• 
.. 
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGIONAL. COMPREHENSIVE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) PROGRAM FOR THE OALLASlFoRT WORTH REGION Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) continue
to be an important part of the operation of surface transportation systems and service to the traveling public. In the DallasIFort Worth region. several elements of ITS have been implemented
with several other projects under design and construction. ITS systems are being planned or Implemented by various transportation agencies including the Dallas and Fort Worth Districts
of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), North Texas Tollway Authority (NITA) and local municipalities.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council (ATC) has planning. programming. funding and regulatory interests including air quality conformity
in a regional ITS program. Other organizations such as the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition (DRMC) has a keen interest in transportation and advocating mobility in the Dallas area.
Several ITS planning initiatives have been developed or are underway in the DaliaslFort Worth Region. ITS Programs must be mutually complementary among agencies if they are to be effective
from both a cost and service aspect. Therefore. the undersigned agencies hereby agree to the concept of a REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PROGRAM FOR
THE DALLASIFORT WORTH REGION, and pledge to work together and with local municipalities in the region to coordinate and cooperate in planning, implementation and operation of ITS systems.
VA RAPID TRANSIT 􀀯􀁾􀀠ION ORliY .lrY OF TRANSPORTATION (OALL4S OISTRICT} /' /-"'" 
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) PROGRAM FOR THE OALLAS/FORT WORTH REGION Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) continue
to be an important part of the operation of surface transportation systems and service to the traveling public. In the DaliasIFort Worth region. several elements of ITS have been implemented
with several other projects under design and construction. ITS systems are being planned or implemented by various transportation agencies including the Dallas and Fort Worth Districts
of the ;rexas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T). North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) and local
municipalities. The North Central Texas Council of Govemments (NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council (RTC) has planning. programming. funding and regulatory interests including air
quality conformity in a regional iTS program. Other organizations such as the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition (DRMe) has a keen interest in transportation and advocating mobility
in the Dallas area. Several ITS planning initiatives have been developed or are underway in the DaliaslFort Worth Region. ITS Programs must be mutually complementary among agencies if
they are to be effective from both a cost and service aspect. Therefore, the undersigned agencies hereby agree to the concept of a REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
(ITS) PROGRAM FOR THE DALLAS/FORT WORTH REGION, and pledge to work together and with local muniCipalities in the region to coordinate and cooperate in planning, implementation and operation
of ITS systems. OF TAAfiSPORTATtON (DALLAS DISTRICT) J" -"" 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice 259 Management of Surface Transportation Systems THOMAS URBANIK II, Ph.D., P.E. College Station. Texas TopicPtmel
QUZIN AKAN. City <>/Norfolk. Division o,(TranspOTfauon RICHARD A. CUNARD. Transportation Re$earch Board LESLIE N. JACOBSON, Vbshington Stale Department a/Transportation JAa..YN K. LANDSMAN.I/e_fly)
Federal. HighwayMministnuion MORRIS OLIVa. Federal Highway Adntinistroli"" GEORGE]. SCHEUERNSTUHL, Demer RegiOft(J/Council ofGtive1lJ.ments DOUGLAS W. WlERSIG. HOUlf(1fZ TranSrnr Transportation
Research Board National Research Council Researcn Sponsored by the Anteri<!art Association ofState Highway and Tr:.msportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1998 Sitbjecl Areas 􀁐􀁨􀁵􀁵􀀺􀁵􀀡􀁬􀀬􀀽􀁁􀁾􀁯􀀠
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provide:; the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway adminislrators
and engineers. Often. bigbway problems are of focal interest and can best be s,fldied by highway departments 􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁾􀀠viduaUy or in cooperation with their state universities and others.
However, the accelerating growth of bighway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to higbway autborities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research. In recognition of tbese needs. tile highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962
an objective national highway research program employing modem scientific tecbniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from par· ticipating member states of the
Association and it receives tbe full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, Uniled States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of tbe
National Research Council was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of modem research practices.
The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses
avenues of ('''OmIDunication and cooperation with federal. state. and local governmental agencies, universities. and 􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁵􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁹􀁾􀀠its relationship to the National Research Council
is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of speciali"t:; in highway transportation matters to bring the fmdings of research directly to those
who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the higl1way and transportation departments and by committees
of MSHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the 'program are proposed. to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submItted proposals.
Administtation and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Re* search Council and the Transportation ReselltCh Board. The needs for highway research
are many. and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible
groups. The program. however. IS intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. NOTE:: The Transportation Res':-Qrch Boord. th.:-National
Research COWIc:iJ. the Federal Hipwny Admlnistration, the American Association of St::&te Hi#hway Md TronsPQrtaUon Otticlnls, and the indlvidWiI st::&tes participating in the National
Cooperative Highway Research Progrrun do not endorse products or mnnufucturers.. Trade or manufadurers' names appear herein solely 􀁢􀁾􀁣􀁡􀁵􀁳􀁥􀀠they are considered essential to the
objedot this report. NCHRP SVNTliESIS 259 Project 20-5 FY 1993 (Topi< 25-12) 1551' 0547-5570 ISBN 0-309-06117-2 Library of Congress Cn...uog Card No. 98-65021 e 1998 Thulsportation Research
Board Price $15.00 NonCE The project that is the subject ¢f this report Wl'l$ a part of the Natiouru Coop􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Reo se.:uclt
Board with tht! app:rov:11 of the Governing 80ard of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board's judgmenl that the program conceroed is of nau.oIJal importa.llce
and appropriate with !espect to bolh the purposes and resoUt'ces of the National Research Council. The members of fhc tecltnica1 comnlittee selected to monitor this project and to re..iew
this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due collSide:rauon for the bruance of discipunes appropriate to the project. The opiaiO!l$ and conclusiollS expre.ssed
or implied at.! those of the research a£ency that penormed the research, and, white they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁭􀁩􀁾􀀮􀀠they are not Decess;uily those
Q[ the Transportation Research Boord, the National Re.search Council, the American Association of SUlle 􀁈􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁾􀁹􀀠and Transportation Offici:lJs. or !he Feden! Highway A_on<:t <he
U,s.l:Jepatlm:o' <:tTranspawioo. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the 􀁾􀁣􀁡􀁬􀀠committee :lCCooUng tQ procedures estabHshed and monitored by the Transportation
Ret;eatcb Board E10ecutive Committee and the Governing, Board of the National Research Council. The National Researcl1 Cout1cil w:lS established by dle National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to 3.$$ocitlle the broad community cl science and technology with with the Academy's purposes of funherlng knowledge and of advisiug the Federnl Government. The Council has btcome
the principal 0perating agency of both thl! National AGldemy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the govemmellt, the public, and the
scientific and engineering commlllLities. It is awnistered jointly by both AcademiC$ and the 􀁉􀁮􀀮􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁲􀁵􀁴􀁾􀀠of Mediciue. The National Acndemy of Engineering and the Institute
of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respeCtively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. The Tr.1.nSporution R.esMrch B¢ard evolved in 1974 from the Highway
Research Board. Which was established in 1920. The TRB incorporateS aI! former HRB acdvitiet; and a1so pet10rms additional functions under a b.coader scope io;\"olving aU modes of transportation
and the interactions of trallSpOtUlion with 􀁳􀁯􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁹􀀮􀀠Pllbli:shed reporJ.'S ofthe NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board
National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 and can be ordered through the llt/ernel at.' bttp:l/www.nas.edullrb/index.html Printed in the United
States of America 
1 PREFACE FOREWORD By Staff TrOJJsportation Research Board A vast storehouse of information exists on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of
this information has resulted from both research and the successful application of solutions to the problems faced by practitioners in their daily work. Because previously there has
been no systematic means for compiling such useful information and making it available to the entire community, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
has, through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project to search out and synthesize
useful knowledge from all available sources and to prepare documented repons on current practices in the subject areas of concern. This synthesis series repons on various practices,
making specific recommendations where appropriate but without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Nonetheless, these documents can serve similar purposes,
for each is a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. The extent to which these repons are useful
will be tempered by the user's knowledge and experience in the particular problem area. This synthesis will be of interest to officials of municipal, regional, and statewide transportation
agencies who are responsible for the management of sur:fuoe transportation systems in metropolitan areas. It presents information on the processes used by transportation agencies to
monitor, evaluate, and implement a variety of solutions to the management of sur:fuoe transportation systems. This is a complex and dynamic area of application. and the examples presented
herein represent a selection of such applications in 1997. The concept of transportation system management is constantly changing and will continue to change, especially with further
implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Administrators, engineers, and researchers are continually faced with highway 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁭􀀮􀁾􀀠on which much information exists,
either in the form of tepons or in terms of undocumented experience and practice. Unfortunately, this information often is scattered and unevaluated and, as a consequence, in seeking
solutions, full information on wbat has been learned about a problem frequently is not assembled. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and full
consideration may not be given to available practices for solving or alleviating the problem. In an effort to correct this situation, a continuing NCHRP project, carried out by the Transportation
Research Board as the research agency. has the objective of reporting on common highway problems and synthesizing available information. The synthesis repons from this endeavor constitute
an NCHRP publication series in which various forms of relevant information are assembled i.nto single, concise documents pertaining to specific highway problems or sets of closely related
problems. This report of the Transportation Research Board provides an overview of the generalized process that transportation agencies have found to be effective in managing the various
aspects of their transportation systems. Specific case examples of effective management strategies are described for several metropolitan areas including Houston. Seattle, metropolitan
New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. 
To develop this synthesis in a comprehensive manner and to ensure inclusion of significant knowledge, the Board analyzed available information assembled from numerous sources, including
a large number of state highway and transportation departments, A topic panel of experts in the subject area was established to guide the research in organizing and evaluating the collected
data, and to review the final synthesis report, This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge
available at the time of its preparation. As the processes of advancement continue, new knowledge can be expected to be added to that now at hand, 
CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER ONE INfROOUCl10N Background, 3 Institutional Considerations, 3 6 CHAPTER TWO WE MANAGEMENT PROCESS Monitoring, 6 Performance Evaluation, 7 Identification
of Improvement Strategies, 8 Evaluation of Strategies. 11 Prioritization, 11 Programming/Fundiog, 12 Implementation, 12 Operations, 13 Maintenance, 13 The Overall Process. 13 14 CliAP1ER
THREE C\1lll'<ENT l'RACI1CE Houston, Texas, 14 Seattle, Washington. Metropolitan New York, New Jersey, and 15 Connecticut, 17 Los Angeles, 18 San Francisco Bay Area. 20 MinneapollslSt.
Paul, Minnesota. 21 24 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSlONS 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thomas Urbanik n. Ph.D.• P.E., College Station. Texas. was responsible for collection of the data and preparation of the report. Valuable assistan¢e in the preparation
of this synthesis was provided by the Topic Panel. consisting of Guzin Aklm. Principal Transportation Engineer. City of Norfolk. Division of Transportation; Richard A. Cunard, Engineer
of Traffic and Operations, TranspoI1adon Research 􀁂􀁯􀁡􀁲􀁤􀁾􀀠Leslie N. Jacobson, Traffic Systems Manager, Washington State Department of Transportation; Jaclyn K. Landsman. fonnerly
Trnflic Maintenance Engineer. Federal High. way Adlllinistation. Region 9; Morris Oli=. Senior Projed. Manager. Federal Highway Adminisuation: George J. Scheuemstubl. Director. Transpomuion
Servic:es. Denver Regional Council of Govemments; and Douglas W. Wiernig. Execuu¥c Director, Houston TranStar. This study was managed by Sally D. Liff. Senior Program Officer. who worked
with the consultant, the Topic Panel. and the Project 2()"S Committee in the development and review of the report. Assistance in Topic Panel selection and project scope developmeot was
provided by Stepben F. Maher, P.E.. Senior Program Officer. Linda S. Mason was responsible for editing and production. C",wfon:l R Jencks. Manager. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, assisted the NCHRP 􀀲􀀰􀁾􀁓􀀠staff and the Topic Panel. Information on current practice \W$ provided by many highway and transportation agencies. Their cooperation and assistance
are appreciated. 
, MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY SYSTEMS The surface transportation system in the United States is owned and operated by an array of agencies with individual missions.
No single agency has a focus on the overall surface transportation system. This fragmentation is the result of institutional structures and funding mechanisms. Traditionally, the speciallzed
focus of these diverse agencies has been an asset to the development of the premier surface transportation system in the world. However, as the surface transportation system has matured
and the public has become concerned about a complex set of issues, the present structure poses significant challenges to the development of an integrated intermodaJ surface transportation
system operating at maximum effectiveness and efficiency. The institutional structure of surface transportation comprises many jurisdictions, several modes, and many functions and disciplines
within the various agencies. The institutional issues are compounded by complex funding arrangements that further cut across the institutional structure. The result of the institutional
and funding structures is a variety of overlapping programs that make it difficult to take a holistic, systems approach to providing and managing surface transportation. The traditional
systematic process to monitor, evaluate, and implement effective and efficient multimodal solutions to maximize surface transportation system performance has not been implemented in
practice in a truly all-encompassing context. The challenge is to reconcile the desirable process with the institutional realities to achieve a user perspective of mobility and accessibility.
Although the basic process for transportation system management is reasonably easy to describe because it follows well-established principles, it is difficult to implement in practice
for several reasons. First, not all the tecilnical tools are adequately developed. Second, it is especially difficult to conduct analyses when rrade-<>ffs between modes must be be considered.
