TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

14

The author is Senior VicePresident, ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Washington, D.C.

As the economy recovers, and congestion,delay, and unreliability increase (1), how aretransportation agencies addressing their

commitments to improve highway performance andmaintain mobility, especially when building a wayout of congestion is not an option? Recent researchindicates that new strategies and supporting institu-tional arrangements can provide the means to man-age congestion—if not banish it.

Managing CongestionCongestion will never be eliminated but can be man-aged to minimize delay, maintain speed and through-put, and improve travel time reliability. Reliability isincreasingly important—recurring, daily congestioncan be planned for, but the unexpected disruptionsof nonrecurring congestion extend travel timesbeyond what is normally anticipated and introduceuncertainties and costs that frustrate travelers andbusinesses.

A program that focuses on transportation systems

management and operations (TSM&O) addressesreliability by implementing strategies that preparefor and respond to specific causes of unexpecteddelay and disruption—crashes, breakdowns,weather, construction, poorly timed signals, and spe-cial events. Together, these account for more thanhalf of roadway travel delay and unpredictability.

TSM&O strategies include incident management,

Institutional Architectures to Improve Transportation SystemsManagement and OperationsGuidance for State Departments of TransportationS T E P H E N L O C K W O O D

NEW SHRP 2REPORT

(Above:) Traffic congestioncan be managed by trans-portation systems manage-ment and operations(TSM&O) strategies, includ-ing preferential lane use,advanced traveler warn-ings, and efficient signaltiming. (Right:) Badweather and a truck crashcaused delays on I-5 south-bound in Eugene, Oregon.Transportation agencies canuse TSM&O strategies forincident management toaddress weather-relatedemergencies.

PH

OTO: O

REG

ON

DO

T

PH

OTO: B

RETT

WEIN

STEIN

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page 14

TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

15

advanced treatments for snow and ice, appropriatelytimed traffic signals, effective management of trafficin work zones, variable speed limits, advanced trav-eler warnings of traffic problems, metering ofexpressway ramp traffic, preferential lane use, andothers. Two decades of experience have shown thatthese strategies are cost-effective, minimally disrup-tive, and quickly implemented.

Implementing TSM&O StrategiesSeveral state departments of transportation (DOTs)have moved aggressively to capitalize on the poten-tial of these strategies. Nonetheless, the general rateof TSM&O implementation has been modest, andthe scope and effectiveness of the strategies vary. Inmany congested metropolitan areas, the options foradding capacity are limited, yet an aggressive main-streaming of TSM&O to improve the management ofcapacity is lacking.

A recent report from the Reliability Focus Area ofthe Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) SecondStrategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), Insti-tutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operationsand Management, has identified the preconditionsfor implementing TSM&O effectively. The reportpresents practical guidance for state DOTs and othertransportation agencies. The research compared theoperations practices and other characteristics of stateDOTs and found that the more effective TSM&Oprograms included features significantly at odds withlegacy practices and traditional capacity-orientedprograms.

The research suggested that developing the capa-bilities to support improvements in management andoperations requires significant changes in the legacyconventions of the programs, processes, and organi-zation of state DOTs and other transportation agen-cies. The research specified the capabilities that areneeded and identified steps for development.

The report offers guidance to state DOTs in bring-ing TSM&O into the mainstream as a formal missionand program for managing the highway system (2).The guidance was integrated into a web-based tooland into TSM&O capability improvement work-shops sponsored by SHRP 2 and the Federal High-way Administration (FHWA).

Recapturing Capacity and ReliabilityMetropolitan highway vehicle travel has increased by250 percent since 1980—exceeding the designcapacity of the highway systems in major metropol-itan areas. Congested conditions and low levels ofroadway services—even in nonpeak hours—are theresult (3–5).

