National Academies Press: OpenBook

Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans (2021)

Chapter: Appendix C - Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Respondents
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26206.
×
Page 107

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.

90 Survey Responses The first item was to select the state the respondent represents from a state drop-down menu. Organizational Attributes of your Agency as Related to TSMO Plan Development A P P E N D I X C Question 2. On a scale of 1–5, indicate how true the following statements are of your agency’s current culture related to TSMO. (1 being agree the least, 5 being agree the most) We have defined a clear and formalized leadership for our TSMO planning efforts. 1 AK, ID, OK, RI 2 IL, IN, ME, ND, SC, UT, WI, WY 3 AR, District of Columbia, MA, MT, PA, VA, WA 4 CA, FL, GA, LA, MO, NJ, NM, NV, OH, TN 5 AZ, DE, IA, MI, MN, NC, NE, NH, OR, SD, TX, WV We have the processes needed to effectively prioritize TSMO projects. 1 AK, ID, IL, OK 2 AR, CA, IN, MA, MO, MT, ND, RI, SC, WA, WI 3 GA, ME, NC, OR, TN, UT, WY 4 AZ, District of Columbia, FL, LA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NV, PA, SD, TX, VA 5 DE, IA, MI, NE, OH, WV We partner with external (either to our department or to our agency) stakeholders to effectively plan for and prioritize TSMO projects. 1 AK, ID, MA, MT, OK, WI 2 AR, IL, IN, ME, NV, SC, UT 3 CA, District of Columbia, FL, MI, MN, MO, ND, RI, SD, TN, VA, WA, WY 4 GA, LA, NC, NE, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA 5 AZ, DE, IA, NH, TX, WV We have the organizational capabilities and funding needed to effectively plan for and prioritize TSMO projects. 1 AK, ID, OK, RI, WY 2 AR, District of Columbia, IL, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NV, SC, WA, WI 3 CA, GA, IN, LA, ME, MO, NH, NM, PA, TN, UT, VA 4 AZ, DE, FL, IA, MA, MN, NE, OR, SD, TX 5 MI, OH, WV We have the necessary information and data to effectively plan for and prioritize TSMO projects. 1 AK, CA, ID, MT 2 IL, MN, ND, OK, SC, WA 3 AR, GA, ME, NC, NH, NM, NV, PA, RI, SD, TN, WI, WY 4 AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, IN, LA, MA, MO, NE, NJ, OR, TX, VA 5 MI, OH, UT, WV

Survey Responses 91   Question 3. Does your agency currently have a TSMO plan? Yes AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, WV No AK, AR, ID, IL, IN, MA, ME, MT, ND, NM, OK, SC, UT, VA, WA, WI, WY Question 4. How would you characterize your current TSMO Plan? Statewide TSMO plan AZ, CA, District of Columbia, IA, LA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NV, RI, SD, TN, WV Regional TSMO plan None Both DE, FL, GA, NE, NJ, OH, OR, PA, TX Question 5. Is your state TSMO plan1 currently integrated with another plan? Yes (if so, which plan?) CA: state transportation plan, ITS Plans, etc. DE: Transportation Management is integrated into all phases of DelDOT planning, design, construction, implementation, operations, maintenance and training FL: Added TSMO as a strategy in the Project Development and environment process GA: general inclusion into state planning activities MI: ITS and CAV NC: Regional Strategic Deployment Plans, Traffic Incident Management Strategic Plan NE: Long-Range Transportation Plan NJ: DVRPC / NJTPA NV: Nevada's One Nevada Plan TN: Long-Range Transportation Plan No AZ, District of Columbia, IA, MO, NH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TX, WV I do not know LA, MN, OH 1 AK, AR, ID, MT, OK, WA 2 CA, IL, PA, RI, SC, WI, WY 3 District of Columbia, IA, ME, ND, NM, NV, SD, TN, TX, VA 4 GA, IN, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, OR 5 AZ, DE, FL, NE, OH, UT, WV We partner with external (to our agency) stakeholders to provide the necessary information and data to effectively plan and prioritize TSMO projects. 1 AK, ID, MT, OK, WI 2 CA, IL, ME, ND, RI, SC, WA 3 AR, District of Columbia, FL, IN, MA, MI, MN, MO, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, VA, WY 4 GA, IA, LA, NC, NE, NH, NJ, TN, TX, UT 5 AZ, DE, WV We have the necessary control within the agency to test, evaluate, and implement new investments in TSMO systems, strategies, and processes. Question 2. On a scale of 1-5, indicate how true the following statements are of your agency’s current culture related to TSMO. (1 being agree the least, 5 being agree the most) 1Or district TSMO plan, in the case of the District of Columbia. Current TSMO Plan

