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

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.

108 TSMO Plan Review Profiles Alabama Department of Transportation General Plan Details • Decision Making Level: State • Agency: State DOT • State: Alabama • Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas • Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Initiated in 2015 with the FAST Act. Alabama has state- maintained roads that carry more traffic and provide critical connection across the state. The role of TSMO is to increase effectiveness. • Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. • How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Focus is on improving TSMO and showing the data to back up how well it has been working. Project Development Process • TSMO Performance Measures: Alabama self-evaluated its own performance measures as level 1.5 out of 4. • Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: N/A • How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers • Barriers: While not explicitly stated as an issue, the document does establish task forces to help secure funding. Benefits/Lessons Learned • Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Includes data involving mobility challenges with non-recurring congestion; list of mobility objectives. • Asset Management: Provides detail on the funding and revenue from transportation. • Safety: In-depth information on the traffic safety issues in Alabama and the data provided; list of safety objectives. • Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A • Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Shows data involving mobility challenges with truckers, commuters, and shipping; list of mobility objectives. A P P E N D I X D

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 109   Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. • Organization: ALDOT is responsible for the creation of the state’s TSMO program. • Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Created the plan and integrated other organizations to help in the planning of the document. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO • Motivation of TSMO Plan or Research: Establishes strategies and programmatic fundamentals to the TSMO plan. • Term-Length of the Project: N/A • Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative and Quantitative. • What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components • Strategic: States the business case for TSMO, vision, goals, and performance objectives. • Programmatic: The program plan shows a framework for integration into culture, leadership, and business processes. Also includes a bulleted list with the main points. • Tactical: Made a service brochure with nine service layers and a description of them: ITS and Communications, Traffic Signal Management, Traffic Management Centers, Traveler Infor- mation, Traffic Incident Management, Emergency Transportation Operations, Work Zone Management. Arizona Department of Transportation General Plan Details • Decision Making Level: State • Agency: State DOT • State: Arizona • Year: 2017 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas • Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: 2015 ADOT formed the TSMO division. A TSMO focus will help ADOT continue to identify innovative ways of operating, managing and maintaining the state’s transportation network. • Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. • How TSMO Plans Were Developed: TSMO Plan is to focus on priority recommendations and strategies for improving planning for TSMO, establishing new lines of communication among key TSMO functions within ADOT, integrating ADOT’s priorities into regional planning, and elevating the understanding and awareness of ADOT’s TSMO efforts within the department and throughout the state. Project Development Process • TSMO Performance Measures: ADOT collects and reports data on crashes, travel times, and other performance measures. Already has a list of potential performance measures and performance reporting program. • Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: N/A • How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers • Barriers: There are resources and funding needs that will be required to implement the TSMO plan. Additional problems were pointed out about needing additional staff positions,

110 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans coordination with external agencies, having a small time frame, and changing ADOT processes. Benefits/Lessons Learned • Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): ADOT has implemented a 3-page strategy appendix that highlights what they want to do for traffic incidents. Some of the strategies require contractors to take TIM training, establish a central resource for TIM, update a statewide alternate route plan, and expand incident response and assistance program. • Asset Management: N/A • Safety: In the manual, there are safety recommendations, one being to establish a safety corridor program. A focus on technology for safety analysis and crash reporting is also discussed. (Pg. 44–45). • Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A • Mobility (Recurring Congestion): N/A Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. • Organization: ADOT • Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Created division/groups to focus on the TSMO project. Created partnerships with universities in Arizona. Created outreach and awareness for TSMO. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO • Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: ADOT seemed to have a primary focus on updating and improving their plan. A direct quote found in the plan was “This TSMO Plan was developed as a guide for the TSMO Division to address some of the major needs and gaps related to the Division and ADOT TS.” • Term-Length of the Project: 5-year program. • Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative, mostly. • What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components • Strategic: Outlines strategy description. Lays out what ADOT recommended it should do and why. • Programmatic: Shows a strategy description as well as how these strategies will be implemented. Illustrates anticipated outcome of the strategies. • Tactical: N/A Colorado Department of Transportation General Plan Details • Decision Making Level: State • Agency: State DOT • State: Colorado • Year: 2013 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas • Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: N/A • Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. • How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Enhanced continuous flow metering, enhanced courtesy patrol operations, bottleneck mitigation, etc.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 111   Project Development Process • TSMO Performance Measures: Producing a monthly performance measures report based on metrics identified in the TSMO Performance Measures Report. • Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: N/A • How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers Barriers: N/A Benefits/Lessons Learned • Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): More than half of congestion (55% in urban areas and 95% in rural areas) can be attributed to these non-recurring events. CDOT is currently utilizing various techniques to mitigate non-recurring incidents, such as HOV and managed lanes. • Asset Management: N/A • Safety: N/A • Reduced Maintenance Costs: Mentions implementing low-cost, high-value improvements, but nothing in detail. • Mobility (Recurring Congestion): High peak-period traffic volumes, bottlenecks, and poor signal timing in metro areas with daily commuting and on I-70 on weekends due to high- volume recreational travel in the mountains. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. • Organization: Mainly Division of Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO). • Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: N/A Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO • Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Systematically improve travel time reliability and safety on the transportation system. • Term-Length of the Project: N/A; not mentioned. • Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Largely based on qualitative measures. • What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components • Strategic: N/A • Programmatic: N/A • Tactical: TSMO techniques and technology utilization is provided with monthly performance measurement. Delaware Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Delaware Year: 2017

112 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas • Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: 1997 ITMS strategic plan. Having proper transportation management will improve the travel time and overall business of the state. • Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. • How TSMO Plans Were Developed: DelDOT TSMO project revolves around having an effective management of transportation system operation and improving overall TSMO on network. Project Development Process • TSMO Performance Measures: The Institute for Public Administration at the University of Delaware presented research on performance measures for ITMS and existing and future policy support for the program found in a number of state-wide and regional policy documents. • Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Benefit-cost factors for the TSMO program were life- cycle costs, deployment time, maintenance/upgrades, and synergies from applying multiple strategies. • How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers • Barriers: Effective management of nonrecurring congestion presents new challenges for agency policy, organization and staffing, resources and partnerships, as well as for basic agency culture and leadership. Benefits/Lessons Learned • Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): TMC is also able to mitigate the impact of non-recurring congestion by detecting, dispatching, informing, and aiding in incident clearing. • Asset Management: N/A • Safety: Strategies being employed by DelDOT to improve safety are improved traffic signals, incident detection, strong relationships with police and fire departments, and deploying tech- nology to keep track of construction and heavily congested areas. • Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Predictable recurring congestion is summer beach traffic and daily rush hour. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. • Organization: DelDOT • Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Operated all the roads and transportation functions; mainstreaming the TSMO program; built an open information architecture. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO • Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: N/A • Term-Length of the Project: N/A • Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative • What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Investment areas were selected based on six factors: congestion, traffic volumes, presence of transit routes, extent of goods movement activity, seasonal and recreational travel demands, and use as an alternate or bypass route. Plan Components • Strategic: DelDOT’s strategy was to create the infrastructure, partnerships, and capacity to be able to handle transportation management. In other words, they were trying to improve their