Only about one-half of delays, however, arecaused by recurring congestion—that is, by the reg-ular, daily, peak-hour travel delays that characterizeshortfalls in capacity. The other half results fromnonrecurring congestion, produced by unanticipatedevents, such as crashes, adverse weather, construc-tion, and the like. Figure 1 (below) shows the rela-tive contribution of these causes of congestion. Thecauses of recurring and nonrecurring congestionoften arise in combinations that can exacerbate theirimpacts—for example, rush hour conditions canmultiply the impacts of a crash or a work zone;crashes in bad weather during rush hour can haveeffects that are more severe.

The impact of nonrecurring congestion goesbeyond delays. The disruption from unpredictabletravel times is significant in a just-in-time economythat highly values individual time and places a pre-mium on schedule and delivery predictability.

Traffic congestion inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Midsize cities also feelthe effects of increasedmetropolitan highwaytravel—up 250 percentsince 1980.

Poor Signal TIming

5%

SpecialEvents

5%

Bottlenecks40%

Traffic Incidents

25%

WorkZones10%

Bad Weather

15%

FIGURE 1 Causes of delay.(Source: Federal HighwayAdministration)

PH

OTO: X

IAO-F

ENG

XIE

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page 15

TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

16

Mobility StrategyIncreasing capacity has only a modest effect on non-recurring congestion. In contrast, TSM&O strate-gies focus on the specific causes of congestion anddelay at the point of the problem—in real time—toreduce the impacts significantly. Some strategies,such as ramp metering, modify roadway operations

as the demand varies; some quickly restore capacityafter an event, as in incident management forcrashes; some anticipate problems, such as snow andice control; and others provide travelers withadvance information and guidance to improve flowor to support effective route or travel decisions.

Best practice indicates that aggressive TSM&Oapplications at the network operational level cancounter much of the capacity loss caused by con-gestion and disruptions. The strategies are relativelylow in cost compared with adding capacity, can beimplemented in two to three years, and offer sub-stantial benefits—for example, a benefit–cost ratio of10:1 (6). Table 1 provides some examples (below).

Institutional Architecture The research indicated that TSM&O requires a char-acteristic set of agency capabilities different fromthose that support capacity programs. Specialdemands are placed on leadership, organization,staffing, resources, and relationships, as well as ontechnical and business processes. Although some

Strategy and Payoff Example Applications Benefit–Cost Ratio and Other Metrics

Incident and emergencymanagement

Organize the management and clearance of disruptions and responses to emergencies toreduce delay and driver exposure to secondary accidents; improve reliability and respondersafety via incident detection, verification, response, clearance, accident investigation,medical response, and traffic control

2:1 to 42:1;incident durationreduced by 30% to40%

Road weatherinformation systems

Generate advance and current information about disruptive weather conditions tominimize traveler delay and improve efficiency of agency’s weather-related roadwaymaintenance with a combination of roadway environmental sensing, weather information,treatment and clearance strategies, and weather information dissemination

2:1 to 10:1;up to 50% of travelersin mountainous areasadjust plans

ITS-supported workzone trafficmanagement plans

Provide dynamic, traffic-responsive controls in work zones via lane use and speed controland warnings to improve safety for drivers and construction workers; improve traffic flowfor specific projects via detection, surveillance, lane use and speed control, signs, and signals

2:1 to 42:1;300% reduction indangerous merges

Traffic-responsive ortraffic-adaptive signals

Provide traffic-responsive or -adaptive signal operation at intersections to minimize delaythroughout corridors and networks via traffic detection, transit vehicle preemption, andappropriate signal control and network-level regimes

17:1 to 62:1;2% to 3% reduction indelays

Ramp metering In accordance with traffic conditions, control the rate and spacing of traffic entering afreeway, to minimize disruptions and safety hazards; improve travel time via freewayvolume detection and related traffic-responsive ramp signals

15:1;up to 15% reduction indelay

Freeway operations andactive trafficmanagement

Harmonize speeds and balance lane use, including shoulders, to minimize queuing, delay,and secondary crashes via variable speed limits, advisories, and lane use controls, includingdetection, communications. and dynamic message signs

Up to 25% reductionin crashes and 10% to20% reduction in delay

Advanced travelerinformation

Provide current and anticipated travel and weather conditions, route and mode options,and other information to support travelers’ optimal choice of route, timing, and mode viamultiple media—web, 511 phone, Twitter, e-mail, and text—and via overhead or roadsidechangeable messaging and in-vehicle information

3% decrease in crashes

TABLE 1 TSM&O Strategy Effectiveness (2)

Additional sources: Investment Opportunities for Managing Transportation Performance Through Technology. Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 2009. Benefits of Using Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones: A Summary Report. FHWA, April 2008.