And third, there are even institutional considerations within agencies caused by the differing perspectives within the various departments. A variety of strategies have been applied
to the management of the surface transportation system. The management strategies affect either the demand for transportation, the supply of transportation services, or sometimes a combination
of supply and demand. These strategies are generally organized along traditional service delivery programs, which historically have been driven by the federal-aid program. These categories
of strategies are: • Traditional transportation system managemem, • Incident management strategies, • Information systems, • Access management, • Parking management, • Travel demand
management, • Intelligent transportation systems, and • Added capacity. 
2 This synthesis presents a limited set of case studies of places where progress is being made toward a more holistic and synergistic approach to management of the surface transportation
system. The selected case studies describe six metropolitan areas: Houston, Texas; Metropolitan N<!W York, New Jersey and Connecticut; Los Angeles and San Francisco, California; Minneapolis/St.
Paul, Minnesota; and Seattle, Washington. The case studies illustrate that the process is difficult, still developing, and must be approached recognizing the unique local institutional
struCture. Improved surface transportation system management has usually begun with a specific project. As the partners become successful in their undertaking, they develop expansions
of their projects or new ideas for collaborative activities. As the process continues. the projects tend to expand in scope and involvement. The 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁌􀁾􀀠and approaches tend
to have unique characteristics depending on the types of problems being addressed and local institutional structures. It does not appear feasible to prescribe a particular approach for
universal application. Several stories suggest that it is possible to improve management of the surface transportation system by building on prior successes. The Los Angeles example
also illustrates that a "failure," such as the Santa Monica diamond lanes, is still a learning process and that the setback can be overcome. Although the examples would suggest there
is a long way to go to realize a truly integrated surface transportation system, they also suggest that improvements can be made, and that progress breeds further action. There is evidence
that progress could be speeded up through the implementation of incentives. 
3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ThiS synthesiS updates NCHRP Synthesis 81: Experiences in Transportation System Management (1). NCHRP Synthesis 81 developed a classificatioo scheme for the
more than 150 transportation system management (TSM) actions identified at the time. Since the 198 I synthesis, TSIv! has evolved Significantly as the result of new techniques and changes
in law. One key difference in the current concept of TSM is that it includes consideration of capital projects as part of managing the surface transportation system. The title of this
synthesis reflects this broader concept. BACKGROUND The surface transportation program as embodied in federal assistance has historically focused, since the Federal Highway Act of 1921,
on road building (2). For the 35-year period from 1956 to 1991, America's surface transportation policy centered on the world's largest public work project, the Interstate 􀁈􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁾􀁹􀀠System
(3). Managemellt of the transportation system has taken place largely after constrUction of a facility. Traffic engineers were initially responsible for the application of traffic signs,
traffic signals, and traffic markings to existing facUities to address operational problems. The evolution of traffic engineering practice included the expansion of street capacity,
parking facilities. and traffic-control strategies to accommodate the quality and safety of ever-increasing automobile flows. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 initiated the Traffic
Operations Program to Improve Capacity and Safety (TOPICS), a predecessor to TSM (4). Management of the transportation network was not conceptualized as systematic until federal rules
dermed TSM as "a philosopby about planning, prograntrning, implementation, and operations that calls for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system by improving
the o)}' erations andlor services provided." The philosophy. however. was based on a concept of TMS as a sbort-range approach to improve operations ''prior to capital projects." The
The enactment of the Cleall Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) challenged the transportation profession to maintain the nation's mobility while enbancing our air quality (5). The CAAA
establisbed criteria for attaining and maintaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These requirements specify the actions required to be taken by nonattainment areas,
The Interrnodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) charted a new course in management of the surface transportation system. Its goals include reduced congestion. maintenance
of mobility. an enhanced role for state and local governments, and additional focus on environmentai issues. The programs include a National Highway System. an Interstate Program, a
Surface Transportation Program, a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, a Bridge Replacement Program. a Federal Lands Program. and Special Programs. These programs
provide the primary federal funding mechanism for surface transportation. They also set a new direction for surface transportation that is more supportive of management of the surface
transportation system (6). ISTEA has other important provisions that are relevant to management of the surface transportation system. Transportation planning must be more broad-based
and include additional considerations such as land use, imerrnodal connectivity, methods to enhance transit service, and needs identified through management systems. Management systems
include highway pavement, bridge, highway safety, traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermndal transportation facilities and systems. In addition,
the Act requires a statewide planning process, a statewide transportation plan. and a statewide transportation program (6). The importance of the law is that it provides a legal framework
for a broad approach to management of the surface transportation system. It also reflects a philosophy that is consistent with management of the surface transportation system because
it includes includes many aspects of a system-based approach to transportation. This synthesis takes a hOlistic view of management that considers bow a system operates from a user perspective
and includes all aspectS of the process. as presented in chapter 2. . INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Institutional considerations exist because the surface transportation system is not
operated by a single agency. In most metropolitan areas, the transportation system is managed and operated by multiple jurisdictions and many different agencies. Even within agencies.
various functional divisions perform the various agency tasks. In essence, the surface transportation system is divided into a large number of separate parts to provide for specialization
and task afliciency. The following sections describe the various institutional franleworks that make up the surface transportation system. The more detalled examples are limited to highway
transportation for simpliCity. and are not meant to diminisb the importance of considering Unkages Unkages to other modes. The examples demonstrate the complexity of institutional relationships
in the management of the surface transportation system. Figore shows one way of viewing the surface transportation system. A cube is selected to allow the presentation of six views of
the system. The selection of six is not intended to represent all possible views, but to illustrate the complexity. The fact that I 
4 FIGURE I Three views of the surface transportation system. only three of the views can be seen in Figure I is useful to illustrate that it is not easy to see the big picture. Figure
2 presents six views by unfolding the cube. -, Disciplines I !-Functions . f Issues Modes Jurisdictions 1 Functional Classiliaation I FIGURE 2 An expanded view of the surface transportation
system. The next set of figures further illustrates the institutional issues within the framework of a hypothetical highway transportation SYSteIll-Figure 3 shows a conceptual highway
transportation system composing freeways. arterials. and local streets. State transpertation agencies are generally concerned with the freeway pertiOn of the system. represented in Figure
4. while local agencies are generally concerned with the arterial and local streets. as shown in Figure 5. These figures also illustrate that an agency's viewpOint is generally limited
by its area of responSibility. Another impertant view of the system is that of the user. Users travel on all levels of the system and across jurisdictional boundaries as shown in Figure
6. For the user to experience a high quallty of service. the trip must be seamless and function as a complete system. Otherwise, the user is not well served. Management of the surface
transpertation system is a 1-20 Anerial 1-10 􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾􀁲􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀴􀀭􀁁􀁲􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾􀁲􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁁􀁲􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠FIGURE3 A conceptual highway transportation system, 1-20 1-10 --....,1----0+---1-25 ---11----+---'-15 FIGURE 4 Freeway transportatiOn system. concept that promotes consideration of the user
perspective of the transportation system. In order for the system to perfonn from a user perspective. it will be necessary to transcend the various institutional arrangements that define
surface transportation system. Returning to Figure 2 to focus again on the broader perspective of the surface transportation system. several additional 
5 City A-I-....,---r-Ih-+-r--i-t-......-.l.....Ir---"-+-"--t-City B RGURE 5 ArreriaJllocal transportation s)'Stem. w",k RGURE 6 User's view of the highway s)'Stem. views are illusuated.
These views are discussed to provide additional insight into the complexities of institutional issues. Functional classification is an engineering perspective that focuses On traffic
service in a hierarchical manner in order to balance traffic rrovement and local access. This view of the system is intended to provide an appropriate balance between two competing issues.
Another view of the system is categorized as disciplines. These might lnclude planning, de.sign, construction, operations, and maintenance. Traditionally. these bave been viewed largely
in isolation as separate specialties, In recent years, more emphasiS has focused on the interaction between areas such as deSign and operations. desIgn and maintenance, and construction
and maintenance. In order to manage the system in a comprehensive marmer, the various functions will have to work more closely together. The transportation system also has a geographical
perspective brought about by individual jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction may have a traffic signal system operating independently of the neighboring jurisdiction. So, although a street
may he functionally classifled as an ortenal, it may not operate as such. especially in those areas where it may pass through several jurisdictions in a relatively short distance, Still
another view could be categorized as functional. such as police, fife, and traffle. An example of the need for integralion would be an incident involving a hazardous material vehicle.
In ordcr for these different views of the incident to receive appropriate consideration. it is necessary for the various functions to have good working relationships. Otherwise. for
example, the emergency response agenCies may not anticipate the secondary accidents caused by poor traffic management, which is not an emergency response function. Working to-gether
can result in better emergency response and less traffic impact. The modal view of transportation would include automo-bile, bus, truck, rail, air, bike, and pedestrian traffic. The
vari· ous modes have different needs and perspectives, yet they each share at least a portion of the system. In order for the system to function in harmony, me various views must be
balanced. The last view to be presented is categorized as issues, which might include pOlitical, social. and environmental issues. These issues. and others. affect me management of the,
surface transportation system. The preceding view of institutional barriers is supported by a study of ''Institutional Impediments to Metro Traffic Management Coordination" (7). A major
conelu"io" was that the main barriers to implementing new technologies and improving metropolitan traffic management and operations are institutional; mat is. fragmentation of responsibility.
This discussion is intended to give perspective on the institutional complexity mat must be addressed in in me management of the surface transportation system. The desire is to promote
a holistic view of the surface transportation system to provide appropriate balance between competing views. Therefore, better management of the system requires coordination and implementation
by multiple jurisdictions and many agencies with sometimes conflicting objectives. However. if the surface transportation system is to be managed with adequate consideration of the user,
then the various institutional issues need to be addressed. Management of the surface transportation system is not a new concept It is part of the natural evolution of me surface transportation
system. The key aspect of the current approach is to bring all me pieces of the system and its processes into One integrated whole. This will not occur aU at once, but through an understanding
and appreciation of the goal by all affected parties. 
6 CH.J,.PTER TWO THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS Management of the surface transportation system is a process for resource allocation. investment decisions, and other actions taken to maxtmize
the performance of the system. It is a proc"" of monitoring, performance evaluation, identification of improvemem strategies, evaluation of strategies. 􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁺􀀮􀁡􀁾􀀠tion.
programing/funding, implementation, operations, and maintenance of the surface transportation system. The process, which is cyclic and ongoing, is shown in Figure 7. This 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁣􀁾􀀠ess
is needed because the surface transportation system is fragmented largely because of the institutional make up of the system. which makes it difficult to manage in a practical sense.
It is, therefore. desirable to have a process to provide a system perspective to management. Management of the surface transportation system is a systematic process to enhance accessibility
and mobility by making more effective and efficient use of the system_ Many of the pieces of the process are in place. however they are not traditionally viewed as part of the overall
integrated management approach fur the surface transportation system and its linkages to other parts of the transportation system. MONITORING Monitoring is generally the flISt step in
the management process. It provides the data on which all SUbsequent analysis and decision making is based. The collection of infonnation on traffic volumes, vehicle types, and truck
weights ha.< formed a foundation of planning data for highways for many years. The Traffic Monitoring Guide (8) provides a comprehensive and scientific basis for collecting traffic data.
The result of these traffic counting programs is an understanding of how the transportation system is currently operating. This information on traffic conditions can then be used in
all phases of transportation. Table I is atiapted from the Traffic Monilol'ing Guide to show how traffic data can be the basis of many management activities. It should be noted mat the
above data and examples are based on traditional highway planning activities. The underlying methods are based on sound data collection principles. An example of an opportunity for different
functions to collaborate is planning and traffic. Traditionally. planning collects its own data. Yet many traffic management systems count fOr traffic control. Through working together.
!raffic control data could be used fur planning. Additional limitations in the traditional approach to traffic data will become apparent in the next sec􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠which discusses perfoImance
measures. In addition to a mcve toward a more operational focus in transportation system management. there is increased focus on reconstruction and preservation of existing facilities.
This has led to a demand for more reliable. 􀁲􀁥􀁬􀁥􀁶􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠and economical data. NCHRP Synthesis 133: lntegrated Highway In/or:malion Monitoring MaiDtenance Performance Operatlons
EvahraUoD Identification of Implementation Improvement Strategies Programming I Evaluation 0,( Fn;ndlDg Strategies P:r{orttlntlon FIGURE 7 The surface transportation system management
process. 
7 TABLE 1 USES OF MONITORING DATA Management Phase Troffic Counting Vcllide Classification Engineering Highway geometry Economy B.:nefil ofimprovem.:nts 􀁆􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠Estimill¢S of revenue
Legislation Selection of roules Planning Location and design S.r"'Y Accident rates Sta1istlcs Average doily traffic PriVale sector Location Qfservice areas Pavement design Cost of vehicle
operntion Cost :dlocation Oversize policy ForecMt by vehicle type Vehicle mix Tmvel by vehicle type Marketing to particular vehicle types Truck Weighing Strocturol des.ign Benefit of
truck climbing lane Weight distance ta;c, Weigbt permits: Rl!surftlce forecasts Bridge loads Weight distance traveled Trends in freight movement Sys/ems,(9) describes an integrated highway
information system cont1lining geometric, traffic, accident, roadway fearures, and other data related to the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of a highway system.