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 113   transportation management with these four strategies: (1) Create the necessary infrastructure to support transportation management. (2) Disseminate real-time, accurate information and allow customers to make informed decisions regarding travel route, travel time, and mode choice. (3) Develop partnerships to support transportation management activities. (4) Develop internal capacity to support transportation management. • Programmatic: DelDOT shows a table that displays the objectives for improving capability for system Operation and Management. These objectives answer how they plan on improving the system. • Tactical: DelDOT placed a table showing each individual strategy and what accomplishments have taken place as well as the following steps. Florida Department of Transportation General Plan Details • Decision Making Level: State • Agency: State DOT • State: Florida • Year: 2017 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas • Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: 2017 was developed by STEOO. Identify, prioritize, develop, implement, operate, maintain, and update TSMO program strategies and measure their effectiveness for improved safety and mobility. • Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. • How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Identify, implement, operate, and maintain TSMO strategies that will positively and significantly impact mobility, safety, and ITS/communication network availability. Project Development Process • TSMO Performance Measures: Performance measures are placed for mobility: travel time reliability, all lanes cleared goals, safety-secondary crash goals, ITS, and other strategies. • Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: DIVAS is being developed as a way to share data through FL511. Benefits of the strategies have had a high impact on the mobility. Benefits on safety have varied between medium and high for all the strategies. The costs for the strategies are also included and vary between each strategy. • How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: They score them based on the benefits and cost analysis contained in the document. Barriers • Barriers: Agency has a large number of programs they wish to fund. The 10-Year TSMO Cost Feasible Plan highlights all the divisions it wishes to fund within a 10-year period. Benefits/Lessons Learned • Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): TIM program is an effort to better coordinate and improve the management of the highway incidents and unplanned events. • Asset Management: N/A • Safety: Safety data was taken by SunGuide. This data is useful for problem identification and before-and-after studies. Calculation of all-lanes-clear times for the ITS Performance Measures Annual Report. RRSP activities in the ITS Performance Measures Annual Report. Daily data archiving for analysis by route, by route segment, by time of day, and by date intervals.

114 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans • Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A • Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Partnered with University of Maryland to obtain real-time traffic data. FDOT and other local agencies have also collected data by using detection systems and ATSPM. Data is used to better monitor recurring congestion throughout Florida. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. • Organization: FDOT • Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Partnered with other local agencies to collect data. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO • Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Develop and improve the current TSMO plan in place. • Term-Length of the Project: N/A • Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative, mostly. • What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components • Strategic: FDOT seems like they want to improve their TSMO plan overall. Most of the strategic plans place an emphasis on developing personnel, resources, and technology. • Programmatic: FDOT includes a strategic focus and describes how the focus will be achieved. • Tactical: Includes a good display of a performance assessment of the strategies. The impacts of the benefits and cost are on display for each strategy. Georgia Department of Transportation General Plan Details • Decision Making Level: State • Agency: State DOT • State: Georgia • Year: Not available TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas • Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: The mission of GDOT’s Statewide Traffic Operations and Response Management program is to proactively manage and maintain traffic signals statewide by leveraging existing and emerging technology. • Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. • How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Improved user satisfaction in terms of traffic, including safety, travel, and other such measures. Project Development Process • TSMO Performance Measures: GDOT shows a table that displays what metrics are being measured, and their designated target. • Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: MaxTime and MaxView are software packages that are being used by GDOT. • How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers • Barriers: Table in the document shows the program needs and illustrates challenges with agencies working on their own and the need to exchange information among one another. GDOT and regional transportation are separate when it comes to transportation maintenance.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 115   Benefits/Lessons Learned • Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Main items include the use of Traffic Engineering Asset Management Software used to manage Malfunction, Incident, Operation, and Preventive Maintenance. Office of Traffic Operations is responsible for coordination of traffic. • Asset Management: A comprehensive asset management system will allow the Department to evaluate maintenance activities to better identify equipment with frequent failures, capture actual maintenance costs per device, and make more informed procurement, maintenance, and support decisions. • Safety: Office of Traffic Operations is responsible for ITS and traffic safety. Safety needs are highlighted in the program needs. • Reduced Maintenance Costs: A preventative maintenance program will be put into place and enhanced over time to reduce device failures leading to a more reliable and cost-effective system. • Mobility (Recurring Congestion): The Regional Traffic Operations Program is responsible for improving and managing recurring congestion. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. • Organization: GDOT • Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: GDOT’s main role was setting up the system itself as well as developing the traffic signal programs. However, it is stated that each of Georgia’s districts has its own traffic operation and is responsible for the maintenance and operations of traffic signal systems within their geographic areas, which limits GDOT’s contributions. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO • Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Goal of the TSMO plan is to improve upon the current transportation system. With the main goals, the focus is to improve the day-to-day life of residents in terms of transportation. (Safety, Reliability, Efficiency, etc.). • Term-Length of the Project: N/A • Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative • What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components • Strategic: Strategies for the four goals listed are what GDOT’s focus is on. They give a brief description of why they want to complete these goals. • Programmatic: The objectives show how they intend to complete the goals talked about in the strategic components. • Tactical: Table 4-1 shows which objectives correspond with which goal. Additionally, one objective can correspond to multiple goals. This will be effective when trying to map out which objective to complete. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho General Plan Details Decision Making Level: Regional Agency: MPO State: Idaho Year: 2014