PH

OTO: N

ATIO

NA

LIN

STITUTES

OF

HEA

LTH

In contrast to expandingroads to deal withincreased highway use,TSM&O strategiesaddress potentialproblems at the source—such as restoring capacityafter an incident.

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page 16

TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

17

TSM&O-related activities fit well into the 9-to-5 cul-ture of a project development–oriented civil engi-neering entity, the applications take place in real timewith extensive ongoing collaboration and perfor-mance monitoring on a 24-hour, 7-days-a-weekbasis. Figure 2 (above) illustrates the unique combi-nations needed.

The research compared the more- versus less-effective TSM&O programs of state DOTs. Thefindings suggested that neither technical knowl-edge nor relative funding levels were the key dif-ferences. Instead, the more effective programscustomized the business and technical processes ofplanning, programming, systems engineering, assetmanagement, and performance monitoring. Imple-menting these processes depended on adjustmentsto the institutional architecture of the agencies,affecting leadership, organizational structure, staffcapabilities, program framework, and resources(Figure 3, right).

Capability for TSM&OThe research traced the relationships between pro-gram effectiveness and the associated capabilities andaggregated the key processes and institutional char-acteristics into six major dimensions that appearedmost influential. These relationships were used todevelop guidance for state DOTs in improvingTSM&O.

Key findings for the six dimensions included thefollowing:

u Business processes, including formal scopingplanning, programming, and budgeting.

TSM&O is not typically integrated into the stateor regional planning process, which focuses on allo-cating federal and state funds within the conven-tional construction and maintenance programs.TSM&O investments tend to be ad hoc, without aclear and sustainable improvement program; in self-evaluations, state DOTs have given themselves lowratings on formalizing TSM&O as a program (7).

Few state DOTs have a clear understanding ofwhat they spend on TSM&O. Of the agencies thattrack the information, a few spend up to 2 percent oftheir total budgets on TSM&O despite its potentialto address more than half of the causes of delay andmost of the causes of unreliability.

FIGURE 3 Dependence ofTSM&O program onprocess and institutionalarrangements (9).

FIGURE 2 TSM&O activitydemands (3).Conventional Agency Processes

Taking Place in Administrative Time

Scoping andBusiness Processes

Accommodate program in portfolio

Interagencycoordination

Plan and program Systems engineering

Technology andSystems

Deployment

Infrastructurefor situational

awareness

Infrastructurefor control

Maintenance Asset management

Operations ActionsTaking Place in Real Time

SystemsOperations and

PerformanceMonitoring

Real-time mobilization ofequipment and

personnel

Interagency coordinated execution of event response activities

Situation status communications and reporting (internal and external)

Performance monitoring

Basis for Improvement

The Program

Processes That Support the Program

Supporting InstitutionalFramework

• Identify characteristics of aneffective TSM&O program

• Recognize dependence onspecific business andtechnical processes

• Identify requiredorganization structure and relationships

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page 17

TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

18

u Systems and technology, including systemsarchitecture, interoperability, standardization, anddocumentation.

State DOT technical staff—especially at theregional or district level—have a well-developedunderstanding of systems and technology issues, inpart because of federal support but also because ofprofessional interest in technology. Most states havedeveloped systems architectures with extensive fed-eral guidance. But states are struggling with stan-dardization, upgrades, and integration, especiallywith the rapid rate of technology development. Inseveral states, private-sector systems and serviceproviders are playing an increasing role in day-to-dayoperations and maintenance.

u Performance measurement, including mea-sures definition, data acquisition, analysis, and uti-lization.