Iowa (10) is developing a Pavement Management program as the fIrst step toward an integrated transportation manag'" ment database containing crucial data from each management system
(pavement, multimodal, congestion, bridge, and safety). The Iowa program emphasizes the enormity of the effort and the potential large benefit anticipated from a comprehensive approach
to coordinated data. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Evaluation involves a bringing together of all the benefits, costs, and impacts of alternatives so that judgments can be made concerning the
relative merits of alternative actions. A variety of techniques are available 10 analyze and evaluate altematives (II), The following discussion highlights the key issue of multimodal
performance evaluation. This area is a critical issue in System management. To evaluate the performance of the surface transportation systems, one must select appropriate performance
measures 10 evaluate. There is no single perfOrmance measure or set of performance measures to meet all needs. It is necessary to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative
approaches to meet altemative needs. This process should be done with the various partners in the process before undertaking any evaluation. Performance measures that facilitate this
process are (12): • Clearly understood, • Measurable, • Sensitive 10 modes (person-based), • TIme based (rravel time or apeed, not volume-to-capacity or level-<>f-service based), • Link
or trip based (to provide system monitodng), • Sensitive to time period (e.g., spreading of peak-period, at least hourly, not dally data), • Not too difficult or costly to collect, •
Can be forecast into the future, and • Sensitive to the impact of congestion mitigation strategies (on people andlor goods). Transportation performance measures involve both ad", quacy
and quality of transponation systems. Crucial aspects of adequacy are readily described using congestion measures for determination of sufficiency or defIciency. To describe qUality,
the complement of congestion must be quantified, namely, mobility or accessibility. Past definitions of congestion have fallen into twO basic categodes, those that focus on cause and
those that focus on effect. Performance measurements clearly require a definition that addresses 􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁥􀁣􀁾􀀠or symptoms, of congestion. Travel time or delay are the typical measures.
Congestion is then the travel time or delay in excess of that nonnally incurred under light or 􀁦􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁾􀁦􀁬􀁑􀁷􀀠travel conditions. However, congestion measures have limitations in
cross mode comparisons. Moving to a comprehensive management approach makes it essential that the performance measures be consistent with the goals and objectives of the process in which
they are being employed. It is also important 10 consider how the performance measures may be used, including policy, planning, and operational situations (13). Mobility is the converse
of congestion and can be measured as speed of traveL Mobility is the ability to move people and goods to their des tination in an acceptable amount of time or at an acceptable speed.
This concept is applicable across '<Ill modes, and when used with a measure sucb as number of persons or tons of goods, is a strong indicator of efficiency. Accessibility is a measure
of the relative access 10 an area by people and goods from other areas. Accessibility is the achievement of travel objectives within time limits regarded as acceptable. It is as close
10 an ideal measure for multimodal performance analySiS as can be acbieved from the user perspective, It also allows recognition that travel needs can be more easily satisfied not only
if the transportation system is improved, but also if land use arrangements are rationalized. Travel time or difference in travel time can be a basic measure. It can be used to compare
door-to-door travel times by different modes. It becomes a perfonnance measure for both the transportation system and land use configurations. Travel rate (e.g., minutes per mile) can
be used to account for link-specifIc differences in the tranaportation network. Currently, COSt and data limitations make it it difficult to construct an ideal performance measurement
system. Implementing such a system requires a performance monitoring plan. The performance monitoring plan is a way to organize the gathering of data. the collection of performance measures,
and the documentation of results using the collective resources of the various agencies involved. The components of the plan include (10): 
8 • Perfonnance measure specifications (induding output formats), • Data collection pian. • Data management plan. • Analysis plan. 1 • Agency responsibilities, and • Schedule. IDENTIFICATION
OF IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES The management process includes identification of appropriate improvement strategies for possible implementation. Conceptually. there are two categories of
approaches to providing the best possible system operation. Supply management strategies work on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing infrastructure or adding additional
capacity. Demand management strategies work on controlling. reducing. or eliminating vehicle trips on the system while providing a wide variety of mobility options to those who wish
to Imvel. However. in actual application. strategies may address both sides of the supply/demand equation. The important point is that there are two ways to improve system performance.
Supply management strategies are intended to increase effective capacity. Supply management has been the traditional fonn of surface transportation system management for many yearS.
This is logical because many of the agencies involved with the transportation system are. in fact. the operators of the system. Although the focus for many years has been more on constructing
new systems than improving the operations of existing systems. the effective completion of the Interstate system and the passage of ISTEA have elevated system operation to a higher level.
Nevertheless. the fundamental concepts of supply management. at least within a particular operating environment. are well established, if not well used. As opportunities for building
new and bigger roads de<.."fease because of cost and environmental and social concems, other approaches have been sought to deal with the problem of traffic congestion. Increasingly,
focus is turning to demand management as a tool to address surface transportation problems. Demand management progrmns are an alternative to reduce vehicle demand on the transportation
system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle. or by influencing the time of travel. or reducing the need to traveL To accomplish these types of changes, demand management
programs must rely on incentives or disincentives to make these shifts in behavior attractive (14). Although surface transportation system management strategies can be conceptually divided
into supply management and demand management, the actual strategies and related tools will be presented using categories that more closely foUow current practice and progr-ams: • operational
improvements. .. incident management strategies. • information systems. • access management. • parking management, • travel demand management, • intelligent rransportation 􀁳􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁥􀁭􀁳􀁾􀀠and
• added capacity. Operational Strategies Traffic engineers were initially responsible for the application of traffic signs. traffic signals. and traffic markings to existing facilities
to address operational problems. The evolution of traffic engineering practice included the expansion of street capacitYt parking facilities. and traffic-control srrategies to accommodate
the quality and safety of ever-increasing automobile flows. Typical operational projects include: • Improved intersection geometrics (correcting offsets. addition of left-tum and right-tum
lanes, bus stOP bays, channelization, and grade separations). • Improved traffic signalization (modernization. inrercon· nection. timing improvements. central control. and bus priority).
• Arterial traffic management (HOV lanes. tum prohibitions. unbalanced flow. reversible-flow lanes, one-way streets. parking removals, off-street loading. narrow laneslresLriping). •
Freeway traffic management (HOV lanes, restriplng to add lanes through narrow lanes and the use of Inside shoo 1ders, motorist information systems. ramp metering and ramp closure), •
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements (pedestrian Signalization. bike lanes, and pedestrian malls), • <]oods movement improvement programs, • Demand management (alternative work work schedules.
and ridesharing). and • • Transit improvements. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 initiated the Traffic Operations Program to Improve Capaclty and Safety (TOPICS). The TOPICS program
was an early example of federal funding promoting operational approaches to the surface transportation sYStem. This program was followed by what was called transportation system management
(TSM). TSM had the basic objective of more efficient use of existing facilities through improved management and operation of vehicles and the roadway. NCHRP Synthesis 81: Experiences
in Transportation System J\1anagement, provides a comprehensive overview of transportation management concepts in 1981. At that time. more than 150 different actions had been identified
since TSM was introduced as a concept in the mid-1970s.1t also established the concept of operating environments. NCHRP Synthesis 81 also broadened the original concept of TSM from a
liSt Of low-cost actions to fulfIll federal requirements to a concept for the most productive use of the existing transportation resources through coordinated operations and Improved
management The lack of a classification scMme for TSM actions lead to the development of the concept of operating environments in NCHRP Synthesis 81. Operating environments were suggested
as subsystems within the transportation network through which TSM 
9 analysis and implementation could be organized. The defined operating environmems were: • Freeway corridors, • Anerta! corridors, 1 • Central Business Districts, • Regional operating
environments. • Neighborhoods, and • Major employment centers outside the Central Business District. The approach of operating environments is both useful and limiting. It is useful
in breaking the overall problem into manageable components. Operating environments limit the scope and number of involved jurisdictions and agencies to more easily address problems.
However, it may overlook some important linkages. A simple example bas to do with managing the freeway corridor, perhaps through ramp metering. The freeway management project, which
does not necessarily need 10 invOlve the local jurisdiction for implementation, does impact the arterial street system. The success of the project may be compromised by lack of support
or even opposition by the local jurisdiction. The important poiot is that various project-oriented strategies must be viewed tn a larger context. In some cases, the inw leractions between
operating environments may be minimal. These types of projects may be easy to implement if they do not conapete with other projects for customers or resources. These techniques are widely
known and have been used to varying degrees across the country. A related concept thaI could be expanded and more widely used is the Transportation Management Team (15). The basic concept
is that there is a need for communication, cooperation, and coordination among the various agencies and jurisdictions involved in traIlsporta· tinn 􀁭􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠The approach
brings together personnel from different agencies involved in transportation management to work as a team on problems identified by the various participants. Team members include traffic
engineering, planning, design. construction. maintenance. transit. law 􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁣􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠flTe, emergency medical services, and others as required, such as military police,
port operational personnel, and rallroati personnel. Incident Management Incidents are events that impede traffic flow and reduce the capacity of the highway. Examples are traffic accidents,
disabled or stalled vehicles, spilled cargo, failure of a highway component. emergency or unscheduled maintenance. traffic diversions. and adverse weather. Incidents are the major cause
of nonrecurring congestion. Quick and appropriale response to incidents can do much to a1leviale resulting congestion. The impact of incidents depends on incident duration, which is
determined by detection time, evaluation/response time, and removal time. Incident management refers to a c0ordinated and planned approach to restoring normal traffic conditions as quickly
as possible. This is accomplished by: • Improving detection, response, and removal activities to reduce the duration of an incident; • Increasing the capacity around the incident by
effective on-site 􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠and • Reducing the traffic demand by providing timely and accurate information to the public. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 156: Freeway
Incident Management (I6) presents a comprehensive approach to freeway incidents. Although specifICally for freeways, the procedures and processes that highway agencies use to respond
to traffic congestion caused by incidents on freeways can be applied to other operating environments. Information Systems One means of reducing congestion and improving the operations
of a transportation system is to reduce or relocate demand. Demand on the system can be reduced or reallocaled by providing users with information about traffic conditions. With this
information, users may decide to choose an alternate route to their destination, change their mode of transportation, alter their departure time, or cancel their trip. Highway and transit
users need ro be provided with current, accurate, and reliable information in order ro make informed and intelligent mode, route, and departure time decisions. The key is to provide
informedon in ample time time to affect appropriate changes that improve the efficiency and safety of the system. Systems that ativise travelers of changing or unusual conditions must
be dynamic in nature. The following are types of informedon currently in genetal use or evolving systems that are sometimes considered a part of intelligent transportation systems, discussed
in a later section and included bere for continuity. • Changeable (or Variable or Dynamic) Message Signs use visual words, numbers, or symbolic displays that can be electronically or
mechanicatiy varied to inform motorists of changing traffic conditions. • Higbway Advisory Radio is another means of providing highway users with informedon through the AM rsdio receiver
in their vehicle. • Telephone call-in services are means of providing both highway and transit users with pre-trip or en-route information. • Conunercial radio and television provide
pre-trip information, while radio also offers en-roule infortnation. • 􀁃􀁩􀁴􀁩􀀧􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁂􀁮􀁮􀁤􀀠radio was once considered an excellem means of providing two-way conununication, but
is now primarily used by truckers. • Lane-use control signals are used in some jurisdictions to alert motorists to changing traffic conditions by indicating what lanes are not available
during incidents, maintenance, or other unusual conditions. • Teletext is a means of providing visual and up-to-date pre-trip information to travelers using the vertical blanking interval
of a television video signal and a special device added to a television set. 
10 • Video text is a variation of Ibe dial-in or bulletin bootd infonnation services currently available to personal computers via modem applied to pre-trip information for travelers.
• 􀁆􀁍􀁾􀁳􀁩􀁤􀁥􀀠clllTier allo';ation is a method [0 provide continuous traffic information on existing commercial muio frequencies using a special device to receive and process the
information. • The Internet World Wide Web. • In-vehicle infonnation systems. Access Management Access management is a strategy to maintain the maximum capacity of the roadway system,
The basic conflict in a highway system is between Ibe need to provide access to property and the desire to provide efficient movement of traffic. The freeway, with control of access,
provides Ibe highest type nf facility. The local street, wilb driveways at each residence, provides the maximum access and minimum movement capability. Unfortunately, most of the arterial
street system, which is intended fbI' movement, has bigher levels of access than is desirable. Access management is the concept of managing access to arterial higbways to maximize capacity
and safety. The application of access management teChniques varies widely throughout North America. Travel time and safety benefits have been reported in various cas. studies. These
case studies, taken together, indicate Ibat: (I) remOVing left turns from the through lanes is essential; (2) installing a properly designed median improves safety and access control
over painted turn lanes; and (3) clOSing the median further improves safety. It should be noted that all changes in traffic operations are not on the positive side, Limiting lert-tum
access may only transfer the problem to another location (I7), Setting useful standards and keeping them are the key to access management success. Standards for driveway spacing and
median openings are two of Ibe more important areas. To make it work without hurting businesses, creative solutions are needed. Shared driveways, rear access, and internal service roads
are examples. The success of implementing access management depends on an effective legal basis and a cooperative working relationship with thOse who are potentially adversely affected.
