rop region 5 final report 10-19-2007 5_final_re… · • cpl. carol sherland pennsylvania state...

Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5

Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg i October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg ii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Major contributions from PennDOT District 5-0, the PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE), the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, the Reading Area Transportation Study, and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, made the Regional Operations Plan for the Region 5 possible. The ROP was developed with input from multiple regional stakeholders. Regional Champions / Leaders PennDOT District 5-0 served as ROP champion, with additional leadership provided by the region’s three MPO / RPOs. In particular, the staff who contributed toward the development of the ROP included:

• Dennis Toomey, P.E. PennDOT District 5-0 • Tom Walter PennDOT District 5-0 • Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission • Alan Piper Reading Area Transportation Study • Kurt Bauman Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

Regional Steering Committee The ROP was guided by the Regional Steering Committee which consisted of the Regional Champions / Leaders as well as the following individuals and organizations:

• Tony Blackwell Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association • Jason Davis Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority • Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission • Gary Hoffman Monroe County 911 Center • Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration • Oscar Kleinsmith I-78 Coalition • Amanda Leindecker PennDOT District 5-0 • John Matz Schuylkill County Emergency Management Agency • Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center • Mike Pack PennDOT BHSTE • Glenn F. Reibman Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission • Cpl. Carol Sherland Pennsylvania State Police • John Townsend PennDOT District 5-0

In addition to these individuals, another thirty-one individuals representing regional organizations participated at ROP workshops and task force meetings, or through phone and email correspondence.

Consultant Team The GeoDecisions division of Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF) facilitated the ROP process, documented the outcomes, and prepared the plan document.


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg iii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................VIII

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................. IX

1. BACKGROUND............................................................................................1

1.1 Statewide TSOP Initiative ........................................................................1

1.2 ROP Scope and Objectives .....................................................................2

1.3 ROP Development Process .....................................................................3

1.4 ROP Oversight and Management............................................................8

2. OPERATIONS REGION 5 ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES .......................13

2.1 Description of the Region......................................................................13

2.2 ITS and Operations Activities at the District 5-0 Level ........................13

2.3 Regional Initiatives ................................................................................16

2.4 The Regional Planning Process............................................................18

2.5 Integrating the ROP into the Regional Planning Process ...................22

3. REGIONAL OPERATIONS FRAMEWORK ...............................................25

3.1 Regional Operations Strategies............................................................25

3.2 Incident Management Processes and Procedures Operations Area.........................................................................................................26

3.3 Interagency Communications & Coordination.....................................27

3.4 Traveler Information Operations Area ..................................................28

3.5 Traffic Signals Operations Area............................................................29

4. REGIONAL PROGRAM .............................................................................30

4.1 Overview.................................................................................................30


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg iv October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

4.2 Mainstreaming Operations ....................................................................30

4.3 Project Priorities and Sequences .........................................................31

4.4 Approach to Funding.............................................................................36

4.5 Regional Oversight ................................................................................38

4.6 Measuring Success................................................................................39

4.7 Institutional Considerations..................................................................39

5. CONCLUSION............................................................................................42

APPENDIX A – REGIONAL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................44

APPENDIX B – MPO / RPO - SPECIFIC PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONS (LVPC)....................................................................................................................61

APPENDIX B – MPO / RPO – SPECIFIC PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONS.........74

APPENDIX B – MPO / RPO SPECIFIC PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONS............87

APPENDIX C – PRIORITIZED FIELD DEVICES FOR DEPLOYMENT.............98

APPENDIX D – DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION ..........................................105

APPENDIX E – WORKSHOP & TASK FORCE PARTICIPANTS....................110

APPENDIX F – STEERING COMMITTEE, WORKSHOP & TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARIES...........................................................................112

Steering Committee – Kick-off Meeting Summary (FINAL) ...........................112

Workshop #1 – Operational Needs Identification - Meeting Summary (FINAL)..............................................................................................................117

TASK FORCE MEETINGS #1 – Operational Projects Definition....................123

TASK FORCE MEETING #2 – Operational Projects Prioritization.................140

WORKSHOP # 2 – Field Device Prioritization ................................................144


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg v October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Region 5 ROP Process 3

Figure 2: Region 5 Geographic Boundaries 13

Figure 3: Region 5 ROP Boundaries 105


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg vi October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: REGION 5 ROP STEERING COMMITTEE .........................................9

TABLE 2: REGION 5 ROP STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................10

TABLE 3: REGION 5 ROP MEETING SCHEDULE...........................................11

TABLE 4: INVENTORY OF KEY ITS EQUIPMENT & SERVICES IN REGION 5....................................................................................................................14

TABLE 5: INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES -- REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS.......................................................26

TABLE 6: INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION - REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS.......................................................27

TABLE 7: TRAVELER INFORMATION - REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS....................................................................................................................28

TABLE 8: TRAFFIC SIGNALS - REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS .........29

TABLE 9: CANDIDATE ROP PROJECTS........................................................31

TABLE 10: ROP PROJECT PRIORITY RANKINGS ........................................32

TABLE 11: FINAL LIST - PRIORITIZED ROP PROJECTS..............................33

TABLE 12: LVPC ROP PROJECT PRIORITIES ..............................................34

TABLE 13: RATS ROP PROJECT PRIORITIES ..............................................35

TABLE 14: NEPA ROP PROJECT PRIORITIES..............................................36

TABLE 15: OPERATIONS REGION 5 - POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2006 .106

TABLE 16: COMPARISON OF KEY POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS – REGION 5, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE UNITED STATES, 2006..........106


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg vii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

TABLE 17: COMPARISON OF COMMUTING PATTERNS AMONG WORKERS 16 & OVER – REGION 5, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE UNITED STATES, 2000..........................................................................................................107

TABLE 18: REGION 5 - LINEAR MILES, 2005 ...............................................107

TABLE 19: REGION 5 - DAILY VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL, 2005 ............108

TABLE 20: SIGNIFICANT HIGHWAY CORRIDORS.......................................108


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg viii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is responsible for operations planning at the statewide level. The statewide plan is spelled out in the Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP). To complement the statewide operations planning effort, each of the nine transportation operations regions across the Commonwealth undertook the preparation of a Regional Operations Plan (ROP). The plans were prepared through joint consultations between PennDOT District offices, transportation planning partners, and other key regional stakeholders. Operations Region 5 is located in the eastern part of Pennsylvania and is comprised of six counties: Berks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill. Operations Region 5 is co-terminus with PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. The region consists of two MPOs; The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC) and the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS). There is one region RPO; the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA). The Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 specifies the intended approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationally-focused projects for the region, consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. The examination of existing conditions and ITS inventory, as well as projects currently programmed as part of the FY 2007-2010 TIPs, illuminated potential ITS equipment gaps and shortcomings. The specific ITS needs of the region were further identified by planning partners and regional stakeholders during regional forums. Critical Operational Needs Areas included the following:

• Incident Management Processes and Procedures (IMP&P), • Interagency Communications and Coordination (IC&C), • Traveler Information (TI), and • Traffic Signals (TS).