Improving the effectiveness of any TSM&O strat-egy depends on performance measurement. Somestate DOTs measure their TSM&O by the amount ofactivities they perform, and they conduct debrief-ings after major crashes and storms. Nevertheless,state DOTs have limited knowledge of the effects oftheir routine TSM&O activities in reducing delay,unreliability, and crashes. Even at the national level,information on the benefits of TSM&O activities isfragmentary, which makes improving procedures andprotocols difficult and hampers efforts to justify theprogram.

Changes can be expected, however, with thestrong federal emphasis on performance measure-ment, along with the private sector’s growinginvolvement in supplying such measures as vehicleprobe–based traffic information.

u Culture, including technical understanding,leadership, policy commitment, outreach, and pro-gram authority.

In many DOTs, senior executive recognition ofthe potential of TSM&O is limited, as reflected in for-mal agency policy and programs. Most DOTs have alegacy culture of public works—the related values,expertise, and practices support a focus on capitalimprovements. In this context, real-time operationalmanagement has not been a focus. Many of the moreeffective TSM&O programs have been initiated afteran external crisis, such as a major crash, a weather-related traffic disaster, or the challenges of accom-modating a major event. Many of the more successfulprograms have depended on middle managementchampions, who apply extra energy and entrepre-neurship to cobble together a coherent program.

u Organization and workforce, including orga-nizational structure, staff capacity development,and retention.

TSM&O is not yet a top-level unit in state DOTorganizational structures. Its key components areoften fragmented into intelligent transportation sys-tems, traffic engineering, and traffic operationsunits—in the third or fourth level of the managementhierarchy, reporting to maintenance managers inregional or central offices. As a result, deliberationsby senior management about the agency’s program,budget, and staffing do not typically include repre-sentation from TSM&O, and accountability for oper-ations services is not evident.

TSM&O is often understaffed—not only becauseof agencywide constraints, but also because of the

PH

OTO: M

ISSOU

RID

OT

Missouri DOT appliedvariable speed limits ofbetween 40 and 60 mphalong I-270 in St. Louis.

Implementation ofpreferential lanes andother TSM&O measuresoften require a receptiveDOT culture.

PH

OTO: O

REG

ON

DO

T

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 18

TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

19

difficulty in finding and retaining qualified staff.TSM&O is not yet established as a rewarding careertrack within DOTs, with job specifications, compet-itive positions, and clear opportunities for advance-ment. Moreover, outsourcing key responsibilities toprivate entities is a growing trend.

u Collaboration, including relationships withpublic safety agencies, local governments, metro-politan planning organizations (MPOs), and theprivate sector.

Many of the important TSM&O strategies arebeyond the scope of transportation agencies alone.The divided jurisdictions and responsibilities for crit-ical actions regarding incident and traffic manage-ment prevent state DOTs from capitalizing on thepotential of TSM&O on their own. Several of themost important TSM&O strategies require collabo-ration with law enforcement, emergency services,and private providers of services—such as towingand recovery—or of information, such as vehicleprobe–based traffic data. At the regional level, col-laboration is often informal and can be disrupted bystaff turnover.

Many states are working to transcend interagencydifferences in missions, resources, and tacticalapproaches through formal agreements. Some DOTsare using innovative approaches for public–publicand public–private collaboration, including coali-tions, cross subsidies, cotraining, and incentive anddisincentive contracting.

Table 2 (above) provides examples that suggestdefinitions of best practices in processes and in insti-tutional arrangements. The SHRP 2 project aimed to

capitalize on the complete range of experience indeveloping guidance to improve TSM&O effective-ness.

Capability MaturityChanges in perceptions, practices, and configura-tions at state DOTs appear to be essential for moreeffective TSM&O. Guiding the changes presents sev-eral challenges, such as reengineering key processesand adjusting the institutional architecture to sup-port them. These adjustments also involve clarifyingvague intuitions about culture and organization.