92 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Question 7. How would you describe the jurisdictional area covered by your TSMO plan(s) and what entity leads that plan? (Select all that apply) Region Led by State DOT2 Led by MPO Don’t Know Not Applicable Statewide AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, WV None None None State DOT region/district AZ, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, WV None None CA, DE, District of Columbia, MN, MO, RI, SD Metropolitan planning organization GA, MA, TN, WV AZ, FL, LA, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OR, PA, TX CA, DE, District of Columbia, IA, MN, MO, NC, NV, RI, SD Large urban area District of Columbia, GA, TN, TX, WV LA, NE, NJ, OR FL, MA, OH AZ, CA, DE, IA, MN, MO, NC, NH, NV, PA, RI, SD Multi-state AZ, FL, NE, NH, TN, TX, WV NJ MA, OH CA, DE, District of Columbia, GA, IA, LA, MN, MO, NC, NV, OR, PA, RI, SD Question 8. Does your agency currently have the following? A TSMO strategic plan (e.g., the business case for TSMO, vision and program mission, goals and performance objectives). AZ, LA, NC, SD A TSMO implementation plan (e.g., documenting active or planned TSMO projects, services, supporting legislation/municipal ordinances, and implementation policies). None Both CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, WV Neither RI I do not know None 2Or DC DOT, in the case of the District of Columbia. Question 6. Is your regional TSMO plan currently integrated with another plan? Yes (if so, which plan?) DE: County Transportation Masterplans GA: General inclusion into state planning activities OH: Statewide TSMO Plan OR: Typically Region No NE, PA, TX I do not know FL, NJ

Survey Responses 93   Question 9. When was the most recent version of your current TSMO plan(s) developed? (Select all that apply) Time frame Statewide3 Regional Currently in development LA, NE, NV, TX LA, MI, NC, NE, OR, TX Less than 6 months ago MI, RI PA Between 6 months and 1 year ago MN, MO, NH MO, NH Between 1 and 2 years ago CA, DE, District of Columbia, NC, OR, PA DE, FL, NJ, OH Between 2 and 3 years ago AZ, FL, NJ, OH, SD CA Between 3 and 4 years ago GA, IA, TN GA, TN Over 5 years ago WV WV I do not know None AZ, District of Columbia, IA, MN, NV, RI, SD Question 10. Which of the following motivations, goals, and/or factors influenced the development of your current TSMO plan(s)? (Select all that apply) Meeting performance-based planning and programming requirements AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, MI, NH, NJ, NV, OR, RI, TX, WV Improving system reliability AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, WV Reducing recovery times in major disruptions AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, MI, MN, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, WV Improving safety AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, LA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, WV Elevating transportation operations and/or TSMO within the state DOT4 AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, WV Establishing dedicated TSMO funding AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NV, OH, PA, RI, TN, WV Advancing agency level of capability across one or more dimensions within the TSMO capability maturity model (CMM) framework AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, MI, MN, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, WV Created in response to a specific incident or disruption NH, TN, WV I do not know None Other None Question 11. Does your agency currently have plans for developing a TSMO plan? Yes AK, AR, IL, IN, MA, ME, ND, NM, OK, UT, VA, WA No ID, MT, SC, WI, WY Question 12. Why not? ID Short on resources. MT In the short term the answer is no. Will we develop one at some point then the answer is maybe. Right now, we have other priorities. SC Currently there isn't any formal TSMO momentum or intent. My position was created within Traffic Engineering to become the TSMO Engineer, but with a very specific mission that doesn't include Department project planning. While TSMO concepts are considered in project planning, a formal TSMO office or plan isn't currently a goal. WI Have a document that is 8 years old. Would like to revisit that document within the next 2 years. WY Not all under one leader, parts scattered across divisions. No formal plan, part of several plans. 3Or district-wide, in the case of the District of Columbia. 4Or DC DOT, in the case of the District of Columbia.

94 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Question 14. In the following matrix, please indicate the role of the specific stakeholders with respect to the development and implementation of your agency’s regional and/or statewide TSMO plan.6 (Select all that apply) Program, Planning, and Project Development – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan AR, IL, IN, MA, MI, OK, VA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, ME, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, GA, ME, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OH, PA, TN, UT, WA No Role None Traffic Operations – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan AR, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, MN, MO, ND, OR, SD Lead Role – Regional Plan FL, GA, ME, NE, NM, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, ND, NJ, OH, OR No Role None Maintenance – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, IL, MA, MI, OK, RI, VA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, IN, LA, ME, MN, MO, NC, ND, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA Lead Role – Regional Plan OK Contributor Role – Regional Plan FL, GA, ME, ND, NV, NJ, NM, PA, TN, UT, WA No Role None Safety – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan AZ, IL, MA, MI, OK, VA, WA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, IN, LA, ME, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT Lead Role – Regional Plan OK, WA Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, GA, ME, ND, NE, NJ, NM, PA, TN, UT No Role OR 5Or district TSMO plan, in the case of the District of Columbia. 6Or district TSMO plan, in the case of the District of Columbia. Components of TSMO Planning Question 13. What is the anticipated timeline for the finalization of NEW regional and/or statewide TSMO plans5 for your agency (Select all that apply) Timeline Statewide Regional Less than one month NV PA Within 6 months CA, GA, NE GA, NE Within 1 year District of Columbia, FL, IA, LA, MA, ME, MI, MO, OH, TX, VA LA, MI, NC, OR, TX Within 1 to 2 years AR, AZ, IN, NC, NM, SD, TN, UT, WA ME, NJ, NM, TN, UT Within 2 to 3 years IL, NH, NJ, PA, WV NH, WA, WV Within 3 to 4 years AK, MN AK 5 years or more None None Not applicable DE, OR DE I do not know ND, OK, RI AR, AZ, CA, District of Columbia, FL, IA, IL, IN, MA, MN, MO, ND, NV, OH, OK, RI, SD, VA

