRAMEWORK III-20

New goals/objectives/measures. Operational goals and objectives, performance and quality of service measures, and the needs/desires of the extended stakeholders must now be reflected in the LRP. Again, this alters the contents and outcome of the LRP. Time streams vs. Horizon Year. Alternatives within the Integrated Process include the full “development path” of operational and system changes from today to tomorrow versus simple descriptions of the horizon year. The LRP now describes this path and uses the full time stream of costs and benefits in its analyses. Explicit assumptions regarding the performance relationships of the system over time must also be made rather than implicitly assuming that they remain constant. New components introduced by the Integrated Framework. The new components of ITS and operations discussed previously must also be included in the LRP’s descriptions/analysis of the existing and future systems. III.C.5 CORRIDOR/SUBAREA ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY MIS) AND NEPA TEA-21 eliminated the Major Investment Study requirement introduced by ISTEA for analysis of transportation improvements in corridors and sub-areas. Corridor alternatives analysis is now to be integrated into the planning and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analyses. Options being considered by the U.S. DOT for this were presented in March 1999 (FHWA & FTA, March 1999) and are now being finalized. Despite the removal of a formal separate requirement, determining what is the best integrated transportation solution (ITS, system management, operations, and infrastructure) in a corridor is still an important element of the planning process. Corridor analysis often requires more detail and closer examination of options than the overall system analysis performed as part of the LRP. Issues associated with introducing ITS into corridor analyses have been examined elsewhere (Mitretek Systems, 1999, Rush & Penic, 1998, Transcore, 1998). Carrying out corridor/subarea analysis within the Integrated Framework raises the same issues that have been presented in the TIP and LRP discussions above. The alternatives must now include development of the full evolution of improvements over time in the corridor. Operation of the system and changes in the performance relationships must be made explicit. Full life cycle costs and benefits and ways to tradeoff near and far term impacts/costs must be used. III.C.6 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AIR QUALITY (SIP) ISTEA linked transportation planning with meeting the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. It requires that areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or are designated as “maintenance” areas must show that their LRPs and TIPs are in conformance with the Statewide Implementation Plan for Air Quality (SIP). The SIP establishes how the state will attain the NAAQS and includes the development of transportation control measures (TCMs) in ozone and CO non-attainment areas. The MPO must make the conformity determinations concerning the TIP and LRP (see Siwek, 1995, Transcore, 1998 for additional summaries of the AQ conformity requirements and transportation planning). The Integrated Framework does not significantly alter how and when the air quality conformity determinations need to be made within the planning process. TIP conformity is carried out as part of the TIP development, and LRP conformity is carried out as part of the LRP development. Note however, that more information is available when using the Integrated Framework. The operations and performance characteristics are now explicitly determined for each time cycle. These can have a profound impact on the air quality determination. Also, the process of defining the full path of development and the feedback that occurs throughout may change the final system being analyzed. Two other points of note are: • The order in which the analyses are carried out may change and/or become simultaneous. In the past, the LRP was found to be in conformance, and then the TIP was analyzed. With the Integrated Framework, the TIP (short and mid-range elements) maybe focused on and defined FRAMEWORK III-21

