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.

24 State of the Practice The agency survey conducted as part of this study looked to understand the experience of agencies in applying methods for TSMO plan development, implementation, and monitoring within state DOT planning and programming processes, whether statewide or at a district or regional level. Additionally, the survey looked to identify gaps in TSMO plan practices, gaps in knowledge, and research needs. Forty states and the District of Columbia responded to the survey, for a response rate of 80.4%. The following sections highlight the results of the survey, and the complete details of the survey responses are provided in Appendix C. Those specific state DOTs that provided detailed answers discussed in this chapter are shown in Figure 6. Representatives from these states pro- vided responses to questions focused on several critical topics related to TSMO planning. These topics were: organizational attributes, their current TSMO plan, integration of their State MPO plan, components of TSMO planning, funding, data, project selection, performance measures, implementation, and challenges. The survey (Appendices A and B) was answered by a single individual within each responding organization. While it is expected that the respondent answered each question from an objec- tive perspective representing the organization as a whole, it is unclear to what extent individual subjectivity might have influenced individual responses throughout. It is also important to note that some TSMO planning efforts are being led by agencies other than DOTs, which may have played a part in specific states not responding to the survey. Organizational Attributes The first series of questions looked to determine the overall approach or attributes of an organization with respect to TSMO planning. It is important to note that all of the respondents answered the following series of questions. Additionally, for each of the questions, the respondent was asked to indicate how true the statement was with respect to their agency’s current culture related to TSMO: 1 being agree the least, 5 being agree the most. For example, respondents reported how true it was that they believed that their agency has defined a clear and formalized leadership for TSMO planning efforts within the organization. Regardless of whether the agency has a formal TSMO plan, the majority of respondents (73%) agreed somewhat or more that their agency has leadership for TSMO planning. Additionally, a similar percentage of respondents (71%) agreed somewhat or more that they have a set of processes needed to effectively prioritize TSMO projects. An important attribute of an organization’s ability to effectively plan for and prioritize TSMO projects is their efforts to work with critical stakeholders. Approximately half of respondents (53%) somewhat agreed or more that their agency partners with stakeholders. Other attributes C H A P T E R 3

State of the Practice 25   that can point toward success in effectively planning for and prioritizing TSMO projects are an organization’s capabilities (e.g., such as within the CMM framework), and their available funding for TSMO. A slight majority of respondents (58%) agreed somewhat or more that their agency has the organizational capabilities needed for effective TSMO. A fundamental component of TSMO is the use of relevant data for planning, implementing and evaluating a TSMO program and/or TSMO projects. When asked whether they have the necessary information and data to be effective at planning and prioritizing TSMO projects, slightly more than half (55%) of respondents indicated that they believed it was somewhat true or more that their agency has these critical tools for TSMO effectiveness. Furthermore, agencies are likely to need to work with external stakeholders to obtain essential data. With respect to working with partners in this way, only 49% of respondents indicated that they believe it is somewhat true or more that their agency partners to provide information and data for TSMO projects. When asked if they feel that their agency has the necessary control to test, evaluate, and implement new investments in TSMO, a majority (58%) of respondents indicated that they somewhat agree or more with that assessment of their agency. Current TSMO Plan The next series of questions focused on current TSMO plans that are in place in responding agencies. As illustrated in Figure 7, 24 respondents indicated that they have a TSMO plan for their organization. Of those 24, nine agencies indicated that their TSMO plan could be charac- terized as both a statewide TSMO plan and a regional TSMO plan. Those states were Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Nine states did not respond to the survey as shown in Figure 7. Of those states, the following have infor- mation available related to some level of TSMO planning at either the statewide or regional Figure 6. Survey respondent states.

26 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans level: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Vermont, some of which are reviewed in Appendix D. Of those agencies that indicated they had no TSMO plan, 12 responded that they had plans to develop one in the future (see Table 10). For those agencies that responded in the negative, their reasons for not developing a TSMO plan primarily focus on the agency priorities being elsewhere and organizational issues. Specific paraphrased responses are provided in Table 11. Figure 7. Current TSMO plans in the United States. Survey Choices State Responses Yes AK, AR, IL, IN, MA, ME, ND, NM, OK, UT, VA, WA No ID, MT, SC, WI, WY Table 10. Agency plans for developing a TSMO plan. Reason Lack of resources for the development of a TSMO plan. A TSMO plan may be developed in the future but the agency is currently prioritizing other initiatives. While a position was created within Traffic Engineering to become the TSMO Engineer, that role has a very specific mission that does not include Department project planning. While TSMO concepts are considered in project planning, the creation of a formal TSMO office or plan is not currently a goal. Agency has a document that is 8 years old that we hope to revisit within the next 2 years. TSMO planning is performed across multiple divisions and is part of several plans rather than occurring under a single division or plan. Table 11. Reasons for not developing a TSMO plan.