116 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: This 10-year TSMO plan is an evolution of the 2006 ITS strategic plan, which emerged from heavy ITS investments in the Boise region beginning in 1999. Lack of awareness of available TSMO strategies; lack of coordination across agency plans, policies, operating protocols, and resources; uncertainty over which TSMO strategies apply to which regional corridors. Coverage Area: Boise Urbanized Area. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: TSMO strategies identified in a TSMO toolkit are ranked by intensity of regional use; Level 1–5 for each and by county. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Pre-FAST Act Discussion of performance measures; no data to finalize; no policy board decision. Candidate PMs include: Collision rate, ITS Device Health, Hours of Congestion, Travel Time, Recurring Delay, Incident Response, Travel Time Reliability, Non-Recurring Delay, Transit Signal Priority, Customer satisfaction, freight throughput, GHG emissions, passenger throughput, bicyclist volumes, incident clearance time, construction information accuracy, special event information accuracy. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Offer credit to projects with operations strategies. Use sketch planning-level tool (e.g., TOPS-BC) in project selection. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Combination of whether project is on or influences CMP corridors, its status in ITS plan and ITS architecture assessment, and Treasure Valley transportation agencies’ needs provided through needs assessment and near-term high priority projects. Barriers Barriers: Lack of TSMO program in agencies, lack of central signal system platform, lack of formalized agreements between regional TSMO stakeholders regarding ITS procurement and coordinated systems. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Improved awareness of non-recurring data sources and associated candidate performance measure uses for data. Asset Management: Greater staffing needs awareness on asset maintenance. Safety: Vision sets forth safety connection. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Resource sharing opportunities identified. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Greater mobility data through coordinated ITS system deploy- ment. Focus on synchronization of project development. Synchronization between project development tied to recurring/capacity expansion and need to better operate corridor receiving these large-scale capacity investments. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Regional operations group proposed. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Shared data sources to help prioritize investments through performance criteria. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Coordinate ITS investments. Term-Length of the Project: Estimated 18 months to complete the 10-year plan, from 2014–2024; 5-year update recommended.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 117   Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative descriptors, largely. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Individual agency ITS investment priorities added to a regional TSMO list. No overall cross-stakeholder regional scores assigned. Plan Components Strategic: Outlines Vision Programmatic: Does not detail internal organizational structure or contain a programmatic section. Tactical: Outlines ITS-sided tactical slate of functional areas. No prioritization process tied to performance measures. Iowa Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Iowa Year: 2016 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Recognition that congestion in Iowa wastes time, fuel, and money, and is a direct cost to the traveling public. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Focus on improving safety, reliability, efficiency, conve- nience, coordination, and integration. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Provides a snapshot of ongoing performance measurement activities and highlights the need for improved decision support to make better TSMO-based decisions. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Performance Management and Decision Support Assessment. The service layer plans include discussion and analysis of opportunities and challenges, existing conditions assessment, gap analysis, recommendations, and a more detailed 5-Year Service Layer Plan. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers Barriers: N/A Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): The four main causes of non-recurring congestion in Iowa are traffic incidents, work zones, bad weather, and special events. Asset Management: N/A Safety: For each minute that a traffic incident continues, the likelihood of a secondary crash increases by 2.8%. Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A Mobility (Recurring Congestion): The remaining 28% of congestion in Iowa, referred to as recurring congestion, is caused by bottlenecks and poor signal timing, typically during peak hour traffic periods where there are more vehicles than enough roadway capacity to meet the demand.

118 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: IDOT Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Brings together Iowa DOT and its external partners to reduce traffic congestion and address disruptions in a collaborative and cost- effective program. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Will become safer, more efficient, and more reliable. Term-Length of the Project: Expected to complete in the next 2 years. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components Strategic: Highlights Iowa’s challenges, makes a case for TSMO and describes vision, mission, goals and strategic objectives for TSMO. Programmatic: TSMO Program Plan shows the objectives and how they would be met through agency efforts. Tactical: Includes a TSMO plan in a diagram form, including the strategic plan, program plan, and service layer plan. Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (Kansas) General Plan Details Decision Making Level: Regional Agency: MPR State: Kansas Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Improving TSMO in the region. Coverage Area: All regionally designated CMP corridors. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: The TSMO Task Force will identify potential projects that should include TSMO strategies and solutions in addition to stand-alone TSMO projects. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Develop performance measures for arterials; deliver better data to stakeholders; align federal requirements to TSMO performance measure; calculate oppor- tunity costs for projects; integrate ATSPM software into regional signals. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: N/A How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers Barriers: Made no points about funding so it is unknown. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Collecting traffic data and disseminating the information out to appropriate sources in a timely manner. Asset Management: N/A

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 119   Safety: Under the Multi-Modal Transportation service layer. The task force plans on identifying crash locations and/or corridors that necessitate high reliability. Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Greater mobility data through coordinated ITS system deployment. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: TPB is overall in charge of the committees and task force. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Create the staff and committees that are in charge of the TSMO task force. The TSMO task force goes more into detail on their activities. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Improving TSMO in the region. Term-Length of the Project: N/A Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components Strategic: Service Layer organization is a subset of TSMO-oriented plans identified to support and implement TSMO initiatives. The document includes 10 service layers, and explicitly states that the task force focus is on the first seven on the list. Document goes more into detail explaining the rationale behind that directive. Programmatic: Under each service layer, the plan has a subset illustrating how each service layer is going to be accomplished. Tactical: There is a chart in the plan that shows the service layer organization and what their priorities are. These priorities are separated between immediate, near-term, and long-term, which is helpful to the task force as it works as a good timetable for progress. Maryland Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Maryland Year: 2016 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: In 2014, the SHRP 2 L06 project, titled Institutional Operations to Improve Systems Operations and Management, provided Maryland with implementation assistance funds, which provided an opportunity to establish a comprehensive programmatic approach to TSMO, which it completed in 2016 as the first iteration of the Maryland DOT Strategic TSMO Plan. Maryland DOT SHA defines TSMO as an integrated approach to programmatic optimization of planning, engineering, operations, and maintenance in imple- menting new and existing multi-modal systems, services, and projects to preserve capacity and improve the security, safety, and reliability of our transportation system. Coverage Area: The TSMO plan addresses how TSMO is included in the planning, program- ming, and delivery process for every TSMO strategy, specifically calling out corridor needs in addition to overall transportation network needs. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Not detailed