Parking Management Currently, parking lots and parking garages are not covered in most transponation management systems in the United States, although examples do exist in Burope. The
rew exceptions to Ibis focus on park-and-ride lots associated with freeway HOY lanes. In Minneapolis, the 1-394 lanes that directly enter parking garages are monitored at the MnDOT transportation
center, Also in the MinneapolisiSt. Paul area is an implementation in St. Paul of a parking management system. Parking management is seen as a necessoty part of system management to
minimize unnecessary or excessive travel searching for available parking spaces, An obvious intermodal application is airports. The Dallas/Ft. Worlb airport has experienced difficulties
in communicating to drivers where to park in order to be close to the appropriate gate. The traditional dynamic message sign has not been effective in conveying all the infomllltion
needed. More effective means will require working wilb others outside the airport to accomplish effective communication with travelers. Travel Demand Management Travel Demand Management
(TDM) describes a wi"e range of programs designed [0 reduce vehIcle demand by 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠creasing the number of persons in a vehicle, or by influencing Ibe time of, or need to, traveL 1b
accomplish Ibese types of changes, TDM progr= rely on incentives or disincentives to make shifts in behavior attractive. The term TDM encompasses bolb alternatives to driving alone and
the techniques or supporting strategies Ibat encourage the use of Ibese modes. TDM alternatives include: • Encouraging drivers to use carpools and vanpools • Bncouraging drivers to use
public and private transit • Encouraging non-motorized travel, including bicycling and walking • CompreSSed work weeks, 40 hours in less Iban 5 days • Flexible work schedules, shifting
start and ending times to less congested times • Telecommuting • Conversion of existing lanes to preferential lanes for HOY to provide time savings to those using ridesharing • Finanda1Jtime
incentives. such as preferential Rarking for ridesharers, subsidies for transit riders, and transportation allowances • Parking management programs • Land use/growth management • Priority
treatment for ridesharers, suchas preferential access to and egress from parking lots • Infonnation and marketing • Application of site or area-wide COSt surcharges or subsidy measures deSigned to make the relative
cost of singleoccupant vehicle use higher than that for high-occupancy vehicles • Congestion pricing. Congestion priCing is one of the newest rools to be considered in Ibe United States,
Experience in other countries is summarized in Road Pricing for Congestion Management: i Sarvey Of Imema/ional Practic. (I8). One example of a recent U. S, project is covered in chapter
3. Intelligent Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Systems (rrS) rrS) involve the application and interaction of a group of advanced technologies to make our surface transportation
system operate more safely and 
11 efficiently. ITS is the application of information processing. communications. and electronic technologies to effectively and efficiently operate the surface transportation system.
Although ITS is neither an entirely new concept nor completely different from many of the traditional appf6aches to transportation sys· tems management, it offers a significant opportunity
to realize the benefits of an integrated approach to surface transportation system management. Recent advances in technology also make possible tools to implement strategies that were
previously not possible. For example, it is now possible to eIectronicatiy exchange information between trucks and roadside portS of entry making it possible for trucks to pass inspection
points without stopping. ITS is. therefore. a tool to help deliver better system performance. The ITS program is focused on the development and deployment of a collection of user services.
Thirty user services have been defrned to date as part of the national program planning process. Some of these user services (including incident management, travel demand management.
traveler services informadon, and traffic control) are traditional TSM strategies as preyiously discussed. ITS combines existing and new user services into a system-oriented approach.
User services are defrned to meet the safety, IOObility, environmental, and other transportation related needs of a specifled user Or group of users. The user services are bundled into
six groups. including travel and trnllic management. public transportation management, electronic payment services, commercial vehicle operations, emergency 􀁭􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠and
advanced vehicle safety systems. The user services are listed in Tabln 2. One key aspect of achieving an integrated system is the national ITS architecture. which is initially being
put into action through the intelligent transportation infrastructure. While the ITS architecture will be invaluable in belping to design and deploy ITS, it is essential for development
of an integrated transportation system. It will ensure national compatibillty of systems and capture the synergy of the various components of the system. The systems will meet a number
of data and information needs in ways not currently possible (19). A second key aspect of achieving an integrated sYStem is the National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol
(NfCIP). NTCIP provides a communications standard that ensures the interoperability and interchangeability of traffic control and ITS devices. The NTCIP is the first protocol for the
transportation industry that pmvides a communications interface between disparate hardware and software products. The NTCIP effort not ooly maximizes the existing infrastructure, it
also allows for flexible expansion in the future, without reliance on specifiC equipment vendors or customlzed software (20). Added Capacity Adding capacity either at a spot location.
over an extended section, or on a new location is an alternative management strategy that can be considered in addition to those already discussed. Consideration of added capacity projects
can be included in the same process discussed for noncapacity based techniques. Added capacity projects should not be .. 􀁾􀀢􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁥􀁤􀀠unless the alternatives discussed have
also been considered. In other words, the process should be holistic, including all techniques as potentialtrearments. Surface transportation system management strategies are intended
to affect either the demand for transportation or the supply of transportation services. These strategies are generally organized along traditional service delivery programs. which historically
have been driven by the federal-aid program. These categories of strategies and tools are: • tradltionaltransportation system management, • incident management strategies. • informadon
systems, • access management. • parlQng management. • travel demand management. and • intelligent transportation systems. Tbese categories are not unique and some approaches are found
in more than one category. In order to have an integrated approach to surface transportation system management, the strategies must be considered as part of an overall management process.
EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES Current practice in multimodal evaluation in passenger transportation is presented in NCHRP Synthesis 201 (21). The study concluded there was a need Illr measures
of multimodal mobility. It suggested that a IOObility measure might include the following dimensions: • Access-average of the time by mode necessary to 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁶􀁾􀀱􀀠to all zones in
an area • Demand-the amount of travel between zones • Means--a measure of the ability of people to travel • Choice----a determination of whether or not alternatives exist The study also
concluded that traditional systems analySiS is not always followed. a clear statement of goals and objectives is not always 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠the definition of alternatives does not encompass
a broad enough range, and methods to measure and model impacts of alternatives are, in some cases, inadequate. The study concluded that new comprehensive guidance is needed and a muttimodal
measure of mobility sbould be developed. PRIORITIZATION A variety of means can be used Illr prioritizing projects, including many traditional economic analysis tools, such as benefit/cost
ratio. Categories of funding are often created to address specific problems. such as safety and capacity. Others use rankings based on weighted evaluation criteria. The criteria could
represent the goals and objectives of the local area. 
12 TABLE 2 USER SERVICES Bundle Service Travel and Traffic Management Travel Demand Management Public Transportation Management Electronic PaYl1umt Services Commerciul Vehi.cle Operations
Emergency Management Advanced Vehicle Safety Systems En-Roote Driver Infonnauon Route Guidance Traveler Services Infonnation Tcallic Control Incident Management Emissions Testing and
Mitigation 􀁈􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁒􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠Intersection Demand Management and Operations Pre-trip Tmvel Infonnation Public Transportation Managment En-roule Transit Information Pernona.lized
Public Transit Public Travel Security Electronic Payment Senices Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearnnce Automated Roadside SaIety Inspection On·board Safety MOnitoring Commercial Vehicle
Administ.ra.live Processes Hazardous Materlalincident Response Freight Mobility Emergency Notification and Personal Safety Emergency VelUde Management Longitudinal Collision Avoidance
Lateml Collision AvoIdance Intersection Collision Avoidance Vision Enhancement for Crash Avoidance Safety Reamn..,. Pre-crash Restraint Deployment Automated Highway Systems with relative
importance being reflected in the weights. Criteria could include. for example. improve accessibllity. improve economic vitatity. improve mobllity. improve system perfOflIlance. reduce
single·occupant vehicles, or improve air quality. PROGRAMMINGIFUNOING The metropolitan planning 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁏􀁯􀀮􀁾􀀠of ISTEA feature an enhanced role for local governments. The metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) is responsible for developing. in c0operation with the state and affected transit operators. a long·range transportation plan and a transportation improvement
program (TIP) for the area. The TIP must be consistent with this plan and must include all projects in the metropoli· tan area that are proposed for funding with either Title 23 or Federal
Transit Act monies. ISTEA requires MPOs to consider 15 factors in developing transportation plans and programs, including land use. intermodal connectivity. methods to enhance enhance
tranSit service. and needs identified through the management systems. NCHRP Synthesis 217: Consideration Of the 15 Factors In the Metropolitan Planning Process (22) covers the process
and issues in detail. Programming and funding must be undertaken in methods consistent with federal requirements and local considerations. These steps determine when and how the project
is' funded within the various progr.= available to the participating agencies. As seen in the case studies. projects are being funded in more creative ways to take advantage of the benefits
of multiple funding parroers. In some cases. public agencies are partnering with private entities to bring additional funds to projects that may have been funded exclusively by the public
sector in the past. IMPLEMENTAnON As seen in some of the examples of current practice. successfu1 projects result from agency champiOns. Projects are implemented because someone with
the appropriate authority and resources (staff and funding) believes in them. The prob· lem is more difficult with multiple agency projects because there has to be a champion in each
organization. Because comprehensive projects involve mUltiple agencies and jurisdictions, a carefully crafted plan is also important. Key aspects of a successful implementation are (22):
• Clear responsibilities. • Useful results, • High level of coordination and cooperadon. 
• Full participation by all jurisdictions. • Timely arrival of accurate data. • Implementation is a priority, • Integration with planning and programming. and • Coordination with Statewrde
plans and management systems. In any process. it is imponant to realize that continuing SUccess requires perseverance. Primary factors in sustaining the process are clear lines of accountability/resp
onsibility, c(}o ordination, and cooperation among all involved agencies, Institutional considerations are fUndamental to the practical application of comprehensive management of the
surface transponation system, Typically, agencies respond to problems in their jurisdiction or operating environment. These types of projeclS are easiest to implement if they do not
require multiple agencies. Particular strategies to meet an individual agency's needs that have a neutral effect on other agencies are easiest to implement because they generally do
not generate resistance, Strategies that are potentially competitive for cus· tamers or or resources, or that affect another transportation agency's jurisdiction can create resistance,
Therefore, details of a particular strategy may have profound effeclS on how a project Is ultimately viewed by other than the lead agency. OPERATIONS The traditional view of surface
transportsdon has been largely one of building the system, When it did not operate well, the system was 􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁤􀀠through additional capacity, Operating the system involves a
more proactive apprcach to surface transporration system management. One of the most basic examples of proactive management concerns minimizing the !3 congestion that results from incidents.
This approach involves rapid detection and removal of incidents to return the facility to its full non-incident capacity as quickly as possible. Intelligent transportation systems are
the application of technology to enhance performance of the surface transportation system through more proactive Irulllagement. such as the coordination of traffic signals across jUriSdictions.
It is also the use of informadon technology to reduce traffic demand on the system so that it operates better. MAINTENANCE Maintenance has often been the weak link in managing the surface
transportation system. A recent General Accounting Office repolt (23) indicated that nearly 90 percent of traffic signal systems were not functioning to minimum standards of performance
because of inadequate maintenance. Without adequate consideration of maintenance, inefficiency will begin to develop shortly after implementation of a project. Maintenance COSlS should
be factored into every management project. THE OVERALL PROCESS The overall process was presented earlier in Figure 7. The process is drawn as a continuous circle, As the system is being
operated and maintained, it must be continually monitored. The monitoring process sets in motion another cycle of performance evaluation, identification of Improvement strategies, evaluation,
prioritization, programming/funding, implementation, operations, malnteoance. malnteoance. and so 00. Without such a process, the surface transportation system will fall to perform at
optimum effectiveness and efficiency. 
CHAPTER THREE CURRENT PRACTICE This chapter presents selected cases: of current practice relative to management of the surface transportation system. These e"amples illustrate some of
the various approacnes taken to date to enhance the overall management of the surface transportation system. The examples of current practice were selected based on available information,
whicb, in some cases, is limited. The intent is to show the variety of 􀁡􀁰􀁾􀀠proacbes tbat have been taken to meet the needs of tbe specific local area. The examples cited are: Houston,
Texas: Seattle, Wasbington: Metropolitan New York. New Jersey, and Connecticut; Los Angeles and San Francisco, California; and MinneapolisiSt. Paul, Minnesota. HOUSTON, TEXAS Houston,
Texas provides a well-documented example of multimodal, multi-agency cooperation, and presents one approach to comprehensive management of the surface transportation system based on
its unique institutional structure. The other cases present different approaches based on different institutional considerations. It is useful in understanding the development of multimodal
institutional arrangements in Houston to go back at least to the early 1960 •. Although the early Houston experiments with ramp metering were technically a successful example of freeway
traffic management the Texas Higbway Department. now Texas Deparunent of Transportation (TxDOT), was more engrossed in the design, construction, and maintenance of the highway system,
which was their prinCipal role; theY left the operation of urban freeways to those organizations responsible for enforcement (24,25). By 1970, peak-period congestion on Houston freeways
had worsened to a point of public concern. By 1975, Houston had received approval from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a Service and Methods Demonstration to investigate
furtber the feasibility of contraflow lanes (CFL) on the North Freeway in Houston. After considerable effort, a formal agreement was reached between the city and the state. and construction
began in 1978. The project included CFL, associated park-and-ride lots, freeway ramp metering. and contracted bus service (26). Funding for CFL came from local sources. state sources.