State of the Practice 27   Yes 46% No 42% Don't Know 13% Statewide TSMO Plan Integrated with Another Plan* *Out of 24 Responses Figure 8. Respondents where statewide TSMO plan is integrated with another plan. State Plans Integrated with Statewide TSMO Plan CA State transportation plan and ITS plans DE Transportation management is integrated into all phases of Delaware DOT (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, TIM Strategic Plan NE LRTP NJ Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)/North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) NV Nevada's One Nevada Plan TN LRTP Table 12. Plans integrated with statewide TSMO plans. Integration of State TSMO Plan Once agencies stated that they have a statewide TSMO plan, they were asked to indicate whether that plan is currently integrated with other plans within the state. Nearly half (46%) of those respondents with statewide TSMO plans indicated that they are integrated with other plans, as shown in Figure 8. Specific details provided by those respondents are included in Table 12. Four of those responding also indicated that their regional TSMO plan is integrated with other plans, including the county transportation masterplans (DE), general inclusion into state planning activities (GA), the statewide TSMO plan (OH), and regional plans (OR). When asked how they would describe the jurisdictional area covered by their TSMO plan(s) and which entity leads the respective plan, respondents provided details that are illustrated in Table 13. As noted in the table, all statewide TSMO plans are led by state DOTs.

28 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans As shown in Figure 9, the majority (67%) of the most recent statewide TSMO plans in use are less than 3 years old, with 17% currently under development. Of those respondents with current TSMO plans, 79% have both a TSMO strategic plan and a TSMO implementation plan. Of particular interest to the research team was the motivation, goals, and factors that influenced the development of an entity’s current TSMO plan. As presented in Figure 10, respondents were motivated by a wide range of factors. For example, nearly all of those responding selected three Region Led by State/District DOT Led by MPO Don’t Know Not Applicable Statewide/District- wide 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 Table 13. Jurisdictional area covered by TSMO plan(s) and lead entities. Less than 6 months ago, 8% Between 6 months and 1 year ago, 13% Between 1 and 2 years ago, 25% Between 2 and 3 years ago, 21% Between 3 and 4 years ago, 13% Over 5 years ago, 4% Currently in Development, 17% Most Recent Version of TSMO Plan* *Out of 24 Responses Figure 9. Development time frame of most recent version of TSMO plan.

State of the Practice 29   factors affecting the development of their TSMO plan: elevating transportation operations and/or TSMO within the state DOT (96%), improving system reliability (92%), and improving safety (92%). Note that respondents were able to select all answers that applied to their agency. Components of TSMO Planning A key component of TSMO planning is the role that various agency departments, divisions, and stakeholders play in the development and implementation of a TSMO plan. As illustrated in Figure 11 (statewide) and Figure 12 (regional), traffic operations divisions within state DOTs overwhelmingly take the lead in statewide TSMO plans, with leadership roles also being held by the: administration; maintenance; program, planning and project development; and safety. Other state DOT departments noted include TIM (MO); Maintenance and Operations (OR); Active Transportation, Public Transportation, Planning, Aviation, Rail-Freight, Tolling, and Urban Corridors (WA); Research (SD); and Information Technology (TN). A significant number of state DOT traffic operations divisions also play a lead role in development of regional TSMO plans (see Figure 12). When not leading the statewide TSMO plan, all other state-level divisions play a contributor role. For regional TSMO plans, traffic operations divisions also most often play a lead role, though significantly less than at the statewide level. With respect to external stakeholders, consultants and regional TMCs most often play a lead role in statewide TSMO plans (see Figure 13), and MPOs most frequently lead regional TSMO plans (see Figure 14). 17% 54% 63% 79% 79% 92% 96% 92% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Created in response to a specific incident or disruption Meeting performance based planning and programming requirements Establishing dedicated TSMO funding Reducing recovery times from major disruptions Advancing agency level of capability across one or more dimensions within the TSMO capability maturity model (CMM) framework Improving safety Elevating transportation operations and/or TSMO within the state DOT Improving system reliability *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 10. Motivations, goals, and/or factors influencing the development of the current TSMO plan.