Survey Responses 95   No Role CA, OR, PA Design – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan IL, MA, VA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, IN, LA, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OH, OK, TN, UT, WA No Role CA, GA, ME, MI, MN, PA Construction – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan IL, MA, MO, VA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, IN, LA, ME, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, ME, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OK, TN, UT, WA No Role GA, MI, OR, PA Other State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan MO – Traffic Incident Management OR – Maintenance and Operations SD - Research Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK – Information Systems MO – Traffic Incident Management ND – No Details Provided TN – Information Technology WA – Active Transportation, Public Transportation, Planning, Aviation, Rail-Freight, Tolling, Urban Corridors Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK – Information Systems OR – Maintenance and Operations TN – Information Technology WA – Active Transportation, Public Transportation, Planning, Aviation, Rail-Freight, Tolling, Urban Corridors No Role IA, IL, ME, NV Question 14. In the following matrix, please indicate the role of the specific stakeholders with respect to the development and implementation of your agency’s regional and/or statewide TSMO plan.6 (Select all that apply) Administration – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan AR, MA, MI, MO, ND, NV, VA, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, IL, LA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OK, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT Lead Role – Regional Plan ND Contributor Role – Regional Plan FL, ME, NE, NJ, NM, OK, PA, TN, UT No Role CA, GA, OR Freight – State DOT Department Lead Role – Statewide Plan FL, MA, MI, VA Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, AZ, District of Columbia, GA, IA, IL, IN, ME, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, GA, ME, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OK, TN, UT, WA

96 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Lead Role – Regional Plan VA Contributor Role – Regional Plan ME, ND, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, WA No Role CA, District of Columbia, IA, IL, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NV, SD Consultant Lead Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, IL, MI, MN, MO, NC, OH, SD, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan FL, GA, ME, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT No Role District of Columbia Municipal/City Lead Role – Statewide Plan WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AR, AZ, DE, GA, IL, LA, MA, ME, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, UT, VA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, GA, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA No Role CA, District of Columbia, FL, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, SD County Lead Role – Statewide Plan WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AR, AZ, DE, GA, IL, ND, NJ, UT, VA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan GA, ME, ND, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA No Role AK, CA, District of Columbia, FL, IA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NV, RI, SD Rural Planning Organization Lead Role – Statewide Plan WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AR, AZ, MA, ND, NH, UT, VA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan ME, ND, NM, OH, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA No Role AK, CA, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, IL, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NV, OR, SD Question 14. In the following matrix, please indicate the role of the specific stakeholders with respect to the development and implementation of your agency’s regional and/or statewide TSMO plan.6 (Select all that apply) Metropolitan Planning Organization Lead Role – Statewide Plan RI Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, AZ, DE, IL, LA, MA, ME, NC, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, PA, SD, UT, VA, WA Lead Role – Regional Plan NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, GA, ME, MI, ND, NE, NM, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT No Role CA, District of Columbia, IA, MN, MO, NV Council of Governments Lead Role – Statewide Plan WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AZ, DE, ND, NH, NJ, OH, VA

Survey Responses 97   No Role CA, District of Columbia, IA, IL, MA, ME, MI, NV, OR, SD Department of Public Safety Lead Role – Statewide Plan WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AK, AR, AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, MA, ME, MN, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, OK, OR, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, ME, ND, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, TN, UT No Role CA, GA, IL, MI, MO, NE, NV University Lead Role – Statewide Plan WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AZ, DE, IA, MA, NC, ND, NJ, OK, UT Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, ND, NJ, OK, TN, TX, UT No Role CA, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IL, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR, PA, SD Other Partner Agencies Lead Role – Statewide Plan None Contributor Role – Statewide Plan MO – FHWA NJ – Toll authorities, Division of Fire, DEP, etc. Lead Role – Regional Plan None Contributor Role – Regional Plan OR - Transit No Role AK – We do not have counties. CA, IL, SD Question 14. In the following matrix, please indicate the role of the specific stakeholders with respect to the development and implementation of your agency’s regional and/or statewide TSMO plan.6 (Select all that apply) Regional Transportation Management Center Lead Role – Statewide Plan MN, MO, NH, NM, WV Contributor Role – Statewide Plan AR, AZ, FL, LA, MO, NC, ND, NE, NJ, PA, RI, UT, VA Lead Role – Regional Plan PA Contributor Role – Regional Plan AK, FL, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Question 15. What degree of control do you provide to districts and/or regions in your state when developing and implementing TSMO plans? Total control None Majority of control AK, AZ, CA, DE, MI, ND, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA Some level of control AR, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, MA, ME, MO, NC, NE, NV, OH, SD, TN, WA, WV No control LA I do not know None