Federal-Aid Urban System, Federal-Aid Primary. PTA Section 6. Federal-Aid Interstate, and PTA Section 9 Programs. The unusual mixture of funding sources demonstrated the degree of state
and local inventiveness. It also showed federal. state, and local cooperation. Traditional highway related funding helped support a public transportation improvement while transit related
funding helped to further the highway "'pects of the overall project. The City of Houston's Office of Public Transportation. now Metropolitan Transit AuthOrity of Harris County (Metro)
and TxDOT not oniy joined forces to obtain funding for the group of CFL projects, they also worked together on the several col1.'truction contracts involved. The state handled construction
management. engineering. and inspection, wbile Metro administered fup.ds for contractor payment and reimbursement of TxDOT expenses. Although CFL were highly succes5f1ll, they were never
intended to be a permanent facility. In 1981, it was concluded that CFL should not operate past 1985. Metro and TxDOT again combined forces to modify a previOUSly authorized project
to upgrade and expand Interstate 45. In 1983. construction began on a barrier-protected median, reversible HOV lane following similar arrangements to the CFL project. Again, innovation
was brought to the project througb the use of an incentive construction clause that allowed the HOV project to be completed in a record 269 days. In the late 19705, TxDOT identified
the need to repair and overlay a 100mile portion of the Katy Freeway (1-10). In addition, Metro HOV staff reallzed that timely commencement of the Katy HOV lane was unlikely because
of the lengthy delay attendant with including the HOV lane construction in the long-term reconstruction project (to follow the pavement rehabilitation project) or the difficulties of
building the HOV lane as a separate project. Sensing an opportunity to e.pedlte the Katy HOV lane. the team members suggested that TxDOT delay the pavement repair project and that Metro
accelerate the Katy HOV lane planning schedule so that the HOV lane could be constructed as a part of the pavement repair contract. Although initially reluctant to delay the pavement
repair project, the TxDOT District Engineer approved combining the two projects because it would reduce disruption to freeway drivers. Once again, a joint team of Metro and TxDOT worked
on the difficult task of combining projects. The chatienge turned into a beneficial solution because the HOV lane construction allowed the median area to be reconstructed first as part
of the ultimate HOV lane, providing the necessary space tor tramc handling during the pavement repair. The project was implemented in just 30 months (27). TxDOT and Metro have continued
to build HOV lanes jointly in Houston. They arc currentiy developing a system of 110 miles. In January 1981. Houston took the Traffic Management Team concept flfS! developed in San Antonio.
Texas in 1975 and applied it to multiple jurisdictional coordination. In atidition to TxDOT and Metro, who had an established relationship. several additional agencies were brought into
an "interagency team." The additional agencies included the Houston Department of Traffic and Transportation. the Houston Police Department, the Houston Fire Department, the Texas Department
of Public Safety, the Harris County Sheriff's Deparunent, 
15 and me Harris County Engineer's Office. Omer agencies, such as me Houston Chamber of Commerce, railroad companies, me Texas Transportation Institute, and me Federai Highway Admlnisrration
have participated on an as-needed basis. The Team has successfully dealt w'.fb many operationai problems on me existing transportation facilities (28). One uruque pobticlprivate parmership
mat carne out of me process involves tbe Houston Motorists Assistilllce Patrol (MAP) program initiated in 1989 to aid stranded motorists along the major freeways wimin an approximate
15-mile radius of tbe Central Business District. Metro, TillOT, me Harris County Sheruf's Department (HCSD). me Houston Automobile Dealers Association. and Houston Cellular Telephone
Company provide funding for me MAP program. MAP currently patrols 150 miles of freeway wim nine mini-vans continuously between me hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The vans are driven
by HCSD deputies and are dispatched by Tillar. In early 1991, Tillar. Metro, and me Texas Transportation Institute developed me concept of me Houston Intelligent Transportation System
(HITS) as a strategy to implement an accelerated program using ativanced technologies to improve me mobility of people and goods on me transportation infrastructure in nontraditional
ways and to reduce me environmental impacts of me transportation system. HITS was intended to capitalize on tbe growing interest in ITS and to help define ITS projects, sucb as the Houston
Smart Commuter Project and me Real-Time Transportation infonnation project, which were under way were but early examples of a broader vision. HITS was a coordinated effort of public
agencies and me private sector to improve me overall efficiency and efrectiveness of me movement of people and goods in Houston (29). HITS now includes me Transtar transportation and
emergency management center. The 52.000 square foot facility contrOls every aspect of traffic and emergency management wimin metropolitan Houston. The multi-agency center is responsible
for many many freeway and street systems, including: • The Computerized Transportation Management System in freeway conidars. • The Regional Computerized Traffic Signal System, • The
Motorist Assistance Program. • ITS Projects including Smart Conunuter, • The HOV lane network. and • Emergency and disaster assislance. The center's construction and operation costs
are borne by HITS' four member agencies. The center combines personnel and operations under one management structure. Houston TranStar is truly integrated in tenns of both systems and
daIly management of personnel and work functions across jurisdictional boundaries. The unique feature of TranStar is its integration of agency personnel and responsibilities into a single
unit mat creates a seamless implementation effort. Unlike omer transportation management centers, Houston TrnnStar has combined transportation and emergency management personneL This
integrated structure creates an effective environment in terms of responsiveness, elimination of administrative administrative and boundary constraints, and pooling of financial, personnel.
and equipment resources. For each participating agency, TranStar provides me opportunity to aggressively focus on implementing transportation and emergency management functions. " SE;ATl1.E.
WASHINGTON The Policy Framework for me Puget Sound Regional Transportation Improvement Program Process provides direct policy support for implementation of tbe 1995 adopted regional
(Metropolitan Transportation Plan) and local comprehensive (Growth Management Act) plans. The Policy Framework provides regional guidelines and policy intent ror hew me region will manage,
administer, and approve projects to be programmed and selected under me three regionally managed federal funding programs referred to as tbe Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion
Management and Air Quality Program, and the Federal Transit Administration Program. The Transportation Improvement Program must also contain all projects that are approved for "state
lIlllIlaged" and "regionally managed" federal transportation timding programs. The Puget Sound area uses four broad transportation policy framework categortes as part of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) development process for solicitation and consideration of potential projects for regional level project funding. These categories are multimodal and acknowledge
me importance of bom preservation and expansion. PriOrity consideration is given to any projects proposed within mese four categories that most directly support any or several of the
following emphasis areas: • Improved mobility within the hierarchy of designated centers (including commercial and industrial centers) or along major conidors connecting such centers.
• Projects mat can demonstrate mat tbey contribute to sustaining or encouraging continued economic vitality for the region. • Projects that mitigate the impacts of essential public facilities.
The four broad MTP policy categortes and examples of ge· nertc types of projects me region should encourage wimin each area are as follows: • Critical projects that optimize or manage
use of existing facilities/services: Major bridge rehabilitation safety/seismic rerrofit projects. Major multi-jurisdictional Signal interconnect projects to improve overall traffic
flow (perhaps wim priority transit treatments). • Travel demand management/system management projects that address congestion and environmental objectives: Innovative study project(s)
leading to a demonstration of ways to shift travel behavior for more efficient 
16 transportation system performance or a "transportation pricing" concept that might offer long-range opponunities to develop major new regional transportation projects and program
fmancing. Freight and goods corridor or intermodal terminal access studies leading to specific projects for improving pon access and improved corridor movements. Major pedestrian projects
(bridges, trails. etc.) that remove major harriers and link activity to or within centers. • Projects that focus transportation on investments that support transit and pedestrian-oriented
land use patterns: A major regional center or urban corridor developmem! redevelopment study to improve pedestrian accessibility. TranSit/pedestrian transportation project components
to a major innovative redevelopment project Pedestrian bridge projects that effectively "link" activity areas and C'fCate new economic vitality, especially within centers . • Transportation
capacity expansion projects offering greater mobility options: Planning/design/construction construction of major regional multimodal transportation center/terminal projects. Passenger
ferries linking or connecting to regional centers. Design/development of imponant new highways or arterials as "missing links" or system completion projects. Advanced land acquisition
!O preserve major regional development opportunities. including norunotorized facility preservation. Design/construction of HOV lane projects. Freight and goods speCial access projects
supporting improved inrermodal transportation and econonalc development. Venture Washington represents the program that will implement the Washington State ITS Strategic PlaIl. The approach
is prOblem based, looking at partiCular transportation corridors, and recommending specific solutions to the identified problems. The Seattle to Portland ITS Corridor Plan is the ftrSt
such study. The solutions are being programmed into the state's budgeting process for eventual construction and deployment The approach recognizes that no single strategy will solve
the the complex set of transportation problems facing both the nation and Washington state. The program has efforts in several areas including: comprenensive traffic management, coordinated
communications. extensive traveler information 􀀤􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁥􀁭􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠roadway performance monitoring, efficient traffic control systems. alternati yes to single-occupancy vehicles. 􀁩􀁭􀁾􀀠proved
safety. and enhanced commercial veblcle operations (30). The comprehensive traffic management element of the Venture Washington Plan focuses on completing and extending their surveillance,
control. and driver information systems. It includes improved congestion prediction 10 improve ramp control, improved incident deteGlion. automatic vehicle loea· tion systems for improved
traveler information using Metro transit bus data, the use of Geographic Information Systems and Geographic POSitioning SyStems for improved real-time traffic monitoring. and integrated
traffic signal control between city and state systems. Coordinated communications will aHow communications between muHlpte cities to provide corridorwide surveillance, control and driver
information. The cities of Tacoma. Spokane. and Vancouver. B.C. will be tied to Seattle. Traveler information systems include Seattle Wide-area Information for Travelers (SWIFT). which
will deliver information into vehicles and to portable wireless devices"including watches and subnotebook computers. Other systems will provide information 10 users in homes. offices,
shopping areas. and recreational sites. Delivery systems include telephone, television. radio, computer, and in-vehicle devices. Efficient traffic control systems coordinate across jurisdiCtional
boundaries .and with freeway traffic management systems. Systems will be able to snare video and data, The fIrst project in Seattle is the Nonb Seattle Advanced Traffic Management System
(AIMS), which will provide a central database to share both freeway and arterial traffic control data among jurisdictions in the Seattle to Everett corridor. The Nonb Seattle ATMS project
gOt its start as a research effort to determine ttle best approach for traffic control in the Seattle region. The objective was to develop a multi-jurisdictional integrated traffIc control
system. Four steps were planned to implement ttle Objective (31): l. Needs identification and COnsensusbuilding 2. Develop a project !O demonstrate the concepts of an integrated system 3. Build traffic management teams 4. Develop and implement a multi-jurisdiction integrated system. The
key to its 'success is ensuring that all groups involved support the concept by partiCipating in the team. To foster use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles, Seattle is applying
ativanced technology to encourage transit use. provide ride-shuring incentives, and facilitate the use of alternntive modes. Techniques include transit traffic signal priority, real-time
transit. and ride-Sharing information at horne, at transit centers. and en-route. Improved safety is being provided through a statewide emergency Mayday system. improved incident detection
and response, and the promotion of in-veblcle technology to reduce rear-end. sideswipe, and run-off-the-road accidents. The Puget Sound Help Me (PuSHMe) project consists of emergency
notification devices. a cellular communication network. and re-sponse cenlers. The response centers will he able to identify the vehicle's location within approximately 10 meters. The
response center will receive the request for assistance. prioritize it, and dispatch Ille appropriate services. In order to increase the efficiency of commercial goods movements throughout
Washington, various efforts are underway to develop paperless and automated systems fur permitting. weighing, and safety inspections. These automated systems are also being coordinated
with other states. The Seattle area continues to develop its comprehensive approacn to system management with an FHWA-supported 
17 lIS model deployment initiative called Seattle Smart Trek. A group of 25 Northwest public agencies and private companies are working together to improve the Seattle region's transportation
management and information systems as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Intelligent Transportation Systems Model Deployment 1"litiative (MDl). The Smart Trek project continues
to build on existing ITS infrastructure and instituUonal relationships io the central Puget Sound region to showcase a fully integrated Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (ITl).
Seattle was chosen through a national competitive process as one of four sites for the MD!, along with Phoenix, San Antonio, and New York. The projects at each of these sites will provide
the United States Department of Transportation, state, and local governments. and the private sector with a model for deploying integrated lIS in urban areas throughout the nation. The
project will integrate existing and new data sources: establish a transportation information network that is inte-grated, regional, and multimodal; and greatly expand the distribution
of traveler information, Information distribution will be spearheeded by private corporations with support from telecommunications flrms. The program is being led by the Washington State
Department of Transportation, in cooperation with PHWA and Federal Transit Administration, and includes public and private agencies committed to providing a range of services and products.