Candidate projects in the Region 5 ROP were developed based on PennDOT’s statewide vision and the assessment of operational needs. These candidate projects lay a foundation for having a significant impact in the Critical Operational Needs Areas listed above. The top three projects are:

Project # Final List - Prioritized ROP Projects

1 Identify ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment

2 Develop / Update Incident Management Plans & Procedures

3 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols

The regional solutions addressed in the Region 5 ROP tend to be cost effective in supporting (not eliminating) regional congestion issues. As Region 5 considers its transportation options, ITS and operations solutions will be examined, weighed and considered regional funding. This effort will ensure that innovative and cost effective solutions get a fair hearing alongside more costly capacity expansion projects.


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg ix October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS ATMS Advanced Traffic Management System ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder ATRWS Automatic Truck Rollover Warning System AVL Automatic Vehicle Location BARTA Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority BHSTE Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering CCTV Closed-Circuit Television CMP Congestion Management Process CVO Commercial Vehicle Operation DMS Dynamic Message Sign DVMT Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel EDP Early Deployment Program EMA Emergency Management Agency EMS Emergency Medical Services FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSP Freeway Service Patrol GPS Global Positioning System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HOV High Occupancy Vehicle IEM Incident and Emergency Management IEN Information Exchange Network IM Interstate Maintenance ISP Information Service Providers ITS Intelligent Transportation System LANTA Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority LRP Long Range Plan (or Long Range Transportation Plan) LVPC Lehigh Valley Planning Commission LVTS Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NEPA Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation NJT New Jersey Transit NWS National Weather Service O&M Operations and Maintenance OIP Other in-Pavement Loop Site PEMA Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PSP Pennsylvania State Police PTC Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission RATS Reading Area Transportation Study RCRS Road Closure Reporting System RIMIS Regional Integrated Multimodal Information Sharing ROP Regional Operations Plan RPO Rural Planning Organization RTMC Regional Transportation Management Center RTMS Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor RWIS Road Weather Information System

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SAMS Signals Asset Management System STMC Statewide Transportation Management Center


Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg x October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

STS Schuylkill Transportation System TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Association TMC Transportation Management Center TSAMS Traffic Signal Asset Management System TSOP Transportation Systems Operations Plan UPWP Unified Planning Work Program USDOT United States Department of Transportation

Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 1 of 145 October 1, 2007

FINAL REPORT

1. BACKGROUND Transportation agencies today seldom have the luxury of undertaking massive new capacity expansion projects. Instead, more innovative approaches are often required to optimize the use of transportation infrastructure and achieve heightened operational efficiencies. Those activities, approaches, and procedures that help to maximize efficiencies are part of the transportation operations program. Operational planning is the process used to define and prepare for operations programming. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is responsible for operations planning at the statewide level. The statewide plan is spelled out in the Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP), which defines PennDOT’s operational directions over the next several years. To complement the statewide operations planning effort, each of the nine transportation operations regions across the Commonwealth has undertaken preparation of a Regional Operations Plan (ROP) which documents each region’s approach to operational activities. The plans were prepared through joint consultations between PennDOT District offices, transportation planning partners, and other key regional stakeholders. The plans all use TSOP as a starting point, but adapt the statewide directions to each region’s transportation conditions, values, and priorities. This document specifies the ROP for Operations Region 5.

1.1 Statewide TSOP Initiative

The Transportation Systems Operations Plan, adopted in September 2005, defines PennDOT’s general framework for managing capacity along the Commonwealth’s roadways. The development of TSOP was a response to PennDOT Executive Goal No. 6, which was to “effectively and efficiently operate the transportation system.” Toward this end, TSOP has four overarching goals:

1. Build and maintain a transportation operations foundation, 2. Improve highway operational performance, 3. Improve safety, and 4. Improve security.

Associated with these goals are a series of tangible objectives. Key objectives include:

• Support transportation operations uniformly in all PennDOT engineering districts, • Furnish consistent incident response on all segments of the Interstate system,

regardless of location,

• Share timely, reliable information about incidents among federal, state, and regional/local emergency management agencies,


FINAL REPORT

• Improve mobility on arterials through consolidated, inter-municipal management of traffic signals,

• Provide practical, reliable traveler information to transportation consumers using

no-cost or low-cost media, and

• Define and implement performance metrics for effectively managing operations and guiding planning and funding.

An electronic version of the TSOP document is available at http://paits.org. TSOP, first and foremost, is an action plan of statewide projects. There are nineteen initiatives that encompass four priority areas:

• Incident and Emergency Management, • Traffic Signals, • Traveler Information, and • Standardization.

Standardization encompasses the uniformity of hardware, software, communications procedures and protocols, etc. TSOP will be updated throughout calendar year 2007.

1.2 ROP Scope and Objectives

The Regional Operations Plan for the District 5-0 Region specifies the intended approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationally-focused projects for the region, consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. (See Appendix D for a description of the region). The ROP sets the stage for regional implementation of pertinent elements of TSOP. It may also identify other initiatives reflective of the specialized needs of the region. Development of the ROP is intended to:

� Define a strategic transportation operations plan for the region,

� Extend TSOP to the regional level,

� Tailor statewide directions to regional needs,

� Specify and prioritize regional operations projects,

� Achieve uniformity and compatibility across operations regions, and

� Expand cooperative relationships between regional transportation operators and planning partners.


FINAL REPORT

Regarding the last item, the ROP process is intended to link planning and operations. The ROP emphasizes collaboration and coordination among regional planners and operators, and a structured assessment of the planning and operational implications of expanded management procedures, technology systems, and investments. The ROP will feed into the Long-Range Plans (LRP) and the corresponding Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) in each of the state’s operational regions. Each ROP will also supply important inputs to future updates of TSOP, Regional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architectures, and PennDOT’s Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan (Mobility Plan). ROP stakeholders in every region are presenting the ROP document to their respective metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and rural planning organizations (RPOs), encouraging these planning partners to adopt or endorse the plans. It is expected that all ROPs will be updated at two-year intervals in advance of biannual TIP update cycles.