120 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: 1. Safety: Number of disabled motorists assisted by Maryland DOT. 2. Efficient: Well-Connected Transportation Experience: PTI. 3. Efficient: Avg. time to restore normal operations post-disruption. 4. Efficient: Avg. time to restore normal operations post-weather event. 5. Economic opportunity: Total user cost savings for traveling public due to congestion mgmt. 6. Economic opportunity: % of VMT in congested conditions on MD freeways and arterials in the AM/PM peak. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: High-level description, but yes, it will be used to compare against capacity projects, including environmental impacts from capacity and construc- tion, as well as monetizing value of time, value of TTR, and fuel costs to allow for direct comparisons. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Positive end user cost; clear corridor-level need; proven solution usage consistent with TSMO goals. Barriers Barriers: Funding processes do not systematically identify and program TSMO projects. TSMO not aligned with TAMP. Project feasibility studies do not consider TSMO alternatives as tradeoffs with capacity improvements. No visible performance tracking process for TSMO. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Outreach materials are needed to explain TTR. Improved TTR is a goal. A separate plan to develop and integrate TTR into planning, programming, design, and operations within the agency thru use of reliability metrics. Asset Management: Asset management is considered an objective-level strategy to develop asset management systems for ITS devices and TSMO infrastructure within the systems and technology goal. Asset management is one of the four high-level focus areas. Safety: Uses the SHSP in the TSMO master plan. Office of Traffic Safety given leadership repre- sentation on TSMO executive and implementation committees. Number of crashes responded to is safety metric for SSP. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Identified as a need to develop formalized policies related to maintenance and programming decisions. Office of Maintenance given seat on TSMO implementation committee and TSMO working group. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): The plan is TTR-centric, and does not consider the benefit delivered by TSMO to recurring congestion. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Partnerships to be addressed through data sharing, traveler information, communication/outreach efforts. No descriptor of the role partners play. Collaboration with partners for ATDM is included in training offered to local government and MPOs as part of promotion of TSMO culture through training. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: None Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: To balance the state DOT’s approach to transportation investments in a way that gives equal weight to operational improvements as well as capacity to dramatically improve level of service. Term-Length of the Project: Iterative, starting in 2016, moving into implementation phase.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 121   Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Primarily qualitative details with some mix of quantitative metrics. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Not detailed Plan Components Strategic: Strategic Programmatic: Programmatic to some extent. Tactical: Not detailed Michigan Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Michigan Year: 2020 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: 2013 and 2015 Workshops based on SHRP 2 CMM workshop spurred development of TSMO strategic and implementation plan development. Maryland DOT Definition of TSMO: an integrated program to optimize the performance of existing multimodal infrastructure by implementing systems, services, and projects to maximize capacity and improve the security, safety, and reliability of the transportation system. Maryland DOT employs TSMO strategies and solutions to provide more efficient use of existing transportation resources by implementing strategies, deploying technologies, and integrating systems to address freeway and arterial congestion, improve safety and mobility, and encourage sustainability. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Not detailed Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: None selected yet, though discussion included. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: No benefit-cost analysis conducted. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: No scoring criteria or process established. Barriers Barriers: Funding was distributed across five funding “templates” of ITS, signals, safety, CMAQ, and Operations (operation field services, customer service, and contract services support and maintenance). This is a barrier requiring more coordination. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): B/C process under development. Perfor- mance measures for project selection and monitoring under development. Asset Management: B/C process under development. Performance measures for project selection and monitoring under development. Safety: B/C process under development. Performance measures for project selection and monitoring under development.

122 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Reduced Maintenance Costs: B/C process under development. Performance measures for project selection and monitoring under development. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): B/C process under development. Performance measures for project selection and monitoring under development. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Michigan DOT Business cases involved in communications outreach to five key stakeholders: the general public, legislators, Michigan DOT decision makers, Michigan DOT operations staff, and transportation partners/Michigan DOT non-operations staff. As evidenced in the Michigan DOT TSMO vision, the TSMO plans are primarily internally facing, focused on integrating operations within Michigan DOT into a core program, collabo- rating across program areas, and maintaining an operations workforce. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Within the Road Weather focus area, gathered input from stakeholders to prepare an annual summary of key practices that Michigan DOT can consider formalizing, and established a process for related policy updates. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: In recognition of the contribution of non-recurring congestion to the congestion picture, as well as advances in application of TSMO by peer states, and the present push by FHWA to deploy TSMO solutions and planning, Michigan DOT is developing this plan. In addition, TSMO supports Michigan DOT’s goal to lead the nation in incorporating emerging transportation technologies such as CAVs through its connection via ITS systems and roadway sensor technologies. Term-Length of the Project: 4 years Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Primarily qualitative What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Not detailed Plan Components Strategic: Strategic; all seven given equal weight. 1. Evaluate and Streamline Information Technology Processes. 2. Integrate Operations Across All Business Areas. 3. Integrate the Operations of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Signals. 4. Adapt Processes, Products, and Training to Advances in Technology. 5. Enhance Communications and Outreach to External and Internal Stakeholders. 6. Prioritize Resources to Meet Critical Emerging Needs. 7. Drive Progress with Meaningful Performance Measures. Programmatic: Programmatic details provided as implementation steps. Tactical: Not detailed Minnesota Department of Transportation – TSMO Strategic Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Minnesota Year: 2018 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: SHRP 2-based understanding that the primary causes of congestion break down into recurring/capacity and non-recurring/reliability camps, and that TSMO addresses the latter.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 123   Coverage Area: Freeways and principal and minor arterials (signalized and non-signalized intersections). How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Not detailed Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Not detailed Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Not detailed How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Not detailed Barriers Barriers: Not detailed Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Reduce frequency of congestion on freeways/arterials in metro areas. Reduce delays tied to construction. Reduce delays tied to snow and ice. Asset Management: Procure TSMO data for effective operations and performance management/ planning. Safety: Reduce incident response and clearance times. Reduce congestion-related crashes. Reduce number of secondary crashes related to work zones. Reduce number of single vehicle roadway departures. Reduce number of crashes at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Reduce number of crashes related to road weather conditions. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Right-size funding for life-cycle costs of TSMO assets. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Reduce # of congestion on freeways and arterials in metro areas. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: MnDOT mentions how it will fund research, training, and pilot demonstrations to prepare partners for emerging technologies. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Not detailed Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: MnDOT Specific Trends and Challenges: • Aging pavement and bridge infrastructure. • Increasing congestion. • Continued safety challenges. • Shift from building new to maintaining existing infrastructure. • Increasing focus on operating existing infrastructure. Term-Length of the Project: 2 years Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? No details Plan Components Strategic: • Clearly define the relationship between TSMO and MnDOT’s mission and vision. • Answers why TSMO is important. • Provides a high-level vision of “what” the agency seeks to achieve. • Articulates strategic goals and objectives. Programmatic: Not included Tactical: Not included