The changes would have to be relevant to agen-cies at widely varying states of play in each of the keydimensions of capability and provide benchmarksfor manageable increments toward improved prac-tice—as evidenced by current best practices. Fur-thermore, the changes to develop the neededcapabilities would have to identify specific actionsand levels of improvement. A practical frameworkwas needed.

Information technology managers have used thecapability maturity model (CMM) to identify keydimensions of capability and levels of improvement,determined through self-evaluation. The frameworkfocuses on continuous improvement and combinesthe key features of quality management, organiza-tional development, and business process reengi-neering long used as strategic management tools intransportation agencies (8). The guide adjusts theCMM concept for state DOTs by focusing on the keydimensions of institutional architecture, as well asthe specific business and technical processes rele-vant to TSM&O.

Incentivized Florida DOT’s Rapid Incident Scene Clearance (RISC) program and Georgia DOT’s partnerships Towing and Recovery Incentive Program (TRIP) are public–private partnerships that use

both incentive payments and disincentive liquidated damages to shorten clearance timesfor heavy vehicle wrecks. RISC and TRIP have reduced the average clearance times dramatically.

Staff training in The 16-state I-95 Corridor Coalition has supported an Operations Academy, a two-program week residential program for state DOT middle and upper managers in TSM&O state of development the practice.

Formal program The Maryland State Highway Administration’s Coordinated Highways Actionand budget Response Team (CHART) program is a formal, multiyear, budgeted ITS and operations

program; an advisory board provides oversight and strategic direction for CHART.

High-level Virginia DOT has created a senior management post of Deputy Director for reorganization Operations and Maintenance, responsible for all TSM&O activities and maintenance

resources.

Measuring Washington State DOT has made a strong, transparent commitment to performance performance measurement; the quarterly Gray Notebook tracks performance based on five legislative

goals, including mobility and congestion, and includes updates on applying operationsstrategies such as incident management and high-occupancy toll lanes.

TABLE 2 Examples of State DOT Innovation (9)

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 19

Levels of CapabilityThe guide defines four discrete levels of agency capa-bility for each dimension, to assess an agency’s sta-tus and its targets for improvement. The first threelevels were observed in actual agency practice; thefourth level represents a theoretical ideal extrapo-lated from best practice.

The guidance is structured in terms of criteriathat define progressively higher levels of effectivenessthrough successive stages of capability maturity. Thesteps lead away from informal and ad hoc, cham-pion-based activities to custom-tailored processesthat make TSM&O routine, standardized, docu-mented, and performance-driven, supported byappropriate capabilities and organization. Figure 4(above) illustrates the criteria for each level and therelationships among the levels.

CMM and Guidance TemplatesWith the concept of dimensions and levels of capa-bility as a framework, criteria were identified todetermine the process and institutional capabilities

for each level. Logical increments in capability weredefined in consistent management steps. Specficactions were identified for moving from one level toanother in each of the six dimensions.

Table 3 (page 21) illustrates the capability levelsfor each of the dimensions, as defined by the criteriafor each level. Three rules governed the develop-ment of the guidance:

1. The six dimensions are interlinked. Thedimension at the lowest level of capability usually isthe principal constraint to improvement in programeffectiveness and therefore the highest priority.

2. Each incremental level of maturity within adimension establishes the basis for the agency’s abil-ity to progress to the next level of effectiveness.

3. Each of the dimensions is essential—all areinterrelated, and all must be addressed. Omittingimprovement in any one dimension inhibits contin-uous improvement.

To identify practical management actions, the sixkey dimensions were disaggregated into more con-crete elements of capability. Each dimension wassubdivided into three to four elements (Table 4, page22), each with its own capability improvement strat-egy. A high-level version provides agencies with aframework for strategy development driven by self-evaluations.