30 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans 22% 89% 23% 22% 24% 13% 11% 15% 21% 75% 14% 74% 72% 65% 74% 69% 74% 21% 0% 0% 0% 3% 9% 10% 17% 12% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% State DOT-Program, Planning and Project Development State DOT-Traffic Operations State DOT-Maintenance State DOT-Safety State DOT-Administration State DOT-Freight State DOT-Design State DOT-Construction State DOT-Other Lead Role-Statewide Plan Contributor Role-Statewide Plan No Role * Multiple Answers Possible Figure 11. Role of state DOT departments and divisions in statewide TSMO plan.

State of the Practice 31   0% 31% 3% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36% 11% 31% 28% 26% 35% 29% 29% 29% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% State DOT-Program, Planning and Project Development State DOT-Traffic Operations State DOT-Maintenance State DOT-Safety State DOT-Administration State DOT-Freight State DOT-Design State DOT-Construction State DOT-Other Lead Role-Regional Plan Contributor Role-Regional Plan * Multiple Answers Possible Figure 12. Role of state DOT departments and divisions in regional TSMO plan.

32 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans 3% 3% 27% 3% 3% 3% 16% 3% 4% 0% 47% 24% 64% 47% 27% 23% 41% 69% 32% 14% 18% 41% 3% 26% 39% 45% 31% 22% 54% 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% MPO Council of Government Consultant Municipal/City County Rural planning organization Regional transportation management center Department of Public Safety University Other Partner Agencies Lead Role-Statewide Plan Contributor Role-Statewide Plan No Role *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 13. Role of stakeholders in statewide TSMO plan.

State of the Practice 33   15% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 41% 38% 42% 38% 39% 32% 34% 31% 21% 14% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% MPO Council of Government Consultant Municipal/City County Rural planning organization Regional transportation management center Department of Public Safety University Other Partner Agencies Lead Role-Regional Plan Contributor Role-Regional Plan *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 14. Role of stakeholders in regional TSMO plan.

34 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans When asked to what degree of control they provide to districts and/or regions when develop- ing and implementing TSMO plans, an overwhelming majority of respondents (97%) indicated that they provide either some level or a majority of control. No respondents offer total control, and the remaining 3% provide no control to districts and regions for TSMO plans. It is also important to note that TSMO planning does not happen in a vacuum. As shown in Table 14, agencies utilize a broad range of statewide or regional products, activities, and processes to connect to TSMO plans. The most common elements include the statewide freight plan, the LRTP, the statewide transportation improvement plan, the transportation asset management plan, and performance-based planning and programming processes. Funding As with all transportation planning efforts, funding is essential to successful development and implementation of TSMO plans. As illustrated in Figure 15, the most common sources for funds that respondents utilize for TSMO plans include general state funds (69%), federal-aid funds with local/state match (65%), CMAQ funds (56%), SHSP funds (52%), and SPR funds. Addition- ally, 39% of respondents have some level of designated annual funds for TSMO projects. Specific levels of funding provided by respondents are provided in Table 15. Note that respondents could select multiple answers to the question. Data As discussed previously, data are critical components of a successful TSMO plan. Whether provided by the state DOT or partner stakeholders, data serves as the foundation for the plan, provides a benchmark for progress, and can be utilized to prioritize specific TSMO projects. As presented in Figure 16, the most common data sets used by responding agencies for statewide TSMO plan development include crash data, incident management data, and asset condition data. For regional TSMO plans, the most common data sets include asset condition data and signal timing data, with volume, speed, incident management, and TMC performance data also being utilized. Note that respondents could select multiple answers to the question. Product/Activity/Process Statewide Plan (%) Regional Plan (%) Special Planning Studies 79 58 Regional Operations Plan (ROP) 70 57 Congestion Management Plan 75 55 Transportation Asset Management Plan 95 32 Statewide Freight Plan 100 18 Project selection processes 85 50 Performance-based planning and programming processes 92 42 Transportation Improvement Program 74 52 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 96 33 LRTP 96 32 Table 14. Statewide/regional products, activities, and processes used to connect to TSMO plans.