1.3 ROP Development Process The nine-month Region 5 ROP development process involved conducting outreach workshops and smaller group meetings as well as researching and developing regional operations projects. The ROP involved the following key activities shown in Figure 1 and further described below:

Tasks 1 & 2Tasks 1 & 2Tasks 1 & 2 Task 3 Task 3 Task 3 Tasks 4 & 5Tasks 4 & 5Tasks 4 & 5 Tasks 7

ROP Adoption

ROP ROP

Adoption Adoption Kick- off KickKick- - off off

Task 6 Task 6 Task 6 Tasks 1 & 2Tasks 1 & 2Tasks 1 & 2 Task 3 Task 3 Task 3 Tasks 4 & 5Tasks 4 & 5Tasks 4 & 5 Task 7 Task 7

ROP Adoption

ROP ROP

Adoption Adoption

Wo

rks

ho

p F

oru

m #

1 –

N

ee

ds

Ide

ntific

atio

n

Kick- off KickKick- - off off

Wo

rks

ho

p F

oru

m #

2 –

R

eg

ion

al P

rog

ram

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Institutional Issues

Task Force

Institutional Institutional Issues Issues

Institutional Issues

Task Force

Institutional Institutional Issues Issues Issues

Task Force

Task Force #2 Projects

Prioritization

Task 6 Task 6 Task 6

Task Force Task Force Task Force Task Force

Incident Management Task Force

Incident Incident Management Management

Incident Management Task Force

Incident Incident Management Management

Incident

Task Force

Task Force #1 Projects

Identification

Figure 1: Region 5 ROP Development Process


FINAL REPORT

Task 1. Establish a Regional Operations Forum (ROF). The ROF, or Steering Committee, is a group of knowledgeable planning and transportation partners who are involved in operations and transportation for the region. The ROF Steering Committee is a decision-making body that covers a diverse range of transportation and emergency management stakeholders from across the region. The Committee can be an extension of the Regional Advisory Panel (RAP) Committees that govern the development of the Regional ITS Architectures or it can be a completely new group of members. The ROF Steering Committee for Region 5 was a new committee with representation from the following:

� PennDOT District 5-0 � PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) � Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) � Lehigh Valley Planning Commission(LVPC) � Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) � Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) � Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) � Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (DRJTBC) � Schuylkill County Emergency Management Agency � Monroe County 911 Center � I-78 Coalition � Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association � PennDOT Program Center � Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority

A list of the individuals representing each of these stakeholder organizations is provided in Table 1. Task 2. Review / Update Plans and Document Projects. The documents reviewed in preparing this project inventory included the following:

i. PennDOT Regional Guidance Document (May 2006)

The Regional Guidance Document was prepared in May 2006 to outline an approach for developing the ROPs. This document is guiding the development of each of the Regional ROPs, including the Region 5 ROP.

ii. Pennsylvania Mobility Plan (June 2007) Pennsylvania’s long-range statewide transportation plan, or Mobility Plan, sets the direction for the Commonwealth’s transportation investment through 2030. The Mobility Plan, which was developed by PennDOT for the 2006 – 2030 planning horizon, articulates a transportation vision and establishes five major goals for achieving that vision. These goals include: a) moving people and goods safely and securely, b) improving the quality of life by linking transportation, land use, economic development, and environmental stewardship, c) developing and sustaining quality transportation infrastructure, d) providing mobility for people, goods, and commerce, and e) maximizing the benefit of transportation investments. The Mobility Plan seeks to work collaboratively to achieve these goals thereby making transportation more


FINAL REPORT

multimodal, entrepreneurial, and collaborative, and to better link investment decisions with goals for Pennsylvania’s economy and quality of life. The Region 5 ROP will supply important inputs to future updates of the Mobility Plan.

iii. 2005 Transportation Systems Operations Plan (September 2005)

The Transportation Systems Operations Plan, or TSOP, was prepared in September 2005 and defines the statewide plan for operations. The TSOP will be updated on a bi-annual basis and its purpose is to set statewide direction for projects in ITS and to formalize and extend PennDOT’s business focus to include operations. TSOP is predicated on four goals: 1) building and maintaining a transportation operations foundation; 2) improving highway operational performance; 3) improving safety; and 4) improving security. In order to achieve these goals, the TSOP outlines nineteen distinct statewide initiatives that include both planning efforts as well as deployments. These projects cover areas of priority such as operations mainstreaming, ITS maintenance, standards and procedures, resource management, information technology, and intermodal support. Coordination of these priorities will be carried out both through statewide initiatives and regional deployments dependent on localized needs. Like the ROP, the TSOP is positioned to be linked to the two-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) updates. In development of the ROP, the TSOP is the primary guideline to follow. The ROP will cover the more specific regional needs of District 5-0. In turn, the Region 5 ROP will provide important inputs to future updates of the TSOP.

iv. Early Deployment Plan: Development of Intelligent Transportation Systems for

the Lehigh Valley (1999)

This document is a comprehensive assessment of all existing and future facets of ITS elements, systems, practices, and strategies within the Lehigh Valley. The document is organized into nine Technical Memorandums, each covering a different aspect of ITS in the Lehigh Valley. The tasks of the study and their corresponding document memorandums are outlined briefly below: 1) Describes the current transportation system as well-identified

needs/problems 2) Provides a more detailed inventory of the basic communication and ITS

transportation and communication infrastructure elements that are present

3) Identifies stakeholders and the institutional issues they may influence

and/or adapt to as they jointly develop and implement a strategic ITS plan for the Lehigh Valley area


FINAL REPORT

4) Describes the ongoing study of the current and future application of ITS in the area, focusing on user services, performance criteria, and user services plan

5) Focuses on matching the needed user services identified in

memorandum 4 with the appropriate functional areas and to further define the technologies available to support the user services plan

6) Describes the results of an effort designed to develop an open system

architecture, meeting the needs and ITS services of the region 7) Describes the targeted physical architecture of the ITS. The task

concentrated on technologies based on optimization of system availability, supportability, expandability, compatibility with existing infrastructure standards, affordability, and phased implementation potential.

8) Defines operations and maintenance issues; identifying funding options,

including public/private partnership opportunities; and develops a phased implementation plan.

9) The last chapter describes the activities and findings of a number of task

objectives; including

�� preparation of a business plan and deployment plan for Lehigh Valley ITS elements,

�� project descriptions, estimate for deployment, funding sources, and scheduling,

�� an evaluation plan for determining the effectiveness of the ITS Program.

While other input documents mainly provide guidance on the format and other general requirements of Concept of Operations and Requirements documents, the Lehigh Valley ITS document provides content-related guidance with regards to specific systems that exist and are planned in the Lehigh Valley region.

v. Regional ITS Architecture – PennDOT Region 5 ITS Architecture (February

2005)

In order to use USDOT funds for ITS implementation all states in partnership with their planning partners must complete ITS Architectures. In complying with this Federal mandate, Pennsylvania has required PennDOT Districts and regional planning partners to develop Regional ITS Architectures, which serve as a framework for ensuring institutional agreement and technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects. The Regional ITS Architecture covering Region 5 will be relevant and useful to the development of the ROP in two main ways: (1) the Region 5 ROP will need to be consistent with the Regional ITS Architecture and (2) the Regional ITS Architecture document provides a list of


FINAL REPORT

stakeholders that will serve as a master list of stakeholders from which the stakeholders for this particular project are developed.