The project builds on established public and private institutional relationsl1ips and establishes a model for ITI COordination among federal., state. regional. and local governments,
the private sector, and the public. The project is designed to showcase ITS results and benefits directly to users. Tbe projeCt'S fundamental goal is to improve transportation for the
region's travelers by prOViding the following beneflts: • Reduce travel time by 15 percent, • Increase system efficiency. • Increase acceptance and awareness of ITS by 25 percent, •
Increase safety by 10 percent, • improve traveler information distribution by 25 percent, and • Decrease emissions and energy consumption. The Seattle area MDI is meant to address real
and obvious transportation problems. The Smart Trek project will result in transportation management systems that will integrate freeway and arterial control, as well as give priority
to transit and emergency vehicles at signalized intersections and improve the safety of traffic movemenr through rail-street grade crossings. These same systems will provide much of
the data and communications infrastructure necessary to deliver regional, mulUmodal traveler information. This information will be available pre-trip or en-route; at home or in the office;
in a car or on a bus. Agencies will provide a basic level of free 􀁩􀁮􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁾􀀠mation to all travelers. Independent service providers will create value-added applications and more advanced
systems as consumer demand warrants. At the same time. the systems will allow regional and mulUmodal transportation management to appear seamless to the traveler across jurisdictional
boundaries and will also respect agency 􀁤􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁲􀁾􀀠to maintain local control when necessary. METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, ANO CONNECTICUT In 1984, TRANSCOM was conceived as
a coalition of trafflc and transit agencies in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut metropolitan region. TRANSCOM's mission is to bring about cooperation among doZens of agencies
on incident notification. regional incident management, and construction coordination. Its role has expanded to include a multi-agency test-bed for implementing ITS technologies. Although
TRANSCOM has no authority as an operating agency, it has been very effective in carrying Out its mission (33). Located in Jersey City, New Jersey, TRANSCOM is administratively and !egaliy
a unit of its host agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. However, TRANSCOM is governed, funded, and staffed by all its member agencies, which include ConnDOT, NJDOT,
NJ Transit, New York State Thruway Authority, New York Stare POlice, NYCDOT, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, NJ Turnpike Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, NJ Highway
Authority. MfA Bridges and Tunnels, Port Authority of NY and NJ, and Port AuthOrity Trans Hudson Corporation (PATH). TRANSCOM's Operations Information Center (Ole) is open 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. It shares incident, construction. and special event information simultaneously, and selectively among more than 100 highway, transit, police agencies, and media
traffic services, by phone, fax, and alpha numeric pager. !t maintains a shared data base of its member agencies' construction projects. When necessary, it brings, specific agencies
together when conflicts. such as parallel closings between projects, are likely to result without cooperative intervention and mitigation. Just how TRANSCOM serves as a necessary means
for helping its member agencies, and dozens of affiliated local agencies, to serve the traveling public, is best iUustrated through examining a major incident. One of the best examples
of a severe incident is the complete closure of Interstate 287, the Ooss Westchester Expressway, for almost 24 hours. Not only did this incident affect travelers in all three states
in the metropolitan area, it affected travelers in other parts of the Northeast Corridor. 1-287 is an integral part of one of the two main corridors for people and freight through the
New York metropolitan area. This incident was caused when a propane truck went out of control and hit a bridge abutment early one weekday morning. The resulting explosion took the life
of the driver and caused structural damage to an overpass. In the case of this incident, the three TRANSCOM member agencies responsible for the operations and maintenance of 1-287 (the
New York State Thruway AuthOrity, the New York State Pollce, and the New York State Department ofTransportation) had their hands full dealing with the problem on site. They focused on
publiC safety, strUctural integrity, and on moving traffic on and off the Interstate, in cooperation with local authorities. A number of regional issues had to be dealt 
18 with and this is where TRANSCOM assumed. a significant role. TRANSCOM took on the regional responsibility to notify dozens of local agencies in three stateS. Then. traveler infor*
mation was provided through the combined infrastructure of the cooperating agencies, "" impossibility for anyone of the individual agencies to provide. TRANSCOM activities continue to
expand. TRANSMIT project looks at the integrated application of electronic toll collection (ETC) equipment for both automated toll collection and incident detection through the use of
tag-equipped vehides as traffic monitoring vehicles. The Service .Area Travelers lntemetive Network (SATIN) is a partnerShip to provide kiosks at major highway service areas and transit
facilities to provide the traveling public information about traffic conditions and delays, transit schedules and delays, services available. and emergency information. The Alternate
Bus Routing System (ABRS) is a public/private partnership project to use ETC technology to provide bus bus drivers with an audible message concerning the best route from the Garden State
Parkway to the New Jersey Turnpike (34). The region has also become part of the I-95 Corridor Coalition (35), a partnership of the major public and private transpertation agencies serving
the Northeast Corridor of the United States from Maine to Virginia. Built on a found.tion of cooperation and coordination. the COalition serves as a unifying force for members to use
technology to provide seamless transpertation services in the corridor. The Coalition seeks !O establish an economically beneficial, multimodal framework for early implementation of
appropriate ITS technology. The mission refiects the Coalition's underlying purpose to improve mobility, safety. environmental quality, and efficiency of interregional travel in the
Northeast. Through cooperative efforts !O implement real-time communication and operational management of the transportation system, members hope to link transportation providers and
users beyond their usual political and geographical boundaries. In doing so, the Coalition seeks to establish an economicaily beneficial, multimodal framework for early implementation
of appropriate ITS technology. Accomplishments of the Coalition include an Information Exchange Network. Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) Program, Electronic Toll and Traffic Management
(ETIM), and being a reatiy soutce of traveler information. The Information Exchange Network (lEN) allows any member 10 communicate quiclcly and efficiently with other Coalition members
during emergencies and to coordinate transportation management and traveler information on a regional and corridorwide basis. The !EN provides the points of entry and access to transportation
agency data bases throughout the Corridor. and also functions as the conununications backbone for exchanging this interagency information. Installed fltSt in highway operations centers.
it is being expanded to metropolitan transit operations. The Coalition has developed a CVO program for the Corridor that enhances the productivity of the goods-movement in· dustry. The
program improves safety and enforcement through automated credentialing processes, and 􀁩􀁮􀁦􀁑􀁲􀁭􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁳􀁨􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠partnerships. For example, the Coalition is implementing
a system that will provide conunercial vehicle dispatchers and drivers with tnfonnation on congestion, incidents, weather, and routing that is necessary to meet the demands of shippers
and receivers in the Corridor for timely and reliable delivery of goods and services, All members of the Coalition have adopted an ETTM vision and strategy to achieve compatibility in
the Northeast Corridor. Once this compatibility is achieved, users will need only one tag per vehicle. one account per customer, and one set of credentials per commercial vehicle to
permit seamless travel through toll facilities. The Coalition provides tro.velers with information in a 􀁶􀁡􀁾􀀠tiety of ways. A Nortlleast Travelers Alert map, which identi· fies major
construction activities, activities, upcoming events, and 􀁴􀁹􀁰􀁩􀁾􀀠cal holiday weekend bottlenecks, is updated twice each year and is made available at Welcome Centers and rest areas
along: the major interstates in the 􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁯􀁲􀁾􀀠at some truck Stops, and regional American AutomObile Association (AAA) ofnces. This map is also available on the Coalition's
World Wide Web home page. The home page includes information on the Coalition and its member agencies and was developed to facilitate the distribution of Coalition products and services
between member agencies and the traveling pubHe, 􀁉􀁮􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁭􀁡􀁾􀀠tion shared by other agencies about impacts on regional travel is provided to travelers by the Coalition's member agencies
through the use of variable message signs, highway advisory ratiio, and traffic repetts. LOS ANGELES Los Angeles was also involved In freeway traffic management in the 1960s and 1970s.
By the early 1970s, it was one of the first areas in the country to implement HOV facilities. This began as bypass lanes for caq;ools with two or lIJOre occupants at metered entrance
ramps. A1thougb these projects represented a move away from a focus on single-occupancy vehicles, they still represented an approach by a single agency, Cal trans. Several line-haul
concepts for bus ollly use on reserved freeway lanes were studied in the early 1970s. The<>e included a comraflow bus lane on the Hollywood Freeway, concurrent llow HO V lanes in the
medians of the San Diego. Long Beach, and Artesia Freeways. concurrent fiow lanes by taking away a lane on the Santa Monica Freeway, and a barrier and bufferseparated HOV facility on
the San Bernadino Freeway. The fltSt joint project involved the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) and Cal trans ·to implement the San Bernadino Busway in 1970. Caltrans
and SCRTD shared project sponsorship, which involved Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration funding. As one of the outcomes of a bus strike in 1975, the facility
was opened to carpools. In 1974, as as a result of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Caltrans responded with a proposal ror a widespread implementaliOn of HOV Janes. The previously proposed demonstrations
became the backbone of a regional HOV program. Due to Clean AIr Act deadlines, the next project to be implemented was the Santa Monica diamond lanes in 1974. 
19 The Santa Monica diamond lanes only required the restriping and signing of an existing freeway lane for carpools of three or more persons. This project removed 25 pereent of the general
purpose capacity and caused significant traffic congestion on the remaining 􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀢Perceptions of HOV lane uncterutili2aticn, reaction to increased local traffic. public outcry, and
negative media coverage resulted. Despite technical 􀁳􀁵􀁣􀁾􀀠cess in moving more people. the project was halted under court order after 21 weeks. The results of the Santa Monica diamond
lane project appear to have had a major impact in stalling the development of HOV projects throughout California well into the 1980,. Although the Santa Monica diamond lane project was
a setback. it ultimately lead to a different approach to HOV, The Route 91 (Artesia Freeway) HOV demonstration was propesed as an added capacity project for carpools only. The Deputy
Director of Traffic Operations for Cal trans District 7 became the project "crusader" who was was willing to take the project ro local representatives to "buy 􀁩􀁮􀁻􀁑􀁾􀀧􀀠the concept.
The success of this project set the stage for several hundred miles of other HOV projects in the region, The 1984 Olympics, beld in Los Angeles. gave dramatic proof that management of
the surface transportation system can WOrk. The feared gridlock never occurred because of the coordinated planning and management by a host of agencies; traffic, transpertation planning,
pelice, public transportation, and the Olympic Committee. The approach merged plans for each segment of the system-freeways. streelS. buses, parking. etc,-into an overall approach for
the games. which was then implemeoted by the appropriate ageocies (36). The Olympics effort appears to have resulted in otber collaborative activities. as will be discussed later in
this section. One key aspect of the City of Los Angeles' Olympics Transporllltion Plan was the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System The benefitS of this system lead
the City of Los Angeles to expand the system over a period of about 10 years to include 11 areas and 1170 traffic signals. The most recent expansion of the system includes the Smart
Corridor (37). In response to increasing congestion and improved technologies, various agencies jointly initiated tbe Smart Corridor Demonstration Project to implement "smart" technologies
within the Santa Monica Freeway conidor. one of the most heavily traveled and congested in Los Angeles and the world. This project built on the various programs of tbe individual agencies
and the success with tbe 1984 Olympics (38). The primary agencies involved in tbe Smart Corridor cooperative e1lbrt are: tbe City ofLos Angeles Department ofTl"dfispcrration; the Califomia
Department of Transpertation (Caltrans); tbe California Highway Patrol (CHP); and tbe Los Angeles County Tl1ll1S]lOrtalion Commission. Other agencies and organizations involved in the
project include: The City of Los Angeles Police Department: the Cit]! of Los Angeles Bureau of Street lighting; the City of Culver City, the Southern California Rapid Transi t Disriet:
the Southern California Association of Governments: the \utomobile Club of Southern California: and FHWA (33). The Smart Conida! Demonstration is investigating the hysical. operational,
institutional, and pelitical feasibility and otenDai effectiveness of managing the individual facilities within the corridor at 􀁭􀁡􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁲􀁮􀁵􀁭􀀠efficiency. balancing traffic flow
between alternative routes. and dissemination of traveler inionnation using advanced technologies to achieve the 0perational goats. Methods to achieve maximum efficiency include computer
control of traffic signals and ramp meters. incident detection and confl.fTnution on the freeway and arterials. coordinated incident response. and coordinated enforcement and accident
investigation measures (33). Implementation of the Smarr Corridor operations by the City of Los Angeles. Caltrans, and tbe CHP has necessitated the development of a detailed operations
policy statement (39). Likewise, a cooperative agreement has been drafted (40l for the operation of Smart Corridor traffic Signals in Culver City by the City of Los Angeles. subject
to agreed upen strategies and the ability of the City of Cu!ver City to have monitoring capability. These various agreements demonstrate that it is possible to overcome various institutional
considerations in a complex operating environment. Success in the Smart Corridor is partly dependent on flexibility among and within agencies, and in some cases, contractors. That is
to say, it is often difficult to anticipate all the issues or problems that may be encountered when a project is undertaken. If the parties pursue a project based 00 strict contractual
terms. it may be difficult to obtain the desired result. The process is one of confidence building among the various partners. Regular communication among working staff is also an important
ingredient in success. A unique congestion pricing project in the Los Angeles area is tbe State Route 9! Variable-Toll Express Lanes, the ftrst fuUy automated toll road in tbe world.