prior to the long-range planning cycle. An iterative process may be needed to finalize the development path and insure that it is continuous and consistent across time periods. Conformity analysis is then performed on the systems that exist at the different time points along the path. • The Air Quality analysis procedures must be updated to account for the impacts of operations and ITS. This includes moving to modal emission models that capture the impact of high acceleration and deceleration by vehicles and network models that capture ITS and variation in the system (see Hagler Bailly, 1999 for further discussion). III.D TRANSITIONING TO THE NEW FRAMEWORK This section examines the transition from today’s state of the practice to the Integrated Framework. Many regions are already part of “World II” described in Chapter II and are evolving towards the Integrated Framework and a reorientation of decision making to system management and near-term needs. Others still have many “World I” characteristics, and consequently have less pressure to make the transition. In both cases change does not occur overnight. In the meantime there are a number of initial institutional and technical activities/strategies that can be started or encouraged to continue to assist in the transition. They are discussed in the subsection’s that follow. Before determining what strategies to help in making the transition it is useful to determine where your area is in making the transition: Stage I, Stage II, or Stage III. Consequently, A transition assessment is provided at the end of this Chapter to help determine which may apply to an area’s specific situation. III.D.1 TRANSITION STRATEGIES (INSTITUTIONAL) The changes in institutions, organizations, relationships, and agreements provide some of the most significant hurdles and gaps found in moving to an integrated approach to decision making. It requires changes both within and between agencies and organizations. It may also require some time to gain legislative and regulatory approvals, and to assemble resources to support the new relationships. At this time there is no clear direction on who or what entity is responsible for instituting this change. It could be the MPO, State, operating agency, or other organization with an interest in ITS or operations. It may also depend of finding the right individuals throughout the area that can come together to make it happen. As part of this some initial activities are: Initial assessment of regional context (problems, issues, and concerns). Does the region have World I, or World II characteristics? Does it have relatively low congestion and stable conditions, or is it experiencing system failures due to congestion, an inability to expand capacity, and high variation in conditions? Are there other conditions and issues such as a high percentage of unfamiliar travelers (tourists) that need information on the system? This assessment will help establish who may need to be part of the process, what the focus of the transition may be, and when/how it may need to take place. Establish advocacy and leadership. Several studies have found that “champions” are key to bringing ITS projects through the deployment process (Deblasio, et.al. 1998, ITS America, 1996). This follows also for incorporating ITS and management and operations in general into an Integrated Planning Framework. Also, crucial is tying the advocacy and ownership to where the problems and issues are within the area. As the new framework evolves the leaders must “own” both the solutions and the problems that they are aimed at overcoming. Aim at crossing boundaries (communication/coordination across modal, geographic and institutional boundaries). A recent Volpe study (Deblasio, et.al. 1998) found that this improved communication across artificial barriers in the system is crucial for developing a system-wide operations perspective and bringing ITS into the planning process. System-wide committees and task forces might be established, for example, to bring together stakeholders from different jurisdictions as well as the new operations and ITS stakeholders. FRAMEWORK III-22

Start developing operational agreements and opportunities for coordination/cooperation. It is a good idea to continue to encourage, or start to develop memorandum of understanding or other agreements that reflect how transportation is to be operated within a region. Equally important is the creation of task forces or other forums where operations and planning stakeholders can come together and begin to develop a joint understanding of each other. MPOs may be particularly helpful in this area, but others may also take the lead. Develop awareness and train both staff and public officials. Before people will contemplate change they need to understand the issues and see the potential benefits of taking the risk of undertaking a new approach. At the same time planning staff need to understand ITS and operational issues, and ITS/operational staff need to understand planning. It is particularly important that public officials and policy makers (mayors, city council, state and Federal representatives, boards) understand the opportunities and advantages of integrating ITS and operations concerns in their decisions. Assemble resources and assist others. Coordinated ITS and operations within an area requires that many different entities have the right resources at the right time. Because of the costs it may also be beyond key entities operating budgets and require additional revenues, bonds, or coordinated funding from many sources. Often, resources can be shared to assist those that may have resource limitations and yet are critical to the successful implementation of the overall system. It may also take targeted lobbying to change legislation and/or obtain funding streams that were not previously available. Plan for incremental changes in the process as well as implementation of ITS systems. Organizations and decision processes do not change overnight. Change typically occurs incrementally. ITS services and systems can be implemented in modest stages and then extended geographically. Software and hardware are typically upgraded with improved technology in an evolutionary manner, retaining certain components and improving others. (This incremental improvement feature can pose special challenges for programming ITS. The benefits of “core” start-up ITS investments – such as communication backbones, traffic operations centers (TOCs), basic detection and surveillance – might be understated unless their potential to support multiple future additions of high marginal value is reflected. Continually update and reestablish all of the above. This must be a continual process to overcome changes in policy makers or staff, new stakeholders, and new issues that may divert attention from making the transition to an integrated approach. III.D.2 TRANSITION STRATEGIES (TECHNICAL) Changes in the technical processes can also be instituted today to help make the transition. These may need to be carried out at many different levels and may include new data collection, new inventory items, or analysis techniques. Some of the most important are: Begin to develop new performance-oriented measures and collect data to support them. Key to the Integrated Framework is the use of performance measures that reflect the user’s perspective on how well the system operates. A key step in this outcomes-driven approach is the use of deficiency analysis, with performance measured either against current conditions or against locally defined standards or benchmarks. Performance oriented measures do little unless the data exists to support them. Data collection should start now no matter what stage in the transition the area is in. Expand the system inventory to include ITS and operational elements. Most areas do not include operational elements such as signals and their operation, communications systems, ITS, or system coverage in their current inventories of the transportation system. Without this information planning does not have the ability to even begin to develop integrated alternatives. Move towards full definition of every project. The Integrated Framework hinges on including all aspects of a project in its analysis. Re-defining what is required in describing a project, or describing a future system alternative, can begin now. This should include not only the system infrastructure and associated costs, but also the ITS and management strategies, operations and maintenance costs, and the phasing and schedule of changes to the system as well. It is also important to look at the direct strategic connections FRAMEWORK III-23