State of the Practice 35   69% 65% 27% 50% 56% 10% 17% 10% 52% 19% 19% 43% 25% 31% 52% 43% 55% 23% 13% 16% 30% 25% 13% 38% 40% 34% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% General state funds Federal grants with local/state match In kind contributions from participating agencies State Planning and Research (SPR) Funds Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds Participating Regional Planning Membership fees Freight Plan Funds Rail Plan Funds Strategic Highway Safety Plan Funds Yes No Don't Know *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 15. Funding source contributions for TSMO plans. State TSMO Funding Michigan DOT $50 Million Oregon DOT $27 Million operations program. Includes more than just TSMO projects. UDOT $5 Million PennDOT There are small grant-type programs dedicated to TSMO in general and traffic signals in particular. Currently working with planning division to identify other opportunities. Not able to share the dollar figure at this time. GDOT $5 Million DelDOT Have dedicated capital transportation project called Transportation Management Initiatives. Additionally, all capital projects are reviewed to include transportation management related systems, operations and technologies. North Carolina DOT $6 Million Table 15. Designated annual funds for TSMO projects.

36 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans Project Selection An important element of a TSMO plan is the ability to provide information agencies can use to select TSMO projects. When asked about the criteria they use for TSMO project selection, nearly all respondents (86%) indicated that an important criterion is the ability to leverage a major capacity project as an enabler for deploying a TSMO strategy. Establishing systems-engineering-based procurement requirements was also another common criterion (see Figure 17). 91% 86% 86% 93% 71% 93% 85% 89% 41% 36% 36% 34% 38% 36% 30% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Asset condition data Speed data Volume data Crash data Signal timing data Incident management data Travel time reliability data TMC performance data Statewide Regional *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 16. Data sets used in TSMO plan development. 6% 23% 37%40% 69% 86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None of these criteria Integrating regional and statewide TSMO project scoring Integrating regional and statewide TSMO plans and project rankings. Establishing comparable project prioritization scoring Establishing systems- engineering-based procurement requirements Leveraging major capacity projects to deploy TSMO strategy enablers *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 17. Criteria for TSMO project selection.

State of the Practice 37   Performance Measures Performance measures are closely linked to TSMO plans and an agency’s approach to deter- mining appropriate TSMO projects. These measures also serve as a backdrop to determining success for a TSMO project or plan. As presented in Figure 18 and Figure 19, agencies link a variety of TSMO plan goals and objectives with associated performance measures. The statewide goals and objectives that were selected by all respondents include • Improve safety, • Improve asset conditions (inclusive of all classes of assets), • Expand ITS/TSMO coverage, • Leverage new technologies, and • Improve TSMO funding outlook. Similar goals and objectives are associated with performance measures for regional TSMO plans, though to a lesser extent than at the statewide level. Common goals and objectives noted by respondents were to include multimodal elements such as transit, and active transportation plans to improve route choice and safety to improve coordination of ITS deployments among regional and statewide partners, and to expand ITS/TSMO coverage. Respondents were asked to select specific performance measures by which a regional and/or statewide TSMO plan or TSMO projects would be deemed a success. For statewide TSMO plans and projects, the most frequently selected measure was vehicle delay hours for both trucks and personal vehicles (see Figure  20). For a regional TSMO plan, respondents most frequently selected both project design measures and safety system patrol system coverage (see Figure 21). Implementation An essential component of a TSMO plan is the implementation. Without a comprehensive approach toward implementing the various phases of the plan, the plan cannot reach its full potential to the benefit of the traveling public. As shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23, agencies utilize a broad range of mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of their respective TSMO plan. At the statewide level, the most common method is the development of a periodic TSMO progress report, while the most common mechanism for a regional TSMO plan is the establish- ment of a regional TSMO committee. However, it is important to note that a comprehensive TSMO plan is likely to incorporate many of these mechanisms depending on the resources available. Challenges The process of developing and implementing a statewide or regional TSMO plan is not without its challenges. As part of the survey, respondents were asked to rank from 1 (low) to 5 (high) the significance of various challenges they might encounter in the TSMO planning process. As shown in Figure 24, the issue identified as the most challenging is related to the transportation agency workforce. The acquisition and development of adequate staffing to main- tain and service existing ITS and TSMO investments was ranked the highest by respondents followed by securing necessary funding for TSMO. Summary of Results The agency survey looked to understand the experience of agencies in applying methods for TSMO plan development, implementation, and monitoring within state DOT planning and programming processes, whether statewide or at a district or regional level. Additionally, the survey looked to identify gaps in TSMO plan practices, gaps in knowledge, and research needs.