124 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Minnesota Department of Transportation – TSMO Implementation Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Minnesota Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: This document provides a prioritized list of detailed TSMO strategies to implement that were identified through input gathered from MnDOT districts and offices through a series of outreach workshops. Coverage Area: Freeways and principal and minor arterials (signalized and non-signalized intersections). How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Prioritized TSMO strategies are based on three goals and 16 objectives in the strategic plan, which are integrated with LRTP, TIP, and ITS Architecture, and Project Selection Policy. Priorities are obtained from 10 workshops across eight districts. Project selection has eight factors included with a max % of 525 points: • Cost and benefit: 28% • Planning consistency: 4.7% • Geographic scale and balance: 9.5% • Coordination and synergy: 14.2% • Ease of implementation: 19% • Maintainable scale: 14.2% • Accessibility: 4.7% • Research, innovation, and technology: 4.7% Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Not detailed. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: BC impact in use and represents heaviest potential selection factor. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: MnDOT districts make ultimate decision on TSMO project selection and corridors to implement. MnDOT TSMO leadership team provides framework for their use in making the decision. Benefit-cost run thru separate LRTP/MnDOT project selection policy plans. Barriers Barriers: There is no TSMO program proposed at this time. And no dedicated funds for TSMO. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Not detailed Asset Management: Not detailed Safety: Not detailed Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Not detailed Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: MnDOT relies on districts to attend workshops that are internally focused to select and rank TSMO strategies.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 125   Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Corridors identified and TSMO strategies ranked by MnDOT districts in workshops. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: To provide a list of detailed TSMO strategies to implement. Term-Length of the Project: 2 years Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Project selection has 8 factors included with max % of 525 points: • Cost and benefit: 28% • Planning consistency: 4.7% • Geographic scale and balance: 9.5% • Coordination and synergy: 14.2% • Ease of implementation: 19% • Maintainable scale: 14.2% • Accessibility: 4.7% • Research, innovation, and technology: 4.7% Plan Components Strategic: Not included Programmatic: Not included Tactical: TSMO strategies catalogue, corridors for implementation, and project selection factors included. Minnesota Department of Transportation – TSMO Business Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Minnesota Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: The MnDOT TSMO Business Plan addresses the business process and organizational structure to successfully deliver TSMO strategies within Minnesota. Coverage Area: Freeways and principal and minor arterials (signalized and non-signalized intersections). How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Not detailed Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Business processes are being recommended to collect data and to select/refine TSMO performance measures. Current TSMO measures include: metro congestion, Interstate reliability, truck travel time reliability, number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, average incident clearance time, and metro congestion. Under consideration are: travel time impacts from incidents, work zone travel time reliability, reliability of travel time on arterial routes, and number and severity of crashes in work zones. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Annual costs assigned to TSMO strategies thru funding scenarios table. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Score provided in a funding scenario table.

126 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Barriers Barriers: Funding: Patchwork of funding templates results in lack of coordinated deployment of TSMO strategies statewide. Staffing: No TSMO program and no TSMO staff or coordinator position to lead statewide TSMO strategy deployment approach. TSMO is not considered within other division plans to optimize deployments. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Reduced variability of travel times in work zones and on arterials, Interstates, and for trucks. Reduced incident congestion and associated travel times. Asset Management: Not detailed Safety: Reduced incident clearance time. Reduced number of fatalities and severe injuries from crashes. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Reduction in time spent in congested conditions. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: TSMO Leadership team consists of maintenance, commissioner, metro district engineer OR OM Director, Directors of Construction, Freight, Transit, TSMO, CVAV, State Patrol, Municipalities, and Counties. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: This leadership team will approve PMs, approve program activities, forward funding requests to funding approval committees, champion TSMO activities across MnDOT, and assist with outreach to internal and external sources. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: MnDOT recognizes a need to develop a mature and robust TSMO program through more formal approaches to deployment, organization, staff- ing, and collaboration. These institutional improvements will drive proactive and efficient transportation operations. Term-Length of the Project: 2 years Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Quantitative cost and funding scenario, but not perfor- mance measures. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Not detailed Plan Components Strategic: Not included. Programmatic: Actions to develop agency structure to advance TSMO and TSMO strategy recommendations. Business planning areas include: business processes (PMs, project delivery alignment), communication and collaboration (internal/external relationship development), resources (data, staff, finance), and organizational structure and integration (TSMO organi- zational model development, roles/responsibilities assignment). Tactical: No details Missouri Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Missouri Year: 2017

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 127   TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Timeline provided for MoDOT’s effort on implementing TSMO, beginning since 1992. Increase in traffic incidents and congestion that led higher cost of operation. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Identified key TSMO strategies in section 3.0, such as traffic incident and work zone management. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Definition measurement, data acquisition, and utilization. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Benefit-cost ratio of technology-enabled operational improvements is estimated to be 9:1. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Included in document. Barriers Barriers: N/A Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Identifying components of a TSMO program that fit into the larger planning process is necessary as non-recurring congestion has been the biggest problem in the state of Missouri. Asset Management: Requiring more organized committee and TIM training. Safety: Mention the general aspect about the deployment of the technology. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Partnering with KC Scout and other organization for the con- struction of ITS architecture, dramatically reducing the cost. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): A major issue for MoDOT has been non-recurring conges- tion; doesn’t mention recurring congestion in detail. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Formation of TIM Improvement Subcommittee under the Missouri Coalition for Safer Roadway Safety Executive Committee. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) guiding the work by TIM groups. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Continuously improving TSMO. Term-Length of the Project: N/A; mentions long-term investment and strategies briefly. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Largely based on qualitative measures. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Business process, systems and technology, performance measurement, and institutional dimension. Plan Components Strategic: Outlines the improvement and introduction of new strategic plan for TSMO in the state of Missouri. Programmatic: Included Tactical: TSMO Advancing Technology and Roadway Operations Action Matrix table.

128 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Nevada Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Nevada Year: Document received—not publicly available. TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Started in 2014 with the CMM scoring NDOT a level of 1 out of 4. Report of the TSMO program. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: N/A Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Have performance measurement in the Capability Maturity Model but never talk about it other than a description of why. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Implemented Advanced Traffic Management System, developed a database of ITS and communication device. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers Barriers: The TSMO plan is being guided by two committees making intercommittee commu- nication crucial. As of now the file shows that they have been successful. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): TSMO plan has made a reduction in secondary crashes by 20%. Asset Management: They briefly talked about ITS assets but didn’t say what they were. Safety: Was listed as one of the TSMO Business Case challenge areas but never described after that. Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A Mobility (Recurring Congestion): N/A Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: TSMO plan is guided by SNL and TCT. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: SNL provided the sufficient level of urgency at the strategic levels to create an inclusive and functioning TCT. TCT helped to improve NDOT’s CMM maturity in both the Collaboration and Culture dimensions. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Establishing a TSMO plan in order to improve traffic congestion problems, and creating a culture within the TSMO task force that will effectively be able to implement a TSMO plan. Term-Length of the Project: N/A Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: N/A What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 129   Plan Components Strategic: Includes specific detail on what the TCT goals were and why. Programmatic: In addition to the “Communications Planning and Execution” paragraph describing why these goals were important, they also explained how they went about solving them. Tactical: N/A New Hampshire Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: New Hampshire Year: 2014 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Started in 2014 with the ITS strategic Implementation Plan. Improving its ITS architecture system. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: They focus mainly on their ITS program. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: • PM-1: Monthly Activity Measures • PM-2: Dashboard Measures • PM-3: Corporate Measures Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: N/A How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers Barriers: They do not elaborate on their plans with TSMO and instead talk about ITS. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): N/A Asset Management: N/A Safety: Described several tools that are being used to manage traffic incidents. These being traveler information, service patrols, diversion plans, and state and local response agencies. One of their needs was coordination of freeway and arterial operation. Reduced Maintenance Costs: N/A Mobility (Recurring Congestion): TMC operations have been promoting safety and increasing mobility for typical travel. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: NHDOT Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Set up TMC Operations and the ITS infrastructure projects. Coordination with five partners to share a private-public microwave communications network.