98 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Special Planni Studies AZ, CA, DE, IN, MA, NE, NH, NJ, NV, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, DE, NC, NJ, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA Regional Operations Plan AZ, District of Columbia, IN, MA, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV AK, CA, FL, IL, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA Congestion Management Plan AZ, DE, District of Columbia, IA, IN, MA, NH, NJ, NV, OR, RI, TN, UT, VA, WV DE, FL, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA Transportation Asset Management Plan AK, AZ, CA, DE, IA, IL, IN, MA, MO, NC, NE, NH, NM, NV, OH, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV CA, NC, NM, TN, UT, VA Statewide Freight Plan AK, AZ, DE, District of Columbia, IL, IN, MA, ME, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OR, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA NJ, TN, UT, VA Project selection processes AK, AZ, CA, DE, GA, IL, IN, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NV, OH, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV AK, CA, GA, FL, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA Performance-based planning and programming processes AK, AZ, CA, FL, GA, IA, IN, MA, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, GA, NJ, NM, OH, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA Transportation Improvement Program AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, IN, ME, MI, MN, NE, NH, NJ, NV, SD, TN, UT, VA, WV AK, CA, GA, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA Statewide Transportation Improvement Program AK, AZ, CA, DE, GA, IL, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV CA, GA, NJ, OR, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA Long-Range Transportation Plan AK, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, GA, IL, IN, MA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, GA, NJ, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA Other MN – Strategic Highway Safety Plan NJ – Traffic Incident WA – Agency Strategic Plan WA – Agency Strategic Plan Question 16. In the following matrix, please indicate the other statewide and/or regional planning products, activities, and processes that directly connect to your statewide and/or regional TSMO plans7 (Select all that apply) Product/Activity/Process Statewide Regional Not Applicable Don’t Know ng 7Or district TSMO plan, in the case of the District of Columbia.

Survey Responses 99   Question 17. Assuming that your TSMO plan has a defined budget, please identify all funding source contributions. Funding Source Yes No Don’t Know General state8 funds AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, IL, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV District of Columbia, IA, NE, OK, SD, WA IN, ND, NV, RI Federal-aid funds with local/state match AZ, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IL, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV AR, NC, OH, OK, OR, TX IA, IN, ME, ND, NV In-kind contributions from participating agencies AZ, DE, GA, MI, PA, TX, UT, WA AR, District of Columbia, FL, IA, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, SD IL, IN, ME, MN, ND, NV, RI, VA, WV State Planning and Research (SPR) Funds AZ, AR, DE, FL, IL, MI, NC, NH, NJ, PA, RI, SD, TN, VA, WA, WV District of Columbia, MN, NE, NM, OH, OK, OR, TX GA, IA, IN, ME, MO, ND, NV, UT Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds AZ, DE, GA, IL, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NM, PA, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV AR, District of Columbia, FL, IA, NE, OH, OK, OR, RI, TX IN, ME, ND, NV Participating Regional Planning Membership fees AZ, NJ, WA AR, District of Columbia, FL, IA, MN, MO, NC, NE, NM, OH, OK, OR, SD, TX, WV DE, GA, IL, IN, ME, MI, ND, NV, RI, UT, VA Freight Plan Funds AZ, NH, NJ, SD, WA AR, District of Columbia, IA, MN, MO, NC, NE, NM, OH, OK, OR, RI, TX DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, ME, MI, ND, NV, UT, VA, WV Rail Plan Funds NJ, VA, WA AR, AZ, District of Columbia, IA, MN, MO, NC, NE, NM, OH, OK, OR, RI, SD, TX, WV DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, ME, MI, ND, NV, UT Strategic Highway Safety Plan Funds AZ, DE, GA, IL, MO, NE, NJ, NM, OH, PA, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV AR, District of Columbia, NC, OK, OR, RI, TX FL, IA, IN, ME, MI, MN, ND, NV Other CA: No Assigned Budget IA: Road Use Tax Fund MA: Program in development utilizing non-organic budgets NJ: MPO Annual Funding participation PA: No defined TSMO budget, but I highlighted the sources considered. WA: Transit Funding, Capital, Maintenance OR MN, NV Funding 8Or district source, in the case of the District of Columbia.