38 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans 93% 86% 97% 95% 83% 87% 85% 95% 82% 91% 89% 96% 81% 93% 96% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Improve Travel Reliability (non-recurring congestion) Improve System Performance (recurring congestion) Improve Safety Improve Asset Conditions (inclusive of all classes of assets) Reduce Environmental Impacts Improve Project Delivery Improve Resilience (improve vulnerable corridors) Expand ITS/TSMO coverage Improve regional stakeholder coordination and communication Capability maturity model (CMM) improvement Invest in unreliable hotspots/corridors to ensure higher return on investment (ROI) Leverage new technologies Include multimodal elements such as transit, and active transportation plans to improve route choice and safety Improve TSMO funding outlook Improve coordination of ITS deployments among regional and statewide partners Statewide *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 18. Statewide TSMO plan goals and objectives with associated performance measure.

State of the Practice 39   37% 41% 43% 40% 50% 40% 46% 48% 45% 41% 44% 46% 56% 36% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Improve Travel Reliability (non-recurring congestion) Improve System Performance (recurring congestion) Improve Safety Improve Asset Conditions (inclusive of all classes of assets) Reduce Environmental Impacts Improve Project Delivery Improve Resilience (improve vulnerable corridors) Expand ITS/TSMO coverage Improve regional stakeholder coordination and communication Capability maturity model (CMM) improvement Invest in unreliable hotspots/corridors to ensure higher return on investment (ROI) Leverage new technologies Include multimodal elements such as transit, and active transportation plans to improve route choice and safety Improve TSMO funding outlook Improve coordination of ITS deployments among regional and statewide partners Regional *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 19. Regional TSMO plan goals and objectives with associated performance measure.

40 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans 70% 70% 68% 69% 71% 70% 71% 65% 67% 78% 72% 68% 63% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 90% Improve Travel Reliability (non-recurring congestion) Improve System Performance (recurring congestion) Traffic signal performance measures (e.g., % of traffic signals with remote timing communication capabilities) Travel time reliability measures (e.g., buffer time index, travel time index, planning time index, travel time reliability, etc.) Incident management measures (e.g., Incident clearance times and/or Roadway clearance times) Asset preservation and life cycle measures (asset up/down time, maintenance schedule measures, etc.) Travel times Personnel savings (e.g., use of algorithms to adjust signal timing and counting reductions in signal re-timing personnel hours) Vehicle delay hours (trucks and personal vehicles) Annual fatalities and fatality rates ITS system coverage Safety Service Patrol system coverage Project design measures (e.g., % of projects that complete a TSMO systems deployment checklist) Statewide *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 20. Performance measures to determine statewide TSMO plan success.

State of the Practice 41   30% 32% 31% 29% 30% 29% 35% 33% 22% 28% 32% 37% 38% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Improve Travel Reliability (non-recurring congestion) Improve System Performance (recurring congestion) Traffic signal performance measures (e.g., % of traffic signals with remote timing communication capabilities) Travel time reliability measures (e.g., buffer time index, travel time index, planning time index, travel time reliability, etc.) Incident management measures (e.g., Incident clearance times and/or Roadway clearance times) Asset preservation and life cycle measures (asset up/down time, maintenance schedule measures, etc.) Travel times Personnel savings (e.g., use of algorithms to adjust signal timing and counting reductions in signal re-timing personnel hours) Vehicle delay hours (trucks and personal vehicles) Annual fatalities and fatality rates ITS system coverage Safety Service Patrol system coverage Project design measures (e.g., % of projects that complete a TSMO systems deployment checklist) Regional *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 21. Performance measures to determine regional TSMO plan success.