The Regional ITS Architecture served as a reference document throughout the completion of the main tasks of this project and was consulted, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Architecture. The Region 5 ROP will likewise supply important inputs to future updates of the Region 5 Regional ITS Architecture.

vi. Unified Planning Work Program

The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is the annual work plan for regional planning activities and priorities. Mandated by Federal statute, the Work Program is performed by the regional MPO or RPO and provides strategic direction for transportation activities. The UPWPs for Region 5’s two MPOs (the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission and the Reading Area Transportation Study), and the RPO (the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance) were all consulted in the development of regional candidate ITS projects, in particular, those projects involving studies or planning-level activities.

vii. Regional Long Range Plan

The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP) documents the current conditions of the existing transportation system within the MPO and RPO areas, describes the trends that will impact that system over the next twenty-five years, and develops a schedule of improvements to mitigate the impacts to those trends to keep the system functioning effectively and efficiently. The Region 5 ROP will feed into the LRPs for LVPC, RATS, and NEPA.

viii. Transportation Improvement Program

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the regionally agreed-upon, and locally endorsed, list of highest priority transportation projects for the region. The TIP develops a multi-year program of implementation, and identifies available federal and non-federal funding for the identified projects. The TIP covers a four-year period of investment and is updated every two years through a cooperative effort of local, state, and federal agencies, and the general public. The Region 5 ROP will provide input into future TIPs for the region’s three planning partners.

An inventory of operations projects—planned or underway—across the region was created and disseminated as guidance material to the Regional Forum / Steering Committee. Task 3. Define Regional Needs and Priorities. A regional forum (Workshop #1) was held with Region 5 transportation and planning stakeholders to define and discuss operational needs for the region. In identifying the critical needs of Region 5, the nineteen TSOP Priority Areas were the starting point for discussion, and were followed by a discussion of region-specific operational requirements. This discussion led to the identification of four operational “needs areas” (Incident Management


FINAL REPORT

Processes and Procedures, Communications, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals), and resulted in the development of a list of regional operational needs associated with each of these “needs areas”. A summary from Workshop #1 is provided in Appendix F. Task 4. Identify Operations Concepts & Projects. Upon identifying operational needs, a first round of Task Force Meetings was convened in each of the three geographic areas of Region 5. Task Force #1 participants reviewed the previously developed list of needs and began to define the solutions to those needs in the form of potential projects (i.e., policies, planning studies or physical deployments). These candidate projects reflected the specialized conditions and circumstances of the region consistent with statewide guidance. Meeting summaries from this round of regional Task Force #1 meetings are provided in Appendix F. Task 5. Prioritize Operations Projects. Upon defining the operational projects, a second Task Force meeting was convened with Region 5 participants from the three planning areas meeting together to prioritize the candidate list of projects. ROP stakeholders rated each of the candidate projects on a numerical scale based on its perceived need, as well as on other key factors such as implementation agent, level of required effort, estimated cost and implementation timeline. This second Task Force meeting was followed by Workshop #2 with the purpose of validating and prioritizing the candidate ITS projects as well as a proposed list of ITS field devices identified for each of the three planning areas of Region 5. Task 6. Develop a Regional Program. Upon completing the prioritization process, a draft list of candidate projects and proposed ITS field devices was presented to District 5-0 and the regional planning partners for review. This regional program of projects is presented in Appendix A. Task 7. Prepare and Adopt a Regional Operations Plan. The results of the entire ROP planning effort are documented as the ROP Plan. At a minimum, the Plan encompasses the following elements: background to study, short-term and medium-term projects, and program implementation. At the conclusion of the outreach process, the ROP is to be reviewed and adopted by the three regional planning partners (LVPC, RATS, NEPA).

1.4 ROP Oversight and Management As part of the effort to develop the ROP, a Regional Operations Forum, or ROP Steering Committee, was established. In addition to the Steering Committee, a group of transportation operations stakeholders geographically covering the six counties and representing the region’s transportation, operational, and planning agencies, was also identified and established. These Steering Committee members and regional stakeholders formed the basis for participation at the two workshops and two task force meetings convened during the ROP process. 1.4.1 Regional Operations Forum / ROP Steering Committee The ROP Steering Committee represents a decision-making body of knowledgeable planning partners and practitioners across the six-county region responsible for planning


FINAL REPORT

and overseeing transportation operations. The ROP Steering Committee consists of an extended group of stakeholder organizations and individuals from Region 5 as presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Region 5 ROP Steering Committee

Steering Committee Member

Organizational Representation

Dennis Toomey, P.E.

Tom Walter

John Townsend

Amanda Leindecker

PennDOT District 5-0

Mike Pack PennDOT BHSTE

Joe Gurinko

Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Transportation Study

Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center

Alan Piper Reading Area Transportation Study

Kurt Bauman Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration

Cpl. Carol Sherland Pennsylvania State Police

Glenn F. Reibman Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission

John Matz Schuylkill County EMA

Gary Hoffman Monroe County 911 Center

Jason Davis LANTA

Tony Blackwell Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association

Oscar Kleinsmith I-78 Coalition

1.4.2 ROP Stakeholders / Participants Two workshop meetings and a series of task force meetings were held and attended by a large group of stakeholders from throughout Region 5. The stakeholders involved in the Region 5 ROP process bring a diverse range of knowledge and experience to the operational direction of the region. These stakeholders participated in the core decisions associated with the ROP process, in particular identifying the region’s operational needs and defining and prioritizing the operational projects to address these needs.


FINAL REPORT

Those stakeholders involved in the development of the ROP through workshop and task force meetings, or by way of email or phone correspondence, are included in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Region 5 ROP Stakeholders

Stakeholder Organization

Stakeholder / Participant

Donald Lerch

George Tomaszewski PennDOT District 5-0

Carey Mullins

Bill Laubach

Bob Pento, P.E. PennDOT BHSTE

Doug Tomlinson, P.E.

PennDOT Program Center Kristin Egresits

Matt McGough Reading Area Transportation Study

Michael Golembiewski

Federal Highway Administration Kathy Dimpsey

Lt. Frank Fetterolf

Joseph Wydock Pennsylvania State Police

Dirk Yahraes

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Lou Cortelazzi

Berks County EMA Jeffrey Weidner

Carbon County Planning Commission Stephen Simchak

Greenwich Township Victor Berger

HJG Associates Howard Grossman

Lehigh County 911 Center Laurie Bailey

Tom Nervine Lehigh County EMA

Tanya Light

Monroe County Planning Commission Matt Neeb

Bruce Henry Monroe County Public Safety Center

Guy M. Miller


FINAL REPORT

Pocono Vacation Bureau Mathilda Sheptak

Schuylkill Transportation System Dennis Zahora

1.4.3 Consultant Team The GeoDecisions division of Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF) facilitated the ROP process, documented the outcomes, and prepared the plan document.