100 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Question 18. In the matrix below, please select all applicable data sets used in the development of your agency’s TSMO plan. (Select all that apply) Data Set Statewide9 Regional Asset condition data AK, AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, MA, MO, NC, NE, NH, NM, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV CA, FL, NE, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Speed data AK, AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NJ, OH, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV AK, CA, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Volume data AK, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, GA, IA, IL, LA, MA, ME, MI, NC, NJ, NV, TN, UT, VA, WV AK, CA, ME, NM, PA, TN, UT, WA Crash data AK, AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, LA, MA, ME, MI, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NM, TN, TX, UT, WA Signal timing data AZ, DE, GA, IL, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, OH, TX, UT, VA, WV AK, CA, ME, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA Incident management data AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, LA, MA, ME, MN, MI, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NM, OH, PA, TN, UT, WA Travel time reliability data AK, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NV, OH, OR, RI, TN, UT, VA, WV CA, NM, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA TMC performance data AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, GA, IA, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Other OK: No Plan Currently PA: CMM Scores SD: CMM Assessment NJ: Unknown details about regional plan datasets OK: No Plan Currently Question 19. Does your agency have a designated amount of money or line item to fund TSMO projects on an annual basis? Yes AZ, DE, GA, IA, MI, MN, NC, NE, NJ, OH, OR, PA, TN, UT No AK, AR, CA, District of Columbia, FL, IL, IN, LA, MA, ME, MO, ND, NH, NM, NV, OK, RI, SD, TX, VA, WA, WV Question 20. What is the total amount of money dedicated to fund TSMO Projects? AZ $3.8 Million DE Have dedicated capital GA $5 Million IA $27.7 Million MI $30 Million MN $700,000 NC $6 Million NE $5.5 Million NJ Approximately $40 Million OH $5 Million OR $27 Million Operations PA There are small grant-types of programs dedicated to TSMO in general, and traffic signals. Currently working with Planning to identify other opportunities. Not able to share the dollar figure at this time. TN Annually we have approximately $35 Million, but this has recently increased due to a large-scale ICM project in the Nashville Area that added $9 Million in 2018 and $45 Million in 2019. UT About $5 Million 9Or district-wide, in the case of the District of Columbia. Data Project Selection

Survey Responses 101   Question 21. Which of the following criteria does your agency use when selecting TSMO projects for funding? (Select all that apply) Leveraging major capacity projects to deploy TSMO strategy enablers (ITS, highway safety service patrol investments, traffic/transportation management center updates). AR, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV Establishing system-engineering-based requirements within regional ITS architectures and ITS/TSMO procurements and deployments. AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, ME, MI, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV Establishing comparable project prioritization scoring (e.g., normalizing benefit cost per project $ spent) between TSMO/ITS projects and major capacity projects. AZ, CA, DE, GA, MI, NJ, NV, OH, PA, SD, TN, VA, WV Integrating regional TSMO project scoring with a statewide list of TSMO project scores. CA, DE, MI, MN, MO, NJ, PA, TN Developing a process to incorporate TSMO projects identified within regional TSMO plans into statewide TSMO plans and project rankings. AZ, DE, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OR, PA, TN, UT None of these criteria IL, WA I do not know None Other AK: We do not have any criteria yet. CA: CA has a great many funding sources with their own requirements. TSMO is not the lead in any of this. TSMO is basically late to the table in California where we have been completing TSMO projects for nearly 30 years. MO: We are in the process of identifying this process but the items selected above are anticipated to be included. Performance Measures NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV Improve System Performance (recurring congestion) AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, GA, IA, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Improve Safety AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, MI, NE, NJ, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Improve Asset Conditions (inclusive of all classes of assets) AZ, CA, DE, IA, MA, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OR, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, NE, NJ, TN, TX, UT, WA Reduce Environmental Impacts CA, DE, MA, MO, NE, NV, OR, UT, WA, WV CA, NE, NJ, UT, WA Question 22. In the matrix below, please identify all of your agency’s regional and/or TSMO plan goals/objectives that have an associated performance measure. (Select all that apply) Performance Measure Statewide Regional Improve Travel Reliability (non- recurring congestion) AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, CA, FL, NE, NJ, NM, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA

102 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Improve Project Delivery DE, GA, MA, NC, NE, NJ, NV, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, WV NE, NJ, TN, TX, UT Improve Resilience (improve vulnerable corridors) AZ, DE, GA, IA, MA, NE, NJ, OH, UT, WA, WV NE, NJ, TX, UT, WA Expand ITS/TSMO Coverage AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, LA, MA, ME, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, TN, TX, UT, WA Improve Regional Stakeholder Coordination and Communication AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, MA, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OR, PA, SD, TN, WA, WV CA, NE, NJ, NM, OH, PA, TN, TX, WA Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Improvement AZ, CA, GA, IA, MA, MI, MN, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, WA, WV CA, FL, NJ, OH, PA, TN, TX, WA Invest in Unreliable Hotspots/Corridors to Ensure Higher Return on Investment (ROI) AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, OH, PA, WA, WV CA, FL, NE, NJ, PA, TX, WA Leverage New Technologies AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OH, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, NM, OH, TN, UT, WA Include Multimodal Elements Such as Transit, and Active Transportation Plans to Improve Route Choice and Safety AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, MA, MN, NE, NJ, NV, TX, UT, WA, WV CA, ME, NE, NJ, OH, TX, UT, WA Improve TSMO Funding Outlook AZ, CA, GA, MA, MN, MO, NC, NJ, OH, TN, TX, WA, WV CA, NJ, TN, WA Improve Coordination of ITS Deployments Among Regional and AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA Statewide Partners NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV Other NJ: Not entirely sure of MPO's regional performance measures OK: No plan VA: VDOT uses several of the unchecked items, but we have not formalized with a target NJ: Not entirely sure of MPO's regional performance measures OK: No plan Question 22. In the matrix below, please identify all of your agency’s regional and/or TSMO plan goals/objectives that have an associated performance measure. (Select all that apply) Performance Measure Statewide Regional Question 23. In the matrix below, please identify the associated performance measures by which your agency’s regional and/or statewide TSMO plan(s) or TSMO projects are deemed a success. (Select all that apply) Performance Measure Statewide Regional Improve travel reliability (non- recurring congestion) AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, OH, TN, TX, UT, WA Improve system performance (recurring congestion) AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, MI, NE, NH, OH, TN, TX, UT, WA Traffic signal performance measures (e.g., % of traffic signals with remote timing communication capabilities) AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, OH, OR, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, OH, TX, UT, WA