130 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Provide guidance on the deployments and integrations of the ITS Program. Term-Length of the Project: 5 years, 2014–2019 Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components Strategic: For the strategic plan they show there are eight distinct categories they would like to focus on, including • ITS Infrastructure and Device Deployment, • Traffic Management Center (TMC) Operations, • ITS Device Maintenance, • ITS System/Network, • Traveler Information, • Traffic Incident Management, • Public Outreach, and • Other Considerations. These categories would be given an explanation of why they are important. Programmatic: Under each description of component there would be a need and a proposed section. These sections would explain what they needed and how they proposed to accom- plish the components. Tactical: N/A TRANSCOM (New York) General Plan Details Decision Making Level: Regional Agency: MPO State: New York Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: SHRP 2 and CMM workshops, Map-21, FAST Act. Updating former strategic plan. Coverage Area: All regionally designated CMP corridors. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: CMM-based: Goals and objectives for • Regional coordination, • Sustainability. • Performance measurement and management, and • Planning for the future. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: No project development-related performance measures detailed. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Impact analysis of TSMO projects is supported by use of shared database collecting TIM, speed, and transit data (DFE/SPATEL). How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Not detailed in report; more a function of MPO.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 131   Barriers Barriers: No barrier section detailed. Based on CMM self-assessment, barriers are estimated. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Not detailed Asset Management: Not detailed Safety: Not detailed Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Not detailed Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Multiple workshop-based collaborations. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Involved 16 transportation, planning, and public safety organizations. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: SHRP 2 and CMM. Term-Length of the Project: 2-year update cycle. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative and high level. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Not detailed. Implementation and programmatic elements appear to be under MPO planning efforts. Plan Components Strategic: Included Programmatic: Not included Tactical: Not included Ohio Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Ohio Year: 2017 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: FAST Act and Map-21 pushed the need for state DOTs to strategize, implement, and evaluate the integration of systems management and operations into the agency. Coverage Area: Operational improvements will focus primarily on Ohio’s freeway system, including all Interstates as well as select major “Interstate look-alike” highways such as State Route 315 in Columbus, State Route 8 in Akron, and U.S. Route 35 in Dayton. In the future, it may expand to include the entire strategic transportation system and possibly the whole Ohio DOT system. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Preliminary, but the aim is to apply operations assess- ment tools and criteria by central Ohio DOT staff, with districts playing support role. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Selection factors in TOAST include • Bottleneck occurrences (for all vehicles), • Freight bottleneck occurrences,

132 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans • Traffic incident frequency, • Traffic incident clearance time, • Crash rate, • Travel time reliability index, • Snow and ice control performance evaluator (time to recover speeds after a winter weather event), and • Average annual daily traffic (AADT). Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: No benefit-cost analysis conducted. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Ohio DOT central office makes decisions with district support using traffic operations assessment tool (TOAST). Weighting will be assigned internally and draw on TSMO performance measures as factors. Tool still in development. Barriers Barriers: Lack of adequate staffing; lack of funding needed to move from ad hoc staff coverage of TSMO program needs such as planning, funding, data management, and performance measures for TSMO; lack of cross-division and office collaboration/communication. TSMO functions at the central office division of operations are not reflected in district offices, which divide duties related to TSMO between highway management and capital program manage- ment areas. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Bottlenecks, incident clearance, and secondary crashes are tracked in TOAST on a corridor basis for each district. Asset Management: Freight corridor scores are tracked in TOAST per district. Safety: Safety performance as a measure is tracked in TOAST per district on a corridor basis. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Volume per lane, bottlenecks, and travel time performance are tracked in TOAST on a corridor basis for each district. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: District TSMO coordinators will coordinate with partners including MPOs, ROPs, local city DOTs, public works departments, counties, and turnpike authorities. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: External agencies will participate in inter- agency group to facilitate inclusion of TSMO in project initiation packages and project development process. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Not detailed. Term-Length of the Project: 4-year update process. TSMO budgeting occurs annually. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Quantitative corridor-based project selection through TOAST tool, but funding details unavailable. Separate TSMO Capital improvement program funds available for TSMO projects without HSIP or Programmed projects. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Detailed weighting included in the document based on criteria, performance measurements, and ranges. Plan Components Strategic: Detailed in Goals and Objectives Brief. Programmatic: Detailed in Resource Alignment Brief.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 133   Tactical: Specific TSMO tactics are not covered in depth. PMs include • Reduce secondary crashes caused by traffic incidents, • Reduce WZ-related crashes, • Reduce roadside “struck by” incidents, • Maximize free flow travel time on Ohio’s freeway system, and • Increase resilience. Oregon Department of Transportation Analysis Procedures Manual (APM) General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Oregon Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: N/A Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: TSMO strategies largely based on data related management. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Performance measures identified for each project. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Tool for Operations Benefit-Cost Analysis (TOPS-BC) introduced. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Use the OTP and state mode/topic plans as policy guidance and develop a list of long-range projects to meet the objectives. Barriers Barriers: Funding issues Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Maximize the function and performance of current transportation networks to reduce delay and improve reliability for all modes. Asset Management: Maximize existing assets and optimize capacity using TSMO strategies. Safety: Described several tools that are being used to manage/control traffic incidents. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Calculated using TOPS-BC. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Development and deployment of variable speed control (speed harmonization). Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Partnership among multiple business units within an agency and across modes and jurisdictions in a region. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Described in TSMO Programming section; largely by FHWA and other state DOT. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: No details. Term-Length of the Project: 25-year long-term plan for OTP.

134 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Largely based on qualitative measure. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Funding and scheduling resources. Plan Components Strategic: Improvements in Oregon’s transportation system, outlines detailed planning. Programmatic: Does not detail internal organizational structure or contain a programmatic section, except financing part. Tactical: Detailed description of services planned to be deployed with their tailored performance assessment. Oregon – Portland Metro’s Regional Transportation System Management and Operations Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: Regional Agency: MPO State: Oregon Year: 2010 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which is the main driving force of climate change. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Multimodal Traffic/Demand Management that includes various regional projects. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: N/A Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Benefit and cost analysis of each regional projects is summarized in the table. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: N/A Barriers Barriers: N/A Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Increase in reliability through system management and operation solutions. Asset Management: N/A Safety: Overviews some past studies in active traffic management. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Materialize the benefit, seek for capital improvement projects and public-private partnership. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Increase in reliability through system management and operation solution. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Regional group proposed Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: N/A