Validation of the GuidanceThe scope of services for the SHRP 2 project includedvalidation of the criteria for the dimensions and thelevels of capability. Fifteen state and regional work-shops have been conducted for the key participantsin TSM&O activities, including staff from stateDOTs, MPOs, regional and other local agencies, law

TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

20

FIGURE 4 Levels ofagency capabilitymaturity (9, p. 4).

Private tow operatorsand police help to clearan accident scene inOhio. A second StrategicHighway ResearchProgram (SHRP 2) projectconducted 15 workshopsin TSM&O strategies.

PH

OTO: O

HIO

DO

T

LEVEL 1

Performed• Activities and

relationships adhoc

• Champion-driven

LEVEL 2

Managed• Processes

developing

• Staff training

• Limitedaccountability

LEVEL 3

Integrated• Process

documented

• Performancemeasured

• Organization andpartners aligned

• Program budgeted

LEVEL 4

Optimized• Performance-based

improvement

• Formal program

• Formalpartnerships

Goal for the Future

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 20

TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

21

TABLE 3 General Strategies to Advance to the Next Level of Capability (9)

CapabilityDimension Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Business processes (planning,programming,implementation)

Processes related toTSM&O activities, adhoc andunintegrated

Multiyear statewideTSM&O plan andprogram in place,with deficiencies,evaluation, andstrategies

Programming,budgeting, andprojectdevelopmentprocesses forTSM&Ostandardized anddocumented

Processesstreamlined andsubject tocontinuousimprovement

Systems andtechnology(systemsengineering andtechnologyinteroperability)

Ad hoc approachesoutside systemsengineering

Systems engineeringemployed andconsistently used forconcept of opera -tions, architecture,and systemsdevelopment

Systems andtechnologystandardized,documented, andtrained statewide,and new technologyincorporated

Systems andtechnologyroutinely upgradedand utilized toimprove efficiencyand performance

Performancemeasurement(measures, data andanalytics, andutilization)

No regularperformancemeasurementrelated to TSM&O

TSM&O strategiesmeasurementlargely via outputs,with limited after-action analyses

Outcome measuresidentified andconsistently used forTSM&O strategiesimprovement

Mission-relatedoutputs andoutcomes dataroutinely utilized formanagement,reported internallyand externally, andarchived

Culture(technicalunderstanding,leadership,outreach, andprogram authority)

Value of TSM&O notwidely understoodbeyond champions

Agencywideappreciation of thevalue and role ofTSM&O

TSM&O accepted asa formal coreprogram

Explicit agencycommitment toTSM&O as keystrategy to achievefull range ofmobility, safety,livability, andsustainabilityobjectives

Organization andworkforce(organizationalstructure andworkforce capabilitydevelopment)

Fragmented rolesbased on legacyorganization andavailable skills

Relationship amongroles and unitsrationalized andcore staff capacitiesidentified

Top-levelmanagementposition and corestaff for TSM&Oestablished incentral office anddistricts

Professionalizationand certification ofoperations corecapacity positionsincludingperformanceincentive

Collaboration(partnerships amonglevels ofgovernment andwith public safetyagencies and privatesector)

Relationships oninformal,infrequent, andpersonal basis

Regularcollaboration atregional level

Collaborativeinteragencyadjustment of rolesand responsibilitiesby formalinteragencyagreements

High level ofoperationscoordinationinstitutionalizedamong key players,public and private

enforcement, and the private sector (9). Workshop participants applied the criteria to

evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their agen-cies’ capabilities in each of the six dimensions. Theconsensus view of the level of capabilities became thepoint of departure for identifying strategies to moveup to the next level.

The workshops produced action plans that par-ticipants are using to improve their agencies’TSM&O activities. The CMM workshop has becomea core activity in the SHRP 2 Reliability Implemen-tation Program to be conducted by SHRP 2, FHWA,and the American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO).