and synergies that combined infrastructure, ITS and system management strategies offer. Major road and transit improvements can be specifically designed to capitalize on an aggressive systems management regime. At the same time significant savings can be realized though “building in” ITS improvements – piggybacking ITS onto major facility construction and improvement projects. Move towards a system view of planning. ITS concepts, systems and technology are most effective when applied at the regional scale. The goal should be to achieve interoperability across jurisdictional boundaries, across modes, and among multiple vendor systems within a region. The regional ITS architecture can be an effective tool for coordinating the large number of technical decisions among the various institutional players who may be involved. Second, implementation plans are often useful for ensuring commitments to operation support from the necessary range of regional systems owners and operators. A systems perspective therefore becomes important in reflecting the true benefits and costs of ITS and management and operations. Begin to develop new analysis methods. Existing planning analysis methods predict average conditions and the traveler response to infrastructure and capacity improvements. Planners should start developing new approaches that reflect variation in system performance. A special challenge in the long-term will be to understand how system capacity and improved real time systems information interact to influence travel behavior. Equally important is developing methods to account for the full life cycle of costs and benefits when comparing future system alternatives. Some attributes of the needed analysis techniques are: • A focus on performance-based problems with strong feedback from existing operations • Concern for average and non-standard conditions of incidents, weather, etc. • Measures of effectiveness for new service attributes (including reliability, security, information) • Data on ITS benefits relating to improved traveler information or variable prices • Discounting for varying time flow of benefits to compare ITS with major capital investments Start small (prototypes) and build from successes (feedback). One of the advantages of many ITS and operational solutions is that they can start small. Prototypes, such as instituting transit signal priority on a single corridor, or transit route, can be implemented and modified through feedback. The system can evolve. This allows building advocates based upon successful implementation and expansion. Develop awareness and train staff. As the role of ITS and management and operations grows, the technical expertise of staffs involved in both planning and operations must increase as well. Training is available on a number ITS topics through the U.S. DOT Professional Capacity Building Program (PCB). Specific course details can found at the PCB web site: http://pcb.volpe.dot.gov/. Other training is also provided through state and local governments, universities and ITS Vendors (see the PCB web site for indexes of these courses in your area). III.E CHAPTER REVIEW AND TRANSITION ASSESSMENT This Chapter presented a new Integrated Framework for planning that addresses many of the desired characteristics of a process that places ITS operational and system enhancement options on an equal footing for evaluation in solving a region’s transportation problems. It is a performance based single process that balances both short-term and long-term improvements for consideration. It is incremental and includes feedback in the definition of alternatives. It includes examining the desired roles of both the public and private sector and the impacts of change in technology. It also can meet all Federal and other governmental requirements. The Integrated Framework changes planning and decision making in three key ways: 1. New orientation of planning/decision making on the path of development and management of the transportation first to solve problems in the near-term and then in longer terms. 2. Incorporation of the new elements needed for integrated alternatives that include ITS and M&O FRAMEWORK III-24