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 135   Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Enhancing Oregon community through establishing better environment. Term-Length of the Project: 10 years with various timelines for each project. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Largely based on quantitative measure. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components Strategic: Outlines vision. Programmatic: Does not detail internal organizational structure or contain a programmatic section. Tactical: List of services provided, no prioritization through performance assessment. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation – TSMO Program Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Pennsylvania Year: 2018 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: To increase reliability and mobility of roadways using operations. Coverage Area: Statewide TSMO program plan inclusive of state and municipal roadway and ITS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Project selection factors not described. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: No performance measures selected. It is recognized as a strategic need, and categories cover traffic signal performance, incident clearance and secondary crashes, and work zone congestion. In addition, project-level performance measurement, and system- wide performance measures for overall reliability. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: No benefit-cost analysis conducted. Recognized as a tactic within the strategy to identify a steady source of funding. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Not detailed. Barriers Barriers: Not enough training. Not enough funding, or staffing. No guidance on operations policies or procedures. Not enough intra-agency or interagency coordination. No established performance measures or ways to account for benefits accrued from TSMO to right-size it in comparison to larger capital investments. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Not detailed Asset Management: Not detailed Safety: Not detailed Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Not detailed

136 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Forming TSMO strategy teams upon which decisions for prioritized investments can be made. For example, in Philadelphia region, TIM teams are formed with DVRPC- led involvement of state/local law enforcement, EMS, PennDOT, towing and recovery, communication. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: TSMO does not have a project selection process yet. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: To achieve better balance between investments in road- way capacity expansion and operational capability with resulting increases in reliability and mobility. Term-Length of the Project: 4 years. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Primarily qualitative descriptions of needs, strategies, and best case examples. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Not detailed. Plan Components Strategic: Included in document. Programmatic: Included in document. Tactical: Included in document. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation – Western Regional Operations Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Pennsylvania Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: The ROP will complement the statewide TSMO Program Plan by identifying the regional approach to traffic operations and sets the stage for regional implementation of TSMO strategies. Coverage Area: This Regional Operations Plan (ROP) has been developed to cover the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Western Region. This region is comprised of PennDOT Engineering Districts 1, 10, 11, and 12. This region is centered on the Regional Traffic Management Center located in Bridgeville, PA at the PennDOT District 11-0 office. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Projects prioritized based on stakeholder inputs, short/ long-term-“ness” of proposed project, congestion and non-recurring congestion/crash hot spots, and identified TSMO needs (TIM, TIS, Freeway/Arterial Ops, etc.). Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: PennDOT One Map website (gis.penndot.gov/OneMap) was heavily utilized in the development of this plan. Data on region’s operations helped pinpoint congestion and safety issues, as well as ID gaps in ITS device coverage via hotspot analysis presentation to ROP steering committee.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 137   Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: B/C analysis is patchwork. It is only conducted for regional traffic signal program. No clear tie to project selection and evaluation. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Projects were prioritized based on a volume-driven roadway tiering system and stake- holder input and discussion into “High Priority” and “Normal Priority” groups. The ROP Projects were then divided into short-term and long-term categories. Short-term projects were identified as those that could be implemented in less than 4 years. Long-term projects are those that would take 4 or more years. TSMO solutions were placed in a framework to determine whether they address different types or sources of congestion: bottlenecks, poor signal timing, unplanned events (traffic incidents, weather), and planned events (work zones, special events). Barriers Barriers: TSMO is not on a project-scoping checklist. There is lack of a stable source of funding hampering sustained planning efforts. LRTPs used to populate project lists are released by different MPOs using different schedules. Districts and the central office may have different procurement priorities (i.e., spending on retiming signals vs. investing in adaptive traffic control systems). Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): A measure used is travel time index. Asset Management: Not detailed. Safety: A measure used in project descriptions is reduced rear-end crashes. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): A measure used is reduced bottleneck delay. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Steering committee of PennDOT confers with stakeholders’ group, which is comprised of PennDOT District Safety Engineers, PennDOT County Maintenance Depart- ments, Southwestern PA Commission (SPC), the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), county planning departments, transit agencies, and bicycle advocates. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: MPO LRTPs are incorporated into project listings for TSMO steering committee to decide on. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Not included. Term-Length of the Project: 4 years. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: A good balance of quantitative geospatial hot spot analysis with qualitative inputs from steering group and stakeholders in workshops for TSMO project selection/ranking. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Crash, travel time ratio (TTR), volume. Plan Components Strategic: This is not included. Programmatic: This is included somewhat in depictions of organizational issues. Tactical: This is included. The selection of TSMO solutions, strategies, and depiction of pro- cesses to prioritize.

138 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans South Dakota Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: South Dakota Year: 2016 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Started in 2013 with evaluation of SHRP 2 research by AASHTO. SDDOT needs to advance its TSMO capabilities to increase agency efficiency and address sources of non-recurring congestion impact. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: Specific TSMO projects identified throughout. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Performance measure described in section 3.7 in detail: 1. Performance measure plan; 2. PM pilot program implementation; 3. Develop PM; 4. Evaluate PM. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: The costs and benefits of specific TSMO strategies are well documented by the U.S. DOT ITS Joint Program Office in Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits, Costs, and Lessons Learned: 2014 Update Report 2, and relevant applications in South Dakota are not noted. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Included in document. Barriers Barriers: Challenged to find and cultivate staff with appropriate qualifications to perform the functions necessary to support a TSMO program. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Included in a specific section. Asset Management: Establish an interim TSMO Implementation Team within the department to serve as the internal focal point for near-term policy development, change management, education, and accountability. Safety: Incident scene management, clearance, and restoration; winter maintenance, special events, and work zone management. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Adoption of road weather management and winter operations greatly reduces the overall management cost in SDDOT. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): N/A: The vast majority of congestion source in SD has been non-recurring. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Partnering with the private sector and assessing applications’ feasibility and value. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Carrying out or participating in the actions’ objectives with the plan’s detailed tasks and implementation steps, as well as elements of the overall Implementation Strategy. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Improving TSMO. Term-Length of the Project: Looking out 2 to 5 years and beyond.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 139   Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Largely based on qualitative measures. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Task time frame of the individual TSMO project implementation evaluated. Plan Components Strategic: Improvements in SD’s transportation system, reduce the major non-recurring congestion. Programmatic: Specific information provided in document. Tactical: Prioritization based on individual project’s timeline of completion, section 3–7 for performance measurement. Texas Department of Transportation – TSMO Strategic Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Texas Year: 2018 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: To maximize mobility in the face of Texas cities being among the most congested locations in the U.S. through use of TSMO integrated across planning, design, construction, and maintenance. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: The program plan is comprised of a strategic plan, TSMO district program plans, and tactical plans. TSMO program plan is classified using CMM capability dimensions: business processes, systems/tech, performance, culture, organization/ workforce, and collaboration. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: TSMO evaluation process is layered into project development and design based on safety (historic crash rates) and operations (LOTTR or Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio > 1.5). Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: A TSMO evaluation tool is being developed to assist districts in determining how TSMO can be applied to projects to improve mobility during conceptualization, planning, design, construction, operation, management, and maintenance. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Project selection process not detailed. Barriers Barriers: Not indicated. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Improved reliability. Asset Management: Increased ITS/TIS/TIM system coverage. Safety: Reduced incident clearance time. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Increased ITS asset operation uptime. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Not indicated.