Survey Responses 103   Other PA: We are in the early stages of defining data-driven performance. At this time, we do not have specific targets. RI: Many of the above-noted PMs (and several more that are not listed above) are included in the RI TSMO Performance Measurement Plan and Work Program, BUT such report was only just approved in JAN 2020, and thus it is "too early to know" as of FEB 2020 we are only just starting to track such PMs, and until we have ~ a year of such PMs to evaluate, we do NOT plan to set targets [exception is the Fed-required System Reliability PMs, but even for these where we have set targets, there is NOT any formal process(as) in place by which the aforementioned plan will be deemed a success or not]. We look forward to the time when we will be able to use targets for each of the TSMO-related PMs to "deem success" and make informed decisions RE: funding alignment / project prioritization based on such performance, but RIDOT is not there yet. TN: Incident Clearance Times Travel time reliability measures (e.g., buffer time index, travel time index, planning time index, travel time reliability, etc.) AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NV, OH, OR, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, OH, TN, TX, WA Incident management measures (e.g., incident clearance times and/or roadway clearance times) AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, NM, OH, TN, TX, UT, WA Asset preservation and life cycle measures (asset up/down time, maintenance schedule measures, etc.) AZ, CA, DE, IA, MA, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, NE, TN, TX, UT, WA Travel times AZ, CA, FL, IA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OH, TN, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NJ, OH, TN, TX, WA Personnel savings (e.g., use of algorithms to adjust signal timing and counting reductions in signal re-timing personnel hours) CA, DE, GA, MA, NJ, WA, WV CA, NJ, TX Vehicle delay hours (trucks and AZ, CA, DE, District of CA, FL, ME, NJ, WA personal vehicles) Columbia, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NV, OH, TX, VA, WA, WV Annual fatalities and fatality rates AZ, CA, District of Columbia, GA, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, ME, NE, NJ, TN, TX, UT, WA ITS system coverage AZ, CA, DE, FL, IA, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, NM, TN, TX, UT, WA Safety service patrol system coverage AZ, CA, FL, GA, IA, MA, ME, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, ME, NE, NJ, NM, TN, TX, UT, WA Project design measures (e.g., % of projects that complete a TSMO systems deployment checklist) CA, DE, MA, NE, NH, OH, UT, WA, WV CA, NE, TX, UT, WA Question 23. In the matrix below, please identify the associated performance measures by which your agency’s regional and/or statewide TSMO plan(s) or TSMO projects are deemed a success. (Select all that apply) Performance Measure Statewide Regional

104 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Question 24. Is there a district or regional TSMO plan template and guide provided to districts to facilitate the integration with a statewide plan, TSMO or otherwise? Yes NJ, PA, TX No AK, AR, AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV Question 25. Would you be willing to provide a copy of that document? Yes NJ, PA, TX No None Question 26. Indicate which TSMO plan implementation mechanisms have been used by your agency. (Select all that apply) Implementation Mechanism Statewide Regional TSMO program and/or institutional progress metrics that align with regional and/or statewide performance-based planning targets for resiliency, safety, and mobility. AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, ME, NC, NE, NH, NJ, OH, TN, TX, VA, WV CA, GA, ME, NE, NJ, TX Capability maturity goal and model progress tracking. AR, CA, IA, MN, NH, NJ, OH, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV CA, FL, NJ, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT Periodic TSMO progress report. AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, ME, MN, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OR, SD, TX, WV FL, NE, NJ, TX Period review of (S)TIP project, budgets, and MPO calls for projects to verify TSMO plan elements included. AZ, DE, District of Columbia, NC, NE, NJ, PA, SD, UT, WV NE, NJ, PA, UT Implementation guide within TSMO plan. AZ, DE, District of Columbia, IA, MN, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, TX, WV NE, NJ, PA, TX TSMO tactical plans as action items (e.g., traffic incident management, data integration, multimodal/active transportation). AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, MA, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV CA, NE, NJ, PA, TN, TX, UT TSMO project development checklist and scoping language for engineering consultants. AZ, FL, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, SD, WV NE, NJ, TX TSMO training/webinar material. AR, CA, DE, FL, GA, IL, MO, NH, NJ, OH, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV CA, NJ, OH, TN, UT, WA Conduct TSMO plan outreach (e.g., at project-specific meetings and district portfolio planning meetings, etc.). CA, DE, District of Columbia, IA, IL, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV CA, FL, NJ, NM, TN, TX, UT, WA Regional and/or statewide TSMO committee established. AR, CA, DE, IA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV AZ, CA, DE, NE, NJ, NM, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT Appoint TSMO Coordinator. AZ, CA, DE, IA, IL, MA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WV DE, NE, NJ, OH, TX, UT, WA Plan-based budget with resource needs. AZ, DE, MI, NE, OH, TX, WA, WV DE, NE, NJ, TX Allocate staff resources that match TSMO plan ITS deployment/maintenance needs. AZ, DE, GA, LA, NE, OH, TN, TX, UT, WV DE, NE, NJ, TX, UT OK OK Other RI: Although several of the above-listed mechanisms/actions would help RI / RIDOT and the RI TSMO PM Plan and Work Program recommends several, as of FEB 2020 none of the above have formally been used/completed. Note also that RI's sole MPO is currently updating its Congestion Management Process/Plan, and as part of such (expected later in 2020) the expectation is that some of the above actions will occur in response. None