42 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans 71% 65% 79% 71% 76% 73% 77% 74% 68% 61% 75% 67% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% TSMO program metrics align with regional and/or statewide performance-based planning targets Capability maturity goal and model progress tracking Periodic TSMO progress report Periodic verification that (S)TIP project, budgets, and MPO calls for projects include TSMO plan elements Implementation guide within TSMO plan TSMO Tactical plans are action items TSMO project development checklist and scoping language for engineering consultants TSMO training / webinar material Conduct TSMO plan outreach Regional and/or Statewide TSMO committee established Appoint TSMO Coordinator Plan-based budget with resource needs Staff resources match TSMO plan and tactical plan (ITS, TIM, RWIS, etc.) deployment/maintenance needs Statewide *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 22. Statewide TSMO implementation mechanisms.

State of the Practice 43   29% 35% 21% 29% 24% 27% 23% 26% 32% 39% 25% 33% 33% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% TSMO program metrics align with regional and/or statewide performance-based planning targets Capability maturity goal and model progress tracking Periodic TSMO progress report Periodic verification that (S)TIP project, budgets, and MPO calls for projects include TSMO plan elements Implementation guide within TSMO plan TSMO Tactical plans are action items TSMO project development checklist and scoping language for engineering consultants TSMO training / webinar material Conduct TSMO plan outreach Regional and/or Statewide TSMO committee established Appoint TSMO Coordinator Plan-based budget with resource needs Staff resources match TSMO plan and tactical plan (ITS, TIM, RWIS, etc.) deployment/maintenance needs Regional *Multiple Answers Possible Figure 23. Regional TSMO implementation mechanisms.

44 Summary State DOT Practices for Developing and Implementing TSMO Plans 3.6 4.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.1 2.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Securing necessary funding for TSMO investments Acquiring and developing adequate staffing to maintain and service existing ITS and TSMO investments Obtaining a seat at the decision makers table to champion TSMO solutions and inputs to various state DOT activities Distinguishing TSMO activities from other state DOT programs and divisions (e.g., asset management, maintenance, and safety programs) Achieving better cooperation among local agencies for TSMO (e.g., corridor-based signal timing, lighting) Divergent operations and maintenance authorities (e.g., agency operations and maintenance divisions without authority to retime signals) Difficulty balancing between flexible program and policy design that empowers regions while preventing disjointed operations. Disjointed TSMO and ITS investments with proprietary restrictions between TSMO systems preventing data and traveler information sharing Conflicting procurement procedures between state DOTs and regional stakeholders Figure 24. Average ranking of TSMO challenges from 0.0 to 4.5.

State of the Practice 45   Forty states and the District of Columbia responded to the survey, for a response rate of 80.4%. Representatives from these states provided responses to questions focused on several critical topics related to TSMO planning. These topics were: organizational attributes, their current TSMO plan, integration of their State MPO plan, components of TSMO planning, funding, data, project selection, performance measures, implementation, and challenges. Overall, it is important to note that regardless of whether the agency has a formal TSMO plan, the majority of respondents agreed somewhat or more that their agency has leadership for TSMO planning. Additionally, agencies typically agreed that they have a set of processes needed to effectively prioritize TSMO projects. Many agencies partner with stakeholders, and various attributes that can point toward success in effectively planning for and prioritizing TSMO projects include an organization’s capabilities (e.g., such as within the CMM framework) and their available funding for TSMO. As evidenced by the survey results, TSMO is gaining in popularity across the country, whether it is led by the state DOT or other partner agencies. Agencies also recognize the importance of TSMO planning, the need to identify funding for TSMO and to understand the connection between data, performance measures, and project selection. Typical statewide goals and objectives for TSMO include improving safety, improving asset conditions (inclusive of all classes of assets), expanding ITS/TSMO coverage, leveraging new technologies, and improving TSMO funding outlook. An essential component of a TSMO plan is the implementation. Without a comprehensive approach toward implementing the various phases of the plan, the plan cannot reach its full potential to the benefit of the traveling public. Agencies utilize a broad range of mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of their respective TSMO plan. At the statewide level, the most common method is the development of a periodic TSMO progress report, while the most common mechanism for a regional TSMO plan is the establishment of a regional TSMO committee. The process of developing and implementing a statewide or regional TSMO plan is not without its challenges. The issue identified as the most challenging is related to the trans- portation agency workforce. The acquiring and development of adequate staffing to maintain and service existing ITS and TSMO investments was ranked the greatest challenge by respon- dents, followed by securing necessary funding for TSMO.