140 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Distinctions are made between district and statewide collaboration within TxDOT units (design, construction, traffic, maintenance). Activities include regular meetings, scoping meetings, and project reviews. Districts to develop an internal TSMO group. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Externally, districts will review and include TSMO-related plans from MPOs and cities including TIM, TSMO, ITS architecture, and TIS. A regional TSMO subcommittee will be developed for collaboration between MPOs, public agencies at county and city level, and District. Action items of regional TSMO subcommittee include data sharing agreements and a process to prioritize TSMO projects or evaluate existing projects on TIP to ensure TSMO elements included (at least 1 per division memo). Private sector relationships will be planned and developed to cover elements such as alternative mobility solutions, ICM, TIM, and traffic management center operations/staffing. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: TSMO will be related to improvements in mobility, safety, and asset management. These are included within performance-based planning requirements and project selection criteria as part of the 10-year unified transportation planning process. Term-Length of the Project: 2 years. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative primarily. No quantitative description of TSMO project selection detailed. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Not detailed. Plan Components Strategic: This topic is covered at a statewide level. Programmatic: Programmatic components will be led by districts. Tactical: Tactical component will be led by districts. Texas Department of Transportation – Austin District TSMO Program Plan General Plan Details Decision Making Level: Regional Agency: State DOT State: Texas Year: 2019 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: The purpose of the Austin District TSMO Program Plan is to identify improvement opportunities in the following key elements: • Strategic: The foundation of a TSMO program. Opportunities include setting regional goals and performance measures, developing TSMO program vision and mission, and defining a business case. • Programmatic: These elements define how TSMO planning is included in the agency. Opportunities involve, but are not limited to, defining the internal roles and responsibili- ties for TSMO, institutionalizing business processes, and formalizing internal and external collaboration. • Deployment: Addresses specific priorities for the region. This element can include spe- cific mobility strategies, use of technology in project planning and construction, corridor- specific issues, maintenance operations, multimodal solutions, and more.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 141   Coverage Area: All regional Austin roadway systems, including NHS and non-NHS systems, minor and major arterials, and on/off-TxDOT system roadways. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: TSMO project/program details, who is responsible for it, and cost per strategy. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: Not detailed. Pending with tactical plan components. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Not detailed. Pending with tactical plan components. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Not detailed. Pending with tactical plan components. Barriers Barriers: No funding for TSMO set aside or TSMO-oriented criteria for project selection. No integration of ITS plans into project development. Central control is at the level of a recommendation rather than a standard or requirement. Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Reduced NR congestion. Asset Management: Increased funding. Safety: Improved safety. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Not detailed. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Reduced recurring congestion. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: In project development, current internal collaboration efforts focus on estab- lishing regular meetings between designers and planners in 30/60/90 project design stages to cover installation of TSMO solutions that do not add capacity. There is no one “in charge” of the process for including TSMO. Rather, Traffic Operations is asked to provide input to the larger design process alongside planning and design activities. Future internal organizational activities focus on CMM for next steps in advancing TSMO. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Most partnerships are standing and in good stead, but not organized. Therefore, looking forward, Austin District will coordinate with CAMPO to ensure plans integrate with TSMO district plan. Austin District will develop a regional TSMO committee in partnership with City of Austin, City of Round Rock, Capital Area MPO, and other local entities. Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: TxDOT’s 2015–2019 strategic plan calls out the need for greater investment in operations and TSMO solutions/strategies. This has been incorporated into statewide and local LRTPs. Term-Length of the Project: 2 years. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Qualitative, primarily, based on value points assigned equally across multiple criteria. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? Borrowed from the CAMPO LRTP, the Austin District TSMO plan will use the LRTP’s ITS/Operations project selection weights and factors to select projects. The following factors each have 10 points except for maintenance and local funds match: planning, redundancy, expandable, integratable, inci- dent management is connected, lifecycle is over 5 years, a maintenance plan is attached, local contribution to the cost (5% = 1 point).

142 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Plan Components Strategic: No included Programmatic: Not included Tactical: Not included Wisconsin Department of Transportation General Plan Details Decision Making Level: State Agency: State DOT State: Wisconsin Year: 2014 TSMO Plan Methodologies/Content Areas Origin/TSMO Planning Impetus: Originally began to integrate operation into WisDOT planning processes. Coverage Area: All statewide NHS facilities. How TSMO Plans Were Developed: They focus mainly on their ITS program. Project Development Process TSMO Performance Measures: MAPSS Performance Dashboard to review key goals and over-arching performance measures. Benefit-Cost or Impact Analysis Use: Calculated regularly to ensure the operation of the devices is necessary. How Decision Makers Consider Scoring Criteria in the TSMO Project Selection Process: Nature of the issues, the economic assessment, and types of devices, data, software, and other considerations. Barriers Barriers: N/A Benefits/Lessons Learned Travel Time Reliability (Non-Recurring Congestion): Travel reliability metrics calculated from newly available probe data, improved special event traffic indicators, and weather-related crash indicators. Asset Management: Injecting a versatile and dynamic inventory system that provides GIS, online mapping, and analysis for planning and agency investment decisions, filling a critical gap in the business cycle that fuels the information necessary for asset management. Safety: Deployment of various ITS technology. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Retiring old infrastructures and recognizing that shifting to private sector services is more cost-effective or provides better customer service. Mobility (Recurring Congestion): Travel reliability metrics calculated from newly available probe data, improved special event traffic indicators, and weather-related crash indicators. Partnerships in Decision Making Process: MPOs, Private Sector, etc. Organization: Regional planning agencies such as Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, and large urban communities. Contributions to the TSMO prioritization project: Improving stakeholder understanding of system performance and operational needs.

TSMO Plan Review Profiles 143   Motivation and Weight Given to TSMO Motivation of TSMO Plan or research: Provide for the reliable, predictable and safe movement of people and freight across the statewide and Great Lakes regional highway network. Term-Length of the Project: 6 years project plan proposed. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Balance: Detailed quantitative information regarding cost evalua- tion of ITS deployment, but others are largely qualitative. What factors are given certain weights in the scoring process? N/A Plan Components Strategic: Improvements in Wisconsin’s transportation system though ITS deployment, outlines requirements and logistical planning. Programmatic: Does not detail internal organizational structure. Tactical: Outlines ITS-sided tactical slate of functional areas.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Sum m ary State D O T Practices for D eveloping and Im plem enting TSM O Plans N CH RP Synthesis 567 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-67412-6 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 7 4 1 2 6 9 0 0 0 0