1.4.4 Workshops and Task Force Meetings The development of the ROP required several workshop forums and task force meetings throughout the process. These forums and meetings provided the venue for identifying the operational needs of Region 5 as well as for defining and prioritizing regional operational concepts and projects. The two Workshop forums were held at strategic phases in the ROP process. The first identified the region’s operations needs and the second validated and prioritized candidate projects and proposed ITS field devices. The names and affiliations of Workshop participants are provided in Appendix E. The Task Force initially convened as geographic-based groups in each of the three planning partner areas (Lehigh Valley, Berks County, and Northeastern Pennsylvania) but met as one group for its second meeting round. The names and affiliations of Task Force participants are provided in Appendix F. The schedule of meetings held for the Region 5 ROP is presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Region 5 ROP Meeting Schedule

Meeting

Date

ROF Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting

January 18, 2007

Stakeholder Workshop #1 – Operational Needs Identification

February 20, 2007

Task Force Meetings #1 – Operational Projects Identification

March 20, 2007 (LVPC) March 21, 2007 (RATS) March 21, 2007 (NEPA)

Task Force Meeting #2 – Operational Projects Prioritization

May 31, 2007


FINAL REPORT

Stakeholder Workshop #2 – Operational Projects and ITS Field Device Prioritization

June 11, 2007

MPO / RPO Meetings – Field Device Validation, Prioritization & Sequencing

June 12, 2007 (LVPC) July 2, 2007 (RATS) July 12, 2007 (NEPA)


FINAL REPORT

2. OPERATIONS REGION 5 ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES

2.1 Description of the Region

Operations Region 5 is located in the eastern part of Pennsylvania and is comprised of six counties: Berks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill. As shown in Figure 2, Operations Region 5 is co-terminus with PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. The region consists of two MPOs – The Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) – encompasses Lehigh and Northampton counties, while the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) consists of Berks County. The region’s one RPO – the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) – encompasses Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe counties. NEPA itself is split between PennDOT District 4-0 and District 5-0, with Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe counties included in District 5-0. The District 5-0 office is located in downtown Allentown in Lehigh County. A more detailed description of the region is provided in Appendix D.

2.2 ITS and Operations Activities at the District 5-0 Level

Figure 2: Region 5 Geographic Boundaries


FINAL REPORT

ITS Device Deployment District 5-0 has an established ITS program, with most of its ITS field technologies located in the Lehigh Valley along I-78, Route 22, and Route 33. In 1999, an Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area Early Deployment Program Study was completed. The Early Deployment Program developed an immediate and long-range action plan for deploying ITS technologies in the Lehigh Valley. This plan is still being used and has led to several deployments across the region. The equipment currently deployed throughout Region 5 includes:

� Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras � Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) � Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) � 10th Mile-marker Signing � Queue Detectors � Ramp Metering System (inactive) � Closed Loop Traffic signal Systems � Roadway Weather Information Systems (RWIS) Stations � Freeway Service Patrols

An inventory and understanding of these existing and planned systems is crucial to the needs analysis development of an Operations Plan. These existing systems and deployments were used as the basis for the identification of the regional needs which could be addressed by operational solution or ITS deployment. Table 4 below includes an Inventory of Existing ITS Infrastructure and Services in Region 5.

Table 4: Inventory of Key ITS Equipment & Services in Region 5

(Sources: PennDOT ITS Field Device Inventory)

Traffic Management Center (TMC) A TMC is responsible for implementing real-time congestion management and incident management strategies essential to maximizing the operation and safety of the expressway system. A TMC is critical to incident management response as well. By

1 Two vehicles on patrol and one in backup mode

Region-wide ITS Device and Services LVPC RATS NEPA Region Totals

CCTV Cameras 18 0 0 18 DMS (Permanent) 4 1 0 5 DMS (Portable / Semi-permanent) 13 7 5 25 HAR 5 4 0 9 Queue Detectors 27 0 4 31 Ramp Metering Systems (No. of ramps) 15 0 0 15 Roadway Weather Information Systems 1 1 3 5 Freeway Service Patrols 31 0 0 3


FINAL REPORT

collecting, coordinating, and disseminating traffic information to both incident management responders (directly) and to the traveling public (through DMS and traffic information providers), incidents are cleared more efficiently and travelers are provided near real-time information on which to base their travel decisions. District 5-0’s TMC is located in the District 5-0 office in downtown Allentown. The TMC consists of a video wall with several monitors and consoles for device monitoring and control. No single, centralized software is used; rather, vendor-specific hardware and software systems are used for field element control and monitoring. Field elements are controlled utilizing spread spectrum radio and hardwired and wireless (cellular) communications. There is currently no fiber optic cable deployed in District 5-0 for ITS systems. The TMC is staffed with an operator from 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday. From 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, the Traffic Unit Staff monitors and utilizes the TMC as part of their responsibilities while in the office. For all other hours, including overnight, weekends, and holidays, the Traffic Unit staff uses laptops to provide messages on DMS and HAR as needed. District 5-0 has recognized the importance of and need for regional coordination and operations. In response to these challenges, District 5-0 is working with PennDOT’s Central Office to become integrated into the Eastern Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC) and expand operations to a 24/7 basis. By the end of 2008, the Eastern RTMC, which will be located in District 6-0, will be able to support the District 5-0 TMC by viewing and controlling CCTV, DMS, and HAR systems throughout District 5-0 when the District 5-0 TMC is not staffed or during periods of multiple major incidents or severe weather events. The TMC is exploring 24/7 operations during winter months by combining the county winter maintenance reporting/24 hour answering service with TMC operations. Functions of the Region 5-0 TMC include:

• Detecting and verifying incidents using CCTV, • Providing traveler Information via DMS and HAR, • Coordinating the deployment of the Freeway Service Patrol on I-78 and Route 22

during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Other tools the TMC uses to enhance traffic flow include alerting the Pennsylvania State Police, Emergency Medical Services, or any other services to respond to highway incidents.


FINAL REPORT

Freeway Service Patrols District 5-0 also employs two Freeway Service Patrol vehicles and one back-up vehicle to perform the expeditious removal of disabled or accident vehicles and small, non-hazardous debris along I-78 from Route 100 to Route 309/Route 145 and Route 22 from I-78 to Route 33. This service helps reduce the total time needed to clear incidents and allows travel times to remain more reliable. The freeway service patrol operates during the hours of 6 am – 9 am and 3 pm – 7 pm, Monday through Friday.