It opened for revenue service on December 27,1995, The four-lane tall facility is located in the median of the existing eight-lane Riverside Freeway in Orange County. California, between
tbe City of Anaheim and tbe Riverside County line. Unlike variable-tall roads in Singapore. Scandinavia! France, and elsewhere. the SR91 project is a single highway section serving an
urban commute corridor. where a free. although congested. alternative route is readlly available (41). The privately built and operated facility charges tolls that vary with tbe ticne
of day. reflecting tbe travel time saved by toll lane customers compared witb users of tbe adjacent public freeway. The longer tbe traffic delays on tbe adjacent freeway lanes, the higher
the toll. Currently taUs follow a published scbedule. although the technology would permit the toll levels to vary dynamicaliy. AU taUs are collected by automatic vehicle identification
(AV1). in part part because tbere is not enough space in the freeway median for conventional toll booths. Vehicles not equipped with AVl are prohibited from the facility. The system
on State Route 91 is interoperable witblanes on the other publicly operated toU roads in Orange County. where conventional ton booths are also prOVided, Rideshare groups with three or
more persons (HOV-3+) currently travel toll-free. although they may be charged a discounted toU sometime in the future. A special lane is provided for HOV-3+ vehicles to bypass the electronic
toll-taking, which Occurs about halfway along the length of the facility. Proper use of the automated toll !anes is enforced by the CHP, under 
20 contract to the California Private Transportation Company (CPT). and through the use of video surveillance equipment. The CPT operdtes the toU lanes on hmd [e:.sed from the state
of Califomia. TIte CPT has 35 years to retum a profit to its investotS. after wtlich lime the toll lanes revert to full state control. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA The San Francisco Bay Area
has developed a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). The MTS is the Bay Area's multimodal network of highways, major arterials, transit services. rail lines. seaports. airports.
and transfer hubs critical to the region's movement of people and goods ([mernal memos and personal communication, MTe staff), ISTEA put considerable emphasis on managing the sys· tern.
At the urging of the Metropolitan Transportation Corn· mission (MTC), the various agencies involved in regional transportation planning began the task of developing a management strategy
for the MTS, A consensus evolved that the MrS needed to be managed as though it were one system, irrespective of mode or ownerShip, Beyond that, however, there remained varying opinions
about what a management strategy should encompass and its relationship to other regional planning and decision-making activities. The conceptual model developed by MTC is a series of
three concentric circles. the management strategies in the center, surrounded by the regional transportation plan. which is surrounded by the broad community goals, Oepending on the
strategy, it mayor may not require trade-offs between these various levels, For example, Freeway Service Patrols are generally acceptable and noncontroversial. On the other hand, adding
capacity, changes in pricing. or changes in land use involve broader community goals. The dilemma is how far up the continuum does the management strategy go before it must be reconciled
with other objectives and how does this reconciliation take place? The management strategy first seeks to identify effective tools that tend to be at the center or neutral end of the
planning and community goals spectrum, Promising strategies that tend to threaten other objectives must be reconciled in the larger context of the Regional Transportation Plan or even
in the context of broad community goals. Effective management strategies will require tradeoffs between jurisdictions and modes, This requires the building of partnerships. For example,
one management strategy is management of traffic signals. One signal, on its merits, is relatively benign. When several are strung together across jurisdictional boundaries and involve
state highways and local roads, then the potential for conflict climbs higher on the scale. Another example is the Caltrans Freeway Operations System (FOS). It is viewed as potentially
giving priority to freeways, dumping traffic on local streets, and taking money that could go to local projects. To be successful, the FOS must be defined in a way that benefits all
parties, Therefore. an important objective of the management strategy is to put forward agreed upon ground rules that will enable partners to resolve potential conflicts as strategies
are put forth. Capital projects lie in the center of the continuum and for the most part are reconciled in the Regional Transportation Plan process, However, If the interaction between
management strategies and capital improvement strategies is oot considered, poor rno.nagernem strategies and poor capital decisions will result. The process to date in the Bay Area has
lead to a goal to demonstrate that an interagency management strategy can be effective in improving reglonal mobility, The strategy • Focuses on the MTS, • Provides a system context
for interagency decisions, • Provides a muitimodal context for management decisions by unimodal operators, • Builds on the management initiatives that are underway. • Provides a regionwide
commitment to develop and implement ISTEA's six management systems, integrated to the extent feasible as the elements of the management strategy, and • Is seen as a continuing. vital
endeavor essential to support the region's transportation investment. To foster interagency cooperation, a Bay Area Partnership was formed. The Bay Area Partnership Board (42) consists
of the tOP managers from 31 agencies responsible for moving people and goods in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as agencies responsible for protecting the region's environmental
qUality, These experienced professionals have corne together to improve regional mcbility by sharing ideas, working on issues of mutual concern, and cutting through the process that
blocks innovative solutions to the twin problems of traffic congestion and smog, A key issue is commitment to enhancing the Bay Area's economic vitality. preserving the features that
make the region a speCial place to ·live and work, and conserving resources. From the outset, The Partnership was developed as a nonhierarchical institution without walls, thriving on
mutual interest and cooperation. The Bay Area's numerous natural barriers and rich mix of urban, suburban and rural settings and subeconomies have resuited in a multiplicity of transportation
system owners, operators and regulators. This institutional framework is responsive to varying local needs. but also requires coordination where their systems intersect or overlap. The
complex Bay Area environment depends on connections that are as much financial, institutional, and informational as they are physical for integration of individual components into the
larger picture of a system, The Bay Area Partnership is a forum for corrununication, much of it face-to-face, The dialogue occurs at many levels, including bimonthly meetings of the
full board and a smailer steering committee, and at numerous subcommittee and task force meetings that occur in between. The chairmanship and location of the regular meetings of the
full board are passed from agency to agency to further foster the relationships. While joining the partnership initially required a leap of faith, over time. the Partners have found
good reasons to commit their time to these multiple-agency sessions, They develop a mutual understanding of the budgets that must be 
21 shared. and how best to invest in improving overall system performance. even when some of their own favored projects had to be deferred. A guiding principle is that decisions jointly
made will more readily lead to action and a commitment to overcoming obstacles. With 􀁉􀁔􀀧􀁾􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀬􀀠The Bay Area Partnership has developed a common vision of a single transportation
system, supported by pooled resources. The Bay Area Partnership bas spotlighted a select group of interagency projects for some special attention. The program is known as JUMP Start,
which stands for the Joint Urban MObility Program. JUMP Start is designed to expedite delivery of relatively sbort-term, low-cost, projects with high-payoff projects. The projects focus
on smoothing traffic flows, making public transit and carpooling more attractive, enhancing system safety, redUCing polluting emissions. and streamlining the planning process. JUMP Start
projects require the joint efforts of two or more agencies or involve multiple modes. In fact, where it can take a decade for a transportation project to leap the various financial and
bureaucratic hurdles. JUMP Start addresses institutional issues that previously would stall promising concepts. The time elapsed between project conception and delivery of benefits has
been reduced to weeks and months. The followingare a few ..amples of the early successes. With the belp of a federal grant, MTC, Caltrans, and the region's public transit operators set up a clearinghouse-known as TravInfo-to provide
travelers with real-time data on traffic con<litions, parking availability, and public transit, and carpooling options. The Bay Area's bigh-teCh private sector also has been an important
player in the development process. MTC also teamed up with lbe region's public transit operators to test the concept of a Bay Area-wide "superposs" among three interconnectiog systems:
BART, County Connection buses in Contra Costa County, and BART Express buses. The Partners are exploring adaptation of the TransLink universal ticket to other rail. bus. and ferry systems
in the Bay Area based on the lesson learned. To benefit from the flexible federal funding flowing to the Bay Area from ISTEA in 1992, a partnersbip task force spent coumtess hours developing
an equitable process for screening and ranking projects. By the fall of 1994, MTC had used this pioneering "multimodal priority-setting process:' to allocate more than a half-billion
ISTEA dollars to some 500 projects. In March of 1995, the Bay Area Partnership formally adopted their strategy for managing the Metropolitan Transportadon System (43). The strategy has
two defining elements: I) a set of five core principles, and 2) a commitment to cooperative planning at the corridor level. The core principles outline a multimodal approar:h to system
management that gives appropriate emphasis to people movement during commute hours and correspondingty appropriate emphasis to traffic flow during off-peak hours. The emphasiS on corridor
planning ensures that the management strategy can be tailored to fit local conditions. It also ensures local governments a real opportunity to participate in the process of system management.
The five core principles that define the Partnership's strat,. egy can be summarized as follows: • Streets, highways, and transit services should be planned, operated, and priced as
if they were integral parts of a single system; • Transportation and land use should ge better coordinated to enhance accessibility while reducing the need for travel; • The transportation
system should be designed to provide convenient access to jobs and services, to move goods efficiently and reliably, to facilitate the interregional movement of people and goods, and
to shelter the region's communities and its natural environment from traffic overloadi • Despite limited resolll'CeS, the region can effectively resolve the conflict between these goals
if it adopts a system management strategy that is tailored by corridor and time of day; and • Operational improvement alone will not be sufficient to maintain mobility. Continuing invesunent-coupled
with 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠novations in pricing and technology-will be required to meet the needs of a growing population and economy. Thus, it is essential to coordinate the planning for management
and investment. MINNEAPOLIS/ST_ PAUL, MINNESOTA Traffic management efforts in the Twin Cities Metro Area started in 1970 with the implementation of isolated ramp metering on a 6-mile
section ofI-35E. The system has since expanded to include an extensive system of ramp meters, closed circuit television cameras, and changeable message signs. The goal of MnlDOT's strategic
plan for freeway traffic management is optimiziog traffic flow, including the following specific objectives: • Minimizing the magnitude and duration of congestion, • RedUCing the accident
rate, • Minimizing the impact of accidents. • Provi<ling support fur special events, construction, and maintenance activities, and • Promoting HOY far:iJlties. a voluntary truck management
program. and other demand management activities. In 1990, the development of MnlDOT's ITS program.. called Guidestar, further expanded traffic management activities (44). Minnesota Guidestar
is a statewide intelHgent transportation system program and is dedicated to the goal of better transportation. Minnesota Guidestar's mission is to transform the current transportation
system into one with increased 􀁡􀁣􀁾􀀠cessibility, greater productivity, enhanced safety, reduced environmental impacts. and broader private sector investments. This transformation
will be accomplished by incorporatiog existing and developing technologies into the Minnesota transportation system. This will be accomplished through government, private sector, and
academia working together in modified organizational relationships. processes and approaches (45). One example of the Minnesota Guidestar program is St Paul Advanced Parking Information
System operational test (46). The focus of the project is to demonstrate a real-time, 
22 event-based, downtown parking information system for the first time in the United Slates. The goals of the project included having a positive impact on the surface transportation
system in downtown Sl Paul. This innovative project demonstrates the potential benefirs of managing the surface transportation system. Minnesota Guidestar is seeking to develop a truly
statewide intelligent transportation system. MnlDOT and its partners have realized the importance of a management framework, An organizational structure has been developed that provides
each participant in the program access to management decisions, Public and private sector partners are 􀁥􀁬􀀱􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁾􀀠aged to be proactive in such decisions. The result is that Minnesota
is building multimodal solutions, creating a consensus throughout pubUc agencies in the state. developing systems for urban and rural needs, fostering partnerships, and utilizing e"isting
transportation strengths in Minnesota (47). Minnesota's vision is that its citizens, businesses, and visitors will benefit from the application of ITS to the state's transportation system.
ITS will be fully integrated into transportation strategies for the enhancement of safety, mobility, and economic vitatity. for the protection of the natural 􀁥􀁮􀁗􀁯􀁮􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠and
for lhe development of sustainable communities. The following goals have been established to achieve the vision: • Statewide Approach-Implement an ongoing, iIllegrated and responsive
statewide program for ITS research, testing, and deployment. • Safety/Security-Improve the safety and securi:y of the users of the transportation system. • MobilitylConveruenceiComfort-Enhance
personal ll1<)bility and accessibility to services: enhance the convenience and comfort of all (including unfamiliar) users of the transportation system, o Efficiency-Increase operational
efficiency and productivity of the transportation system. • Economic Vitallty/Productivity-Enhance productivity of individuals. businesses and organizations, • Sustainability-Provide
transportation services that support sustainable communities including improved accessibility, environmental protection, and local planning. Based on the vision and the goals, Minnesota's
transportation system will achieve a new level of safety and effectiveness: • In-vehicle technology will automatically and instantaneously communicate the location of a vehicle involved
in a c'rash, as well as the severity, for rapid emergency response. When motorists are lost, in-vehicle navigation systems will guide them back on course. When roads are icy, fog is
heavy, or woo conditions are otherwise dangerous. travelers will be notified prior to their trip and advised while they travel, • CoUlsion-avoidance sensors in their vehicles will warn
travelers when they are too close to other vehicles or objects. ViSIOn enhancement systems in vehicles will allow travelers to see better at night and in poor weather. New detection
and . warning systems at railroad grade crossings will help prevent crashes between trains and vehicles, incloding school buses. Electronic message signs in advance of construction work
zones will advise of actual speeds or accidents in the work zone. Other technologies will detect motoristS who drive dangerOUSly and violate motor vehicle laws. .. Travelers will receive
real-time. traffic and road condition information in their vehicles On electronic displays, advanced rarnos and cellular phones. Interactive television, pagers, fa., machines, telephones,
electrOnic kiosks, personal computers, personal digital assistants and other devices will be used to obtain this information elsewhere. The information will he available in customized
form for individual travelers, 􀁃􀁯􀁭􀁾􀀠prehensive information on tourist attractions, food and lodging. and on a wide variety of other services and facilities \viH also be easily accessible.