Survey Responses 105   Question 27. On a scale of 1-5 indicate your opinion on how challenging the following items are to TSMO planning. (1 being least challenging, and 5 being most challenging) Securing necessary funding for TSMO investments. 1 MA, NE 2 MN, OH, OR 3 DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, PA, SD, TN, UT 4 AR, CA, IA, ME, MO, ND, NM, NV, OK, TX, VA, WV 5 AK, IL, LA, MI, NC, NH, NJ, RI, WA Acquiring and developing adequate staffing to maintain and service existing ITS and TSMO investments. 1 None 2 MA 3 AZ, CA, FL, LA, NE, OK, TX 4 District of Columbia, GA, IA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, WA 5 AK, AR, DE, IL, ME, MI, NC, ND, NH, NV, OH, OR, VA, WV Obtaining a seat at the decision maker’s table to champion TSMO solutions and inputs to various state DOT activities. 1 AK, AZ, GA, MA, NE 2 IL, ME, MN, MO, NJ, SD, TN, WV 3 DE, MI, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, UT 4 AR, CA, District of Columbia, FL, LA, ND, NH, NM, TX, WA 5 IA, NC, RI, VA Distinguishing TSMO activities from other state DOT programs and divisions (e.g., asset management, maintenance, and safety programs). 1 AK, AZ, NE, UT 2 GA, MO, TN, WV 3 CA, DE, District of Columbia, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD 4 FL, ME, NC, ND, PA, TX, WA 5 AR, IA, NH, RI, VA Achieving better cooperation among local agencies for TSMO (e.g., corridor-based signal timing, lighting maintenance across jurisdictional boundaries, incident management). 1 AZ, NE, NJ, UT 2 CA, DE, District of Columbia, GA, IL 3 IA, MO, NH, NM, NV, OR, RI, SD, WV 4 AR, FL, LA, ME, MN, NC, ND, OK, PA, VA, WA 5 AK, MI, OH, TN, TX Divergent operations and maintenance authorities (e.g., different agency installers with authority to retime signals vs. agency operations and maintenance divisions without authority to retime signals). 1 DE, IL, MO, NE, RI, UT, WV 2 CA, District of Columbia, FL, GA, MN, NC, NJ, OR 3 AK, AZ, IA, NH, NM, SD, TX, WA 4 AR, ME, OH, OK, PA, TN, VA 5 LA, MI Difficulty balancing between flexible program and policy design that empowers regions while preventing disjointed operations.

106 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Question 27. On a scale of 1-5 indicate your opinion on how challenging the following items are to TSMO planning. (1 being least challenging, and 5 being most challenging) 1 NE, NJ, NM, RI, SD, WV 2 AZ, CA, DE, District of Columbia, FL, IA, TX, UT 3 GA, MA, ME, MI, MO, NH, OH, PA, VA 4 IL, MN, ND, OR 5 OK, TN, WA Disjointed TSMO and ITS investments with proprietary restrictions between TSMO systems preventing data and traveler information sharing. 1 AZ, GA, MA, NE, NJ, NM, OR, UT, VA, WV 2 DE, District of Columbia, FL, MN, MO, OH, PA, RI, SD 3 IA, IL, ME, MI, ND, NH, NV, OK, TN, TX 4 None 5 CA WA Conflicting procurement procedures between state DOTs and regional stakeholders. 1 MA, NE, SD, TX, WV 2 DE, District of Columbia, FL, GA, MN, NJ, OH, OR, RI 3 AZ, IL, ME, MI, NH, NM, PA, TN, UT, WA 4 IA, NV, OK 5 CA Other None Question 29. Please provide any additional thoughts or comments you would like to share with the research team that would provide insight into your agency’s TSMO plans. (Open ended) AK We do not have a TSMO plan but are looking into one for the future. I would be interested to see the results. AR Our agency is in the process of procuring a consultant to help develop a statewide TSMO plan. The goal is to make a selection and kickoff the plan later this year. There have also been discussions with MPOs to possibly develop regional TSMO plans. We look forward to seeing the results of this synthesis. CA The concept of TSMO has come after Caltrans was already "doing" TSMO, so identifying exactly what is in-line with TSMO and what we were already doing is very difficult. The fact that our TSMO plan does not outline all things TSMO and does not align all TSMO elements does not really mean much here. In addition, funding categories that focus on important TSMO attributes are and have been in place for several decades. California is not new to performance- driven decision-making. We do not really use it very well, but we include it in most of our guidance... Getting everyone to use the term TSMO is challenging because we are trying to organize something that is broad and already exists in some form in nearly every division. In line with TSMO, we are a national ICM leader, which is the cherry on top of the TSMO banana split. Using that as an example of TSMO implementation makes it easier for me to describe how Caltrans and California is implementing TSMO. Give me a call if you would like to. I can literally spend hours talking about everything from personnel readiness to technology/equipment/data readiness and am happy to share. DE In 1997 the Delaware Department of Transportation published the Integrated Transportation Management Strategic Plan; the 1997 Plan was updated 2017. MA While MassDOT has long conducted TSMO functions, it has never been a formalized program. In the last year MassDOT formed a TSMO Working Group which meets monthly to discuss and update TSMO specific projects. We are in the process of identifying TSMO specific staff and in the early stages of developing a TSMO Strategic Plan. MO Just to mention, our original statewide TSMO plan was developed in 2017. It had three focus areas: TIM, WZ management, and advancing TSMO with matrices and proposed strategies. Over this past year we have been updating those matrices and strategies and are now focused on implementation. We have a statewide team, led by Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic, facilitated by a consultant, and three sub teams in the areas mentioned above (each sub team has a team lead). We are focused on implementation this next year. We would be happy to discuss more in detail. In Appendix A, Question 28 asked if a respondent would be willing to participate in a brief phone interview. This question was not germane to the analysis of the results and is excluded.