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 21

TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

22

Web-Based GuidanceThrough a partnership with AASHTO’s Subcommittee onSystems Operations and Management and the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program, a detailed ver-sion of the SHRP 2 TSM&O guidance is available onlineas the AASHTO Systems Operations and ManagementGuidance (www.aashtosomguidance.org). The web-based resource, including online self-eval-

uations, allows users to tailor the guidance to theiragency and context. The user’s responses to a set ofnested questions in three areas generate an evaluationof agency-level maturity for each of the six majordimensions of the CMM. The guidance then providesa set of action plan steps for each dimension, to enablethe agency to move up to the next levels of capability.

Practical ApproachImproved TSM&O is essential for reducing delay andunreliability and for improving throughput and safety.The SHRP 2 guidance presents a comprehensiveapproach to help state DOTs and their partners suc-ceed in improving levels of service. Many of theimprovements do not require additional capital or staffbut necessitate a clear understanding of the TSM&Ostrategy, features, and applications—and of the capa-bilities that are preconditions to success. These capa-bilities can be managed; the SHRP 2 guidance presentsa research-based, practical approach.

AcknowledgmentsThe research described in this article was conductedunder the SHRP 2 Reliability Research Program Proj-ect L06, Institutional Architecture to Advance Opera-tional Strategies, by a team from Parsons Brinckerhoffled by the author and including John O’Laughlin ofDelcan, Philip J. Tarnoff, the George Mason UniversitySchool of Public Policy, and Housman and Associates.

The findings have been implemented in the web-basedAASHTO Systems Operations and Management Guid-ance and incorporated into the FHWA primer, Creat-ing an Effective Program to Advance TransportationSystem Management and Operations (9). Some of theinformation in this article is drawn from these prod-ucts, which were prepared by the research team.

References1. Inrix National Traffic Scorecard, 2011. http://scorecard.inrix.com/scorecard/.

2. SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1: Institutional Architectures toImprove Systems Operations and Management. Transpor -tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-ington, D.C., 2012. www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165285.aspx.

3. Table 1-36: Roadway Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) andVMT per Lane Mile by Functional Class. National Trans-portation Statistics. Bureau of Transportation Statistics,Research and Innovative Technology Administration.www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_36.html.

4. Schrank, D., T. Lomax, and B. Eisele. 2011 Urban MobilityReport. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M Univer-sity System, College Station, September 2011. http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2011.pdf.

5. It’s About Time: Investing in Transportation to Keep Texas Eco-nomically Competitive. Texas 2030 Committee, March 2011,p. 5. http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6666-TTI-1.pdf.

6. Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits, Costs, Deployment,and Lessons Learned Desk Reference: 2011 Update. www.itskr.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/files/BCLLDepl2011Update/$File/Ben_Cost_Less_Depl_2011%20Update.pdf.

7. Analysis and Production of the Traffic Incident ManagementState Self-Assessments, FHWA Office of Operations, 2009.

8. CMMI for Services, Version 1.3: Software Engineering ProcessManagement Program. Software Engineering Institute,Carnegie Mellon, November 2010. www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/10tr034.pdf.

9. Creating an Effective Program to Advance Transportation Sys-tem Management and Operations: A Primer. Federal High-way Administration, January 2012. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12003/index.htm.

Business Processes Systems and Technology Performance Measurement

• Planning• Scoping• Programming and budgeting• Project development and

procurement

• Regional architectures• Project systems engineering;

testing and validation• Standards and interoperability

• Definition of measures • Data acquisition• Utilization of measures

Culture Organization and Workforce Collaboration

• Technical understanding• Leadership and championship• Outreach• Program status and

authorities

• Program status• Organizational structure• Recruitment and retention• Staff development

• Public safety agency collaboration• Local government, MPO, and

regional transportation planningagency cooperation

• Outsourcing and public–privatepartnerships

TABLE 4 Guidance Topics

Source: AASHTO Guide to Systems Operations and Management Improvement, www.aashtosomguidance.org.

More information aboutSHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1, Institutional Architec-tures to Improve SystemsOperations and Manage-ment, is available atwww.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165285.aspx.