2.3 Regional Initiatives Traffic Signals All traffic signals in Region 5 are maintained by the individual municipalities in which they are located. In 2005, following the release of the National Traffic Signal Report Card, the State Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) completed a statewide signal study. As part of the study, the TAC concluded the following:

a) Traffic signals are an asset that needs to be better managed, b) Signals should be a shared responsibility, and c) Signals should be considered at both the corridor and regional level.

The conclusions of this study led to the incorporation of statewide project TSOP-08 – Development of a Statewide Traffic Signal Asset Management System (TSAMS). TSAMS is planned as a tool to improve traffic signal planning, design, installation, maintenance, and operation by serving as a repository of traffic signal information. Closed loop traffic signal systems are being pursued on a corridor basis to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion and enhance safety. Transit Operations Transit initiatives in Region 5 focus on the efforts of the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA)2, Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA)3, and the Schuylkill Transportation System (STS)4.

2 LANTA information from www.lantabus.com

3 BARTA information from www.bartabus.com

4 STS information from www.go-sts.com


FINAL REPORT

LANTA is charged with operating a "public transportation system . . . for public use in the metropolitan area consisting of the Counties of Lehigh and Northampton." A bi-county, municipal authority, LANTA supplements passenger fares and other revenues with county, state and federal funding to support operating and capital expenses. LANTA operates the Metro system, a network of 30 fixed bus routes throughout the Lehigh Valley providing daily, later evening, Saturday, and Sunday services. More than 380,000 people live within walking distance of a Metro route. LANTA's Metro Plus division, a brokerage operation, arranges special door-to-door transportation services for people with disabilities and the elderly who cannot access the regular Metro transit system. The 101 accessible vans and mini-buses available to Metro Plus customers are dispatched daily. LANTA manages the public transportation system for the County of Carbon. CCCT offers services - both shared-ride, door-to-door and fixed route - within Carbon County and to several points outside of the county including the regional Mall area in Whitehall, Lehigh County. It is a service sponsored by Carbon County in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's Shared Ride Lottery Program and Rural Transportation Division and the Federal Transit Administration. Near term plans for LANTA system improvements includes the deployment of an Automated Vehicle Location system (AVL). Implementation is phased over several funding cycles and will ultimately allow for the real-time tracking of transit vehicles throughout the LANTA service area. The availability of AVL data will allow LANTA to institute a variety of operational improvements and traveler information services that will enhance operating efficiency and increase customer satisfaction. Software enhancements to the basic AVL system will improve data management, analysis, and reporting. BARTA is the principal provider of public transportation in Berks County. Operating eighty-eight vehicles over twenty-two fixed routes and demand response service, the BARTA service area contains over 200,000 persons and includes all or a portion of twenty-six municipalities. The BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) opened at 8th and Cherry Streets in downtown Reading in March of 2002. It is the central transfer point for most of the bus routes and has a passenger waiting area with an automated bus arrival and departure system, along with many other passenger amenities. Plans for future development of transit capabilities within at BARTA include the adoption of AVL technology to improve performance and increase passenger confidence in the systems reliability. Back in 1982 the Schuylkill County Commissioners created the Schuylkill Transportation System (STS). It is founded upon the belief that a dependable public transit system is a vital component of a community’s quality of life. The original fixed bus routes expanded over time from five to fourteen. In the last twenty-five years, STS has transported more than ten million passengers.


FINAL REPORT

The STS Fixed Route Bus System operates Monday to Friday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM and Saturday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No bus service is provided on Sundays. Nearly 70 years after the last trolley operated in Schuylkill County, another trolley has returned to Saint Clair as an exciting new addition to the STS fleet. The 22 passenger Miss Molly Trolley has become a featured player on the fixed route system Mall Express Shuttle service.

2.4 The Regional Planning Process The primary planning partners for Region 5 are the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC), the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS), and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA). Region 5 Planning Partners The Lehigh Valley Transportation Study is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Lehigh and Northampton counties. LVTS is composed of two committees – the Technical Committee and the Coordinating Committee. The Technical Committee reviews submitted items and recommends actions to the Coordinating Committee. Technical Committee membership consists of representatives from PennDOT Central Office, PennDOT District 5-0, Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, and the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority. The Coordinating Committee is the policy body which formally adopts items reviewed by the Technical Committee, and consists of the same members as the Technical Committee, with the addition of Lehigh County and Northampton County. The Reading Area Transportation Study is the MPO for Berks County. RATS is composed of two committees – the Technical Committee and the Coordinating Committee. The Technical Committee reviews submitted items and recommends actions to the Coordinating Committee. Technical Committee membership consists of representatives from PennDOT Central Office, PennDOT District 5-0, the City of Reading, the Berks County Planning Commission, the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority, and the Reading Regional Airport Authority. The Coordinating Committee is the policy body that formally adopts items reviewed by the Technical Committee, and consists of the same members as the Technical Committee, with the addition of the Berks County Board of Commissioners, and representatives of Boroughs, 1st Class Townships, and 2nd Class Townships. The Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance serves as the coordinating agency for rural transportation planning in the rural region that includes Carbon, Monroe, Pike, Schuylkill, and Wayne counties. (Operations Region 5 encompasses only three of these counties; Carbon, Monroe, and Schuylkill.) Designated by PennDOT as the Rural Planning Organization (RPO) for these counties, NEPA engages in various transportation planning and programming activities, and convenes the Northeastern Pennsylvania Rural Transportation Planning Organization (NPRTO), which assists and advises NEPA in assessing and evaluating the region’s transportation needs and priorities. The NPRTPO Committee is comprised of 14 voting members, with representation from each county, PennDOT District 4-0, District 5-0, and Central Office, NEPA, and five at-large members.


FINAL REPORT

Transportation Planning in Region 5 As the MPOs/RPO for the region, RATS, and NEPA, are required by federal regulations to develop and regularly update transportation planning and programming documents, including a Long Range Plan (LRP) which establishes the long term vision for the region, the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) which identifies the transportation planning activities to be conducted within the state fiscal year, and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which details the transportation priorities of the region over a four-year period. The transportation planning process has been established to promote federal, state, and local transportation objectives. The process provides a forum where decision-makers identify issues and opportunities and make informed decisions regarding the programming and implementation of transportation projects and services. Key issues addressed by this process include:

• Identifying annual UPWP activities, • Updating and implementing LRT plans, • Developing and adopting TIP, • Undertaking transportation (air quality) conformity analyses and determinations

where and when needed, and • Continuously integrating the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and the

Intermodal Management System into the planning and programming processes. RATS, and NEPA manage these regional planning processes and determine how federal transportation funds are spent within Region 5. Unified Planning Work Program