Survey Responses 107   we currently do, other than to make our TSMO activities and efforts more consistent and apparent. VA VDOT incorporates many TSMO activities and practices in its operations program planning and delivery. VDOT has not formally adopted the TSMO label or developed formal TSMO plans. VDOT staff are advocating for the development of this program. WA As for the TSMO plan we answered the question based on how we are developing our TSMO plan. WV West Virginia owns 95% of all roads within the state. Almost all ITS and signals are maintained by the state. Question 29. Please provide any additional thoughts or comments you would like to share with the research team that would provide insight into your agency’s TSMO plans. (Open ended) RI A copy of the RI TSMO Performance Measurement Plan and Work Program (funded by SHRP 2 L01/L06 and SPR funds) will be shared upon request. Note, the above Plan and Work Program (a Report) is the first RI state-level document to include TSMO in its title; for better or worse, RI did NOT first develop an overall guiding TSMO Plan (e.g., Strategic Plan or otherwise) because, at report initiation, it was felt that the RIDOT already treated transportation system-user operational performance (mobility/reliability/efficiency) as an overriding mission/goal, alongside safety. However, administrative changes have created a new environment that is focused on road and bridge infrastructure state-of-good-repair along with project deliverance/performance (on-time and on-budget is a bottom line); therefore, the RIDOT TMC is interested in the results of this Synthesis, particularly any example TSMO guiding documents that other DOTs have developed and used successfully to make the case for appropriate TSMO focus/funding/prioritization. TN We are starting a formal process of updating our TSMO Program Plan (called a Traffic Operations Plan at TDOT) now. This survey is really good timing for us and I would like to see the output of this study. TX On Question 25, I would need to get approval to share the document. Our TSMO plan is in the building phase. We have one district of 25 completed. We have 20 districts that are in various stages of development, and 5 districts that will begin in the next month. UT I answered many of these questions from the standpoint that we at UDOT do TSMO activities very well without really having a formal TSMO plan in place. We are working on a formal plan that we hope to have in place this year sometime, but the plan will not change much about what NJ Transportation Mobility Division is the TSMO-responsible entity within NJDOT. The majority of the questions answered for the Regional TSMO efforts are based on my understanding and coordination with the three MPO's in the NJ area (DVRPC, NJTPA, SJTPO). If one or more of the MPO's could fit the answer, I provided as such. NM A lot of the questions are tied back to having a TSMO plan in place and in turn how that plan has been used on various TSMO endeavors. Not currently having a plan didn't accurately reflect the fact that our agency is still fully invested in pursuing TSMO-related activities and endeavors. That said, I answered a lot of the questions on the premise of what we are doing regardless of whether it was tied back to a plan. NV Most of the questions where phrased as if the TSMO program plan was implemented. We have not yet implemented our statewide TSMO program plan; however, the plan is finalized and we plan to implement it by the end of the first quarter in 2020. OK Oklahoma DOT is in the infancy of trying to get TSMO and a TSMO plan up and running. We've been in this stage for a while without much forward progress on a unified TSMO strategy or plan. We have recently had a small group begin meeting monthly to attempt to develop the strategies needed to push TSMO forward and get more buy in and support from higher level executive staff. OR I found it difficult to respond to some of the regional plan questions as we have multiple regional plans that do vary. PA You can find the various state and regional TSMO documents on our website: penndot.gov (search for TSMO, click the top result).

Next: Appendix D - TSMO Plan Review Profiles »
Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) programs include elements of operations, planning, design, construction, maintenance, and safety. They are frequently complex and cross jurisdictional boundaries, involving traditional state departments of transportation (DOTs), local DOTs, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), along with disruptive technology markets.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 567: Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans documents current practices used by state DOTs related to the development and implementation of TSMO plans from state DOTs and MPOs. The study develops an overview of the current state of TSMO plan development and methodology.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!