• Advanced technologies installed on all major roadways will speed the detection of traffic accidents and incidenrs. Integrated communlcaUOns systems (exchanging voice, dam. and video)
will assist transportation and emergency response orgunizatiofiS. Travelers. especially the injured. will receive help more quickly and in a coordinated fashion, Traffic delays will
be shortened. • A statewide network of transportation management centers will facilitate travel across Minnesota. Real-time information and shared facilities will ease transfers between
modes (highway, bus. rail, and air). Detectors installed above, adjacent to, and on all major roadways will monitor road smace conditions, traffic levels, and vehicle type and weight
The data generated will benefit travelers, shippers, transportation engineers and planners, and enforcement agencies. o State-of-the-art traffic Signal systems will smooth traffic flow
by responding and adapting to current conrntions. including incidents. poor weather, and special events. To fw:ther speed travel, signal systems will be coordinated between arterial
roads. freeways, and ramp melers. o Travelers will be presenred with information and options that help reduce reliance on the single-occupant automobile. Real-time ridesharing and door-to-door
transit service will be feasible through computerized call-taking. ride matching, and dispatching systems. Telewori< centers, home telecommuting, and teleconferencing will be commonplace.
The quality of transit and paratransit services will be enhanced through automated scheduling and fleet management systems, including automatic vehicle location. • Conunercial vehicle
operations will be enhanced through consolidated weighing, inspection and credentialing systems. The systems will be coordinated within Minnesota and integrated with other states. Electronic
payment technologies, such as smart cards, will eliminate the need for cash at parking meters and on buses. • Agencies operating fleers, including public safety, transit and maintenance,
will consolidate dispatch centers in their geographic areas, thereby reducing the costs of new infrastructure. Information will be shared with local agenCies and directly with users
users of the transportation system. • Partnerships with public, private. non-profit and academic organizations will result in increased coordination, greater funffing levels, and flexibility
for transportation infrastructure and services. Private flmlS will profit from the provision of products and services and will provide much of the 
23 capital needed for deployment of ITS in retum for user fees. for emplQyees. Finally. Minnesota will be integrated willl tlle naBusinesses in Minnesota will benefit from improved access
by tional and international ITS network to allow seamless travel customers. through reduced shipping costs, and easier commutes anywhere and at anytime, safely and efficiently. • ,J

24 CHAPTER FOLf'j't CONCLUSIONS' The Tntermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is the most recent effort by policy makers to articulate. user per. spectiye on management of the
surface transportation system. The goal is improved mObility and accessibility for surface transportation system users tllrough improved management of Ute system. The principles on which
to develop a holistic view of the system. with some notable exceptions. largely exlst and are relatively straightforward in concept. However. there are serious practical barriers LO
achieving a system that operates seamlessly. This synthesis summarizes the problem. the process, the successes to date. and Ute challenges that must be over· come to achieve the vision
of a surface transportation system operating as if under single ownership and management. The surface transportauon system is fragmented due to multiple jurisdictions (federal. state.
and local), functions (police. fife. traffIC. etc.). modes (highway. bus. rail. bike. and pedestri&l). and even disciplines within a single organization (planning. design. operations).
being responSible for only a portion of the system. The SlreelS. highways. mass Iransit facilities. railroads. Irucldng companies. port terminals. airpOrt terminals, and (rucklng terntinal
facilities are operated by separate managements. Managerial independence is a jealously guarded prerogative. Each organizational unit has itS own mission. funding. and support group.
Furthermore. there is little agreement on measures of effectiveness and efficiency that reflect wnsumer needs or overall social and envimnmental cost. This institutional complexity results
in a system that is difficult to manage in a practical sense. Effective management of the surface Iransportation system, therefore. requires a process for resource allocation. investment
decisions. and other actions in order to maximize the performance of rhe system. The process should include monitOring. performance evaluation, identifica.tion of improvement strategies.
evaluation of strategies. prioritization. programming/funding. implementation of appropriate actions. operations, and maintenance of the surface Iransportatlon system. A formal process
is needed to address the fragmented nature of the existing institutional .(ructure of transportation service providers. However. it is also necessary to recognize that demands on the
transportation system are a by-product of local land-use decisions and locadon choices made by households and flffilS. Transportation providers have virtually no influence over these
choices, nor efficient and effective ways to steer growth and development. Therefore. there are likely to always be events beyond the control of managers of the transportatien system.
Experience to date would suggest that effective management of the surface transportation system is still in its early stages of development. Although many tools exist to assist in the
process of managing the surface transportation system, there are weaknesses. Key needs include better institutional collaboration, better measures of system effectiveness. better evaluation
methodologies. and better system monitoring. Progress toward effective management of the transportation system bas generally evolved by building on the success of previous projects.
Management of the surface transportation system will continue to evolve as a natural progression from a construction·oriemed paradigm to a management focus' as the transportation system
matures. The speed of evolution. how· ever. will be partly determined by institutional considerations. Additional incentives may be required to expedite tbe evolution to a truly integrated
Iransportation system. 
25 REFERENCES 1. Roal<, J., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 81: Experiences in Transportation System Management, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C. (November 1981). 2. "Report to Congress on the Proposed National Highway System Required by Section 1006(a) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Public
Law 102-240," United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.e. (December 1993). 3. "The IntermodaJ Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, A Summary," Highway Users
Federation and Automobile Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C. (December 1991). 4. Papacosta, e.S. and P.O. Prevedcuros, Transportation Engineering and Planning, Second Editioll. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1993). 5. A Summary, Transportation Programs and Provisions of the Clean Air Acts Amendments of 1990. FHW A-PD-92023, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. (O<:tcber 1992). 6. A Summary, Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. FHWA-PL-92-008, US. Department ofTransportation.
Washington, D.C. (December 1991). 7. Stearman. B.J.. "Institutional Impediment.> to Metro Traffic Management Coordination, Task 5-Final Report." Volpe National Transportation Center,
September 13, 1993. 8. ''Trame Monitoring Guide," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. (Pebruary 1995). 9. Briggs, D.w.. NCHRP Synthesis
of Practice 133: Integrated Highway Information Systems, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C. (o<:tober 1987). 10. CTRE en route, "Statewide Pavement
Management: Coordinating the Data." Center for Transportation Research and Education. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa (January 1997). II. Meyer. M.D. and E.J. Miller, Urban Transportation
Planning-A Decision Oriented Approach, McGrawHill. New York, N.Y. (1984). 12. "Congestion Management for Technical Staff," NHl Course No. 15259, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washingron, D.C. (April 1994). 13. Pratt, R.H. and T.J. Lomax, "Performance Measures for Multimodal Transportation Systems," TRB Committee Draft (January 1994).
4. Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory Of Measures and Synthesis Of Experience, DOT -T 􀀭􀀹􀁾􀀲􀀬􀀠Federal Highway Administration and Federtli Transit
Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington. D.e. (September 1993). 15. ''Traffic Management Teams in Texas," State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
(now Texas Department of Transportation). Division of Safety and Maintenance Operations (now Traffic Operations Division), Austin, Texas (February 1986). 16. Roper. D.H. NCHRP Synthesis
of Practice 156: Freeway Incident Management, Transportation Research Board. National Research CounCil, Washington, D.C. (December 1990). 17. Levinson. 􀁈􀀮􀁓􀀮􀁾􀀠"Access Management-National
Overview." A Conference Co-Sponsored by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Government Law Center of Albany Law School, Albany, New York (May 3, 1994). 18. Gomez-Iballez,
lA. and KA. Small. NCHRP Synthesis 210: Road Pricing for Congestion Management: A Survey of International Practice, Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington,
D.e. (1994). 19. 􀀧􀁾􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁤􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁧􀀠the ID: Putting the National Architecture into Action," Prepared by Mitretek Systems for Federtli Highway Administration, Washingron, D.C. (April
1996). 20. National Transportation Communication for ITS ProtOCol webpage, http://www.ntcip.org. 21. Rutherford, G.S., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 201: Multimodal Ewaluation
of Passenger Transportation, Transpo}tation Research Board, National Research Council, Washingron, D.C. (1994). 22. Humphrey, T.G., NCHRP Synthesis 217: Consideration Of the 15 Factors
in the Metropolitan Planning Process, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1995). 23. ''Transportation Infrastructure, Benefits of Traffic Control
Signal Systems Are Not Being Fully Realized," GAOIRCED-94-105, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House 'of Representatives, United States Geoeral Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C. (March 1994). 24. Sumner, R., S. Shapiro, D. Capelle. D. Hill, P. Tarooff, J. Pecrykanyan, and J. Watt, Overview, Freeway Management Handbook, Vol. I. DOT-PH-Il-9706,
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. (May 1983). 25. McCasland, W.R., Freeway Ramp Control System, Research Report 24-261', Texas Highway
Department and Texas Transportation lltstltute, College Station. Texas (August 1969). 26. Turnbull, KF.. High-Occupancy Vehicle Project Case Studies History and Institutional Arrangement,
Texas Department OfTransportation, Texas Transportation Institute Technical Report 925-3, College Station, Texas (December 1990). 
26 27. Fuhs, C.A .. NCHRP Sylllhesis 185: Preferential Treatments for High·Occupancy Vehides, Trlli1Sportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C. (1993). 28.
Levine, S.Z. and RJ.Kabat, Diary of A Traffic Management Team. The Houston Experience. in 􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁬􀁊􀀮􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁛􀀨􀁊􀁾􀀠lion Research Record 906, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D. C. (1983). 29. "Houston Intelligent Trlli1Sportation System. Executive Summary," Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation, Texas Transportation Institute, Houston (April 1991). 30. "Vemure Washington, Short-Range Action Plan: Toward Deployment of Advanced Technology on
Washington's Transportation System," Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington (no date). 31, Berg, D., The North Seattle ATMS Project," Second International
Symposium on Integrated Transportation System Management, Seattle, Washington (May 8-LO, 1995). 32. Edelman, M .. ''TRAl'lSCOM's Development in New York. New Jersey and Connecticut:
Multi-Jurisdictional Issues in lTMS." 2nd Symposium on Integrated Traffic Management Systems, Transportation Research BOard. National ResearCh Council. Washington. D.C. (May 1995) (DRAFT
PAPER). 33. Edelman. M .• ''TRfu'lSCOM's Project Update for the TRB Freeway Operations Committee," (January 1996). 34. Coalition Weopage. btt/lwww.i95coalition.org! (October 1997). 35.
Roper, D.H., "Traffic Management for Special Events: The Olympic Experience." Transportation Research Board Specialty Conference. Washington, D.C. (January 10, 1998). 36. "ATSAC Evaluation
Study." Department of Transportation, City of Los Angeles. California (June 1994). 37. "Smart Corridor for the City of Los Angeles, DemonsU'ation Project Conceptual Design Study," Vol.
1. Fin", Report, JHK & Associates. Kaiser Engineering, Kaku Associates. IBI GrouP. Expert Panel (October 1989). 38. "Smart Corrdior Operations Policy Statement," Milestone MA 4.3. Version
1.1, JHK & Associates, Pasadena, California. DRAFT (Octo her (994). 39. "Cooperative Agreement fOr the Washingtun Boulevard Smart Corridor between the City of Los Angeles and the City
of Culver City," March 15, 1993. 40. Stale Route 91 Homepage. The Cal Poly Applied Research and Development Facilities and Activities (ARDFA) transportation research group, University
of California, San Luis Obispo, Califomia. http://airship. ardfa.calpoly. edu/-jwhansonlsr91main.html. 41. MeU'opoliran Planning Commission Wohpage, Oakland, California. http://www.mtc.dst.causl
42. "Smart Moves, Newsletter of the Bay Area ITS Early Deployment Plan." MeU'opolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, California (September 1996). 43. Stehr, R.A and G.c. Carlson,
"Rapid Deployment of Minnesota's Traffic Management System," The Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Meeting of ITS America, Atlanta. Georgia (April 17-20. 1994). 44. 'Minnesota Guidestar
SU'aregic Plan," Minnesota Guidestar, St. Paul. Minnesota (June 1994). 45. Boyd., SJ. and G.F. Rylander. "Advanced Parking Information System-Operational Test." Office of Advanced Transportation
Systems. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St Paul, Minnesota (no date). 􀁾􀀮􀀠Ofstead. E.E. and J.L. Wright. 'Minnesota GuidestarProgress Towards a Statewide Intelligent Transportation
System," The Proceedings orthe 1994 Annual Meeting of ITS America, Atlanta, Georgia (April 17-20, 19941. 
THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD is a unit of the National Research Council. a private. nonprofit institution that provides independent advice on scientific Illld technical issues under
a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating arm oftbe National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The mission of the Transportation
Research Board is to promote innovation and progress in transportation by stimulating and conducting research, faCilitating the dissemination of information. and encouraging the implementation
of research findings. The Board's varied activities annually draw on approximately 4.000 engineers. scientists. and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public
and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supponed by state transportation departments. federal agencies inCluding
the component administrations of the U.S. Department ofTransportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. The National Academy of
Sciences is a nonprofit. self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated 10 the furtherance of science and technology and
to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government
on SCientific and technical malters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The Nadonal Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its adntinistration and in the selection of its members. sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for 􀁡􀁤􀁶􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁾􀁧􀀠the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting
national needs, encouraging education and research. and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The
Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy malters
penaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences, by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal
government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research. and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research
Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising
the federal government. Functioning tn accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of hoth the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government. the public. and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is adntinistered
jointly by both Acadenties and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Albens and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively. of the National Research Council. 
..