3. Evolution of planning and operations decision-making, relationships, activities, and functions into a single process. The new orientation of planning shifts the focus first to problems of today and managing /preserving/ operating the existing system and its assets. Longer term needs and resources are then used to solve problems/needs that couldn’t be solved in previous time periods. Adjustments may also be made to earlier periods to reconcile the phasing of long-term decisions. The new orientation also integrated traditional long-term planning and operational considerations (goals, objectives, concepts/principles, and guiding policies/strategies) in a single process. Performance measures reflect both perspectives. The result is a path of development of projects and activities to implement, operate, and maintain the transportation system from today to the horizon year. The new elements needed to define an integrated alternative include: • ITS and communications infrastructure • ITS and operations services • Regional ITS Architecture • Concept of Operations • Operating principles and relationships Three stages were identified in the evolution of planning relationships, activities and functions: Stage I: Operations and planning as separate processes; Stage II: ITS Deployment Planning and consideration of system performance; and Stage III: An integrated process. The integrated process includes: • Institutional/Organizational – Identify New Stakeholders. – Redefine Institutional Relationships. – Determine Public/Private Roles. – Determine How to Organize to Support ITS and M&O. – Develop “Concept of Planning”. • Technical – Identification of Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Measures. – Needs/Deficiency Analysis. – Integrated Alternative Definition – Estimate Impacts – Evaluation of Alternatives. – Expansion of Programming /Resource Allocation. – Performance Measurement (ITS Data) and Feedback The Chapter then showed how the Integrated Framework can be used to meet the Federal and other governmental requirements for planning. These Include: • Congestion Management Systems and Plans • Regional ITS Architectures • Transportation Improvement Programs (metropolitan and statewide) • Transportation Plans (metropolitan and statewide) • Corridor and Sub area Alternative Development • Air Quality Conformity. Last, both institutional and technical transition strategies were provided. Key in making the transition is carrying out he self-assessment of the regional and its World I – World II characteristics provided at the end of Chapter II. As pointed out above different geographic areas face different circumstances that may be pushing some of these regions in the direction of an Integrated Framework much more quickly. Generally speaking, this Guidebook espouses the view that those areas with extra capacity, stable system conditions, and low congestion (World I) are less likely to perceive an immediate need for the Integrated Framework. Alternatively, those areas with limited capacity, that are constrained in their ability to build more, that face FRAMEWORK III-25

unstable system conditions and higher congestion (World II) are likely to be moving in the direction of the Integrated Framework more quickly. Table III-4 provides some questions that might provide some insight into where your region stands regarding its positions and development towards an Integrated Planning Framework. Mark where you think your area’s relative position is for each question. In any case, the movement towards an Integrated Framework tends to be evolutionary in nature and heavily dependent on regional characteristics. FRAMEWORK III-26

Table III-4 Questions on Region's Progress Towards An Integrated Framework Question NO YES Does your planning process extend beyond current Federal requirements and consider all components and strategies that are part of the transportation system and operations? NO - - - - - - - - YES As part of the planning process, does the region include consideration of ITS, management and operations, system preservation, and traditional infrastructure capacity improvements in an integrated process? NO - - - - - - - - YES As part of the planning process, has the region set short and mid-term goals focused on operations and system performance in addition to the 20-year horizon of the typical long-range plan? NO - - - - - - - - YES Does the region’s plan accommodate short and mid-term initiatives that focus on other than traditional infrastructure capacity? NO - - - - - - - - YES Do plans for all time frames define operational strategies and concepts? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is there a process whereby short-term planning results can be fed into mid-term planning results, mid-term results into long-term results, and back to short-term? In other words, is there a “cycling” process whereby planning occurs along a continuum and is not only directed at a 20-year horizon? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have elected and senior officials enunciated their support and interest in short and mid-term operations and system performance as well as in capacity improvements? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are stakeholders from both the planning and management and operations communities represented in the regional planning process? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have most key transportation and related organizations in your region developed internal structures that enable cooperation between planning and operations elements? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have key transportation and related organizations in your region collectively developed a structure(s) that enables cooperation between the several agencies, and specifically cooperation between planning and operations staffs in the different agencies? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is the region able to effectively measure and make tradeoffs between ITS, management and operations, and traditional infrastructure-type improvements or expansions? NO - - - - - - - - YES Has the planning process expanded its view of system performance to include other than average or peak-hour conditions? Is the region effectively able to measure system performance? Are performance measures used to evaluate progress towards goals, and to make changes in current plans and programs when warranted? NO - - - - - - - - YES Does the inventory of transportation facilities and services include the ITS and communications components and operating rules/strategies that are part of an integrated alternative ? NO - - - - - - - - YES Does the region have a data collection and analysis program that includes varying system performance from throughout the day, between days, and under unusual events? NO - - - - - - - - YES Has the region completed an ITS architecture? NO - - - - - - - - YES Mark the relative position of your area’s advancement. FRAMEWORK III-27