The Unified Planning Work Program identifies Federally-funded transportation studies and planning activities, and significant non-Federally-funded state or local planning activities to be conducted during the upcoming fiscal year. The UPWP establishes the priorities to be conducted during the upcoming fiscal year, as well as, the source of funds and responsible agency. The 2007 UPWPs for the three Region 5 planning partners were all consulted in the preparation of the Region 5 ROP. Long Range Plans Long Range Transportation Plans have been developed by the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study, and the Reading Area Transportation Study, and an LRP is currently under development by NEPA. These Plans document the current conditions of the existing multi-modal transportation system within the MPO and RPO areas, describe the trends that will impact that system over the next twenty-plus years, and develop a schedule of improvements to mitigate the impacts to those trends to keep the system functioning effectively and efficiently. LRPs are living documents and under Federal law must be updated every four years. These Plans require flexibility in order to constantly improve and reflect the realities of regional priorities, funding levels, development patterns, as well as key goals and objectives. LRPs also lay the


FINAL REPORT

foundation for identifying critical transportation infrastructure deficiencies and for using public policy and investment decisions to spur regional economic growth. Regional LRPs The Lehigh Valley Surface Transportation Plan for 2007-2030 (Lehigh Valley Transportation Plan) focuses on investment in future transportation infrastructure that will be implemented by PennDOT, LANTA, and local governments over the next twenty-four years. The Long Range Transportation Plan for the Reading Area Transportation Study lists goals and objectives for Berks County’s transportation system and identifies the improvements, studies, and strategies that must be implemented to reach those goals and objectives for years 2006 – 2030. The RATS Long Range Plan specifically identifies and describes ITS and Transportation System Operations Planning, noting that RATS had previously adopted the Region Architecture in 2005, and will work with PennDOT, transportation providers, and system users to develop a specific plan of action for the deployment of ITS technology with the region. NEPA is in the process of initiating a Request for Proposal process for the development of a multi-modal Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP). This plan, to be known as the 2030 Plan, will identify the major transportation projects, programs, and policies needed for the next twenty-five years and will establish the vision and goals that will guide public decisions affecting transportation facilities, infrastructure, and services in the NEPA region. Transportation Improvement Programs Federal regulations require MPOs / RPOs to develop and maintain a Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP identifies the region’s highest priority transportation projects, develops a multi-year program of implementation, and identifies available federal and non-federal funding for the identified projects. The TIP covers a four-year period of investment and is updated every two years through a cooperative effort of local, state, and federal agencies, and the general public.

Projects are prioritized with help from a technical advisory committee that develops recommendations with the most current data available. The region’s transportation partners screen proposed projects to assure consistency with the regional plan, determine whether they satisfy relevant statutes and, where they do, prioritize them into a fiscally-constrained program.

Projects included on the TIP are identified by phase: studies, preliminary engineering, final design, utilities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. For each project, the TIP identifies the cost and schedule (by year) for each project phase, as well as the total project cost and funding source. The federal, state, local, and private funds programmed for each project are identified as reported by the project sponsors. Total program costs match anticipated revenues.

Regional TIPs


FINAL REPORT

The 2007-2010 TIP identifies the priority highway, bridge, and transit improvements programmed for advancement from October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2010 (Federal Fiscal Years 2007-2010) for each of the MPO / RPO in Region 5. The 2007-2010 TIPs specify MPO / RPO priorities and include reasonable estimates of both available funds and anticipated project expenditures. Individual improvement projects must be included on the 2007-2010 TIP to become eligible for Federal funding.

The complete TIP documents are generally divided into three sections: 1) General Overview of the TIP and TIP Development Process, 2) TIP Program Summary, containing detailed project lists and maps relating to

the Highway and Bridge Program, the statewide Interstate Management Program, and the Transit Program, and

3) Guidance on the Public Participation Process. Each of the three Region 5 planning partners will soon be initiating the process for developing the 2009-2012 TIP. It is expected that the Region 5 ROP will serve as an input into the TIP development. The 2009-2012 TIP is expected to be updated by the Region 5 MPO / RPO by July 31, 2008. State Transportation Improvement Program The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), requires that TIPs and State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) be updated at least every four years. In Pennsylvania, the STIP is updated every two years to coincide with the regional TIP development and is represented by the first four years of the Twelve-Year Transportation Program. The Twelve-Year Transportation Program, as required by Act 120 of Pennsylvania State Law and its amendments, targets the Commonwealth's improvement efforts in all major transportation modes: highways, bridges, aviation, rail and transit. The Twelve-Year Transportation Program also involves the preparation of comprehensive information packages for key Department staff, the State Transportation Commission (STC), and elected state and federal legislators and officials. These packages facilitate and communicate the development of a transportation system responsive to the needs of the Commonwealth, monitor progress on key programs and projects, and aid in resolving outstanding Transportation Program issues. Staff and support services are also provided to the STC and other Program Center functions to prepare improvement programs that maintain and enhance the existing transportation system.


FINAL REPORT

2.5 Integrating the ROP into the Regional Planning Process The ROP is intended to be a step toward integrating or mainstreaming operations into planning. It lays out the operations program for the region, including a description of regional projects. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationally-focused projects consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. Ultimately, the ROP will feed into the regional Long-Range Plan and the corresponding TIP. The ROP, like the LRP, represents a long-range vision. The LRP is updated every four years and feeds the TIP that is updated every two years. The ROP is planned to be updated every two years to coincide with the TIP process. The ROP will also serve as input to future TSOP and Regional ITS Architecture updates, as well as PennDOT’s Statewide LRP. Operation planning is a joint effort between operations and planning that encompasses the important institutional underpinnings needed for effective regional transportation cooperation, coordination, and consistency. Operations utilizes technology tools and techniques, such as ITS, as well as new institutional arrangements. Operations planning includes three important elements:

1. Regional transportation operations collaboration and coordination activity that facilitates stakeholder input.

2. Management and operations considerations within the context of the ongoing

regional transportation operations systems and investments.

3. Linkage between regional operations collaboration and regional planning, programming, and investment process.

An effective transportation system requires not only the provision of highway and transit infrastructure for movement of the public and freight, but also the efficient and coordinated operation of the regional transportation network in order to improve system efficiency, reliability, and safety. Linking planning and operations involves actions that build stronger connections between transportation planners and transportation operators. It involves coordination and collaboration that can reveal the role of operational strategies in helping to attain goals and objectives set forth in the planning process, and it integrates operations thinking in the planning of infrastructure projects. Regional transportation planning and investment decision-making require a great deal of inter-jurisdictional coordination. Similarly, effective regional transportation operations require collaboration and coordination among operating agencies across jurisdictions and between transportation and public safety agencies. The focus of linking planning and operations is to provide stronger connections between these two processes and


FINAL REPORT

activities. MPOs and RPOs throughout the state are being encouraged to adopt the ROP and incorporate it into the LRP process. Key outcomes of this linkage between ROPs and LRPs are:

• To instill an operations “mindset" and strategizing into the planning process – Planners need a greater understanding of the role of operations projects and programs in the context of meeting regional goals and objectives, and a greater understanding of how they can help advance these activities.

• To ensure collaboration between planners and operators in order to:

o provide access to system-wide 24-hour travel data that can be used to better characterize existing system performance and travel conditions, and identify the most critical transportation problems;

o provide operations data and expertise to improve forecasts of future conditions, broaden the understanding of existing conditions, and analyze the effectiveness of alternative investments;

o foster greater consideration of the day-to-day functioning of the transportation network and the real conditions facing travelers, which can help frame regional transportation goals, objectives, and priorities; and

o reveal how transportation plans can address issues such as reliability, security, and safety—issues that are generally difficult to address with traditional infrastructure investments alone.

• To instill "planning thinking" into operations – Operators need a greater

understanding of how the long-range planning process can support management and operations activities, and how these activities fit into the context of regional goals and objectives in the planning process.

• To ensure collaboration between operators and planners in order to:

o provide regional leadership and greater participation by stakeholders in regional operations efforts,

o clarify the role of operations in meeting a region’s transportation vision and goals,

o direct attention to the value of operations strategies, and o increase resources assigned to operations projects and programs.

• To ensure benefits to travelers in terms of: o enhanced transportation network reliability, o improved emergency preparedness, o greater access to information, and o consideration of a broader array of potential travel alternatives.

The ROP, once adopted by each of the MPOs/RPO in Region 5 in Fall 2007, should serve as input into the LRP. It can be incorporated directly into the plan or as an attachment, section, or appendix. Segments of the ROP may be quoted in the LRP document as warranted. Projects programmed in the ROP may be highlighted in regional policy discussion for consideration and coordination within the LRP process.


FINAL REPORT

The ROP can also be used as an informational document to help ensure that operational projects receive equal consideration with other pressing regional needs during the project evaluation process for the LRP. Participants in the stakeholder and public involvement process should be educated about the benefits of operations strategies versus their relatively low cost.

Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 25 of 145 September 19, 2007

3. REGIONAL OPERATIONS FRAMEWORK

3.1 Regional Operations Strategies

Regional operational planning is intended to be a flexible rather than prescriptive approach. A general process for developing the Regional Operations Plans is therefore recommended, allowing the Region 5 ROP to be adapted to its specialized conditions and circumstances. Operations Needs Areas A major step in any study or planning process is to identify, discuss and prioritize a list of needs and strategies. The examination of existing conditions and ITS inventory, as well as projects currently programmed as part of the FY 2007-2010 TIPs, illuminated potential ITS equipment gaps and shortcomings throughout Region 5. The specific ITS needs of the region were further identified by planning partners and regional stakeholders during the first regional forum, Workshop #1 held in February 2007. The recommended projects set forth in this plan are designed specifically to address these important needs areas. The objective is not to simply implement ITS projects due to the availability of technologies, but rather to match the region’s transportation and operational needs with existing ITS technologies. This section documents those critical Operational Needs Areas developed in Workshop #1 that provided the context for defining Operations projects for future deployment programming. These Operational Needs Areas included the following:

• Incident Management Processes and Procedures (IMP&P), • Interagency Communications and Coordination (IC&C), • Traveler Information (TI), and • Traffic Signals (TS).

The Needs discussion at Workshop #1 took place in the immediate aftermath of the widely reported series of traffic incidents along I-78 on Valentine’s Day 2007. In the course of the Needs discussion, participants therefore concluded that the overall focus at the subsequent Task Force meetings should be Incident Management Processes and Procedures, while also addressing Interagency Communications and Coordination, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals. Operations Projects Identification / Definition Upon defining the Needs Areas, the first round of Task Force meetings in March 2007 focused on identifying the operational projects required for addressing the operational needs. The discussions that took place at these initial Task Force meetings produced a total of forty-seven (47) candidate projects throughout the three MPO/RPO areas. The number of projects was eventually pared down through the elimination of duplicate projects and the consolidation of other similar project descriptions. The resulting list of


candidate ROP projects consisted of three basic categories, including plans and studies, policy development and implementation, and ITS infrastructure deployments. The four major Operations areas of need defined in Workshop #1 and the individual candidate ROP projects identified at Task Force Meeting #1 are illustrated on the following pages. Additional ROP project information is provided in the one-page project summaries located in Appendix A.

3.2 Incident Management Processes and Procedures Operations Area

The Incident Management Processes and Procedures Operations Area defines the processes, procedures, and relationships needed to effectively manage roadway incidents and emergencies. The central objective of the effort is to improve the time required to respond to and clear incidents, and to manage the processes safely and efficiently. Improved management of incidents can significantly reduce congestion and enhance safety and mobility.

Toward this end, this Operations Area focuses on:

• Comprehensive policies and procedures that are needed for managing and responding to incidents, special events, emergencies, and evacuations.

• Consistency of incident management policies and procedures so that communications, responses, and protocols are uniform and seamless.

• Defining and implementing a statewide infrastructure for managing incidents. • Strengthening relationships among incident management partners and

developing regional IM Response Teams. The Incident Management operational needs and candidate projects identified at Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Incident Management Processes and Procedures -- Regional Needs and Projects

See Appendix A for complete project descriptions.

Operational Needs Candidate Projects

• Improve communication between PennDOT, PSP, Emergency responders, 911 Centers, EMAs

• Fill in ITS infrastructure gaps for CCTV, DMS, and HAR throughout Region 5

• Maximize existing ITS infrastructure (such as ramp meters, CCTV cameras) throughout Lehigh Valley

• Expand Freeway Service Patrols • Develop IM plans in order to coordinate

the responses of emergency managers

#1 – Identify Existing ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment

#2 – Develop / Update IM Plans and Procedures

#3 – Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols

#7 – Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans

#8 – Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation

#9 – Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff

#10 – Provide Field Personnel with PDAs


3.3 Interagency Communications & Coordination The Interagency Communications and Coordination Operations Area defines the processes, procedures, and relationships required to improve communications and coordination between agencies for the notification and reporting of roadway incidents. In particular, this initiative includes the following:

• Developing a communications protocol between the Pennsylvania State Police and the county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents.

• Co-locating the local PSP traffic operations with the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Management Center, and consider locating the District 5-0 TMC staff to the PSP Traffic Center.

• Providing PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel with Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) to communicate with the District 5-0 TMC and other traffic and emergency management agencies.

The Interagency Communications and Coordination operational needs and candidate projects identified at Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Interagency Communications & Coordination - Regional Needs and Projects



• Establish or significantly improve overall communications systems and protocols between agencies

• Communications systems to facilitate accelerated clearance of secondary incidents

• Install or upgrade communications technologies, such as Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVL), on transit vehicles

• Improve communications links with the freight community, who are often a good first source of information related to roadway conditions and incidents.

#6 – Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance Traveler Information Services

#7 – Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans


#9 – Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff

#10 – Provide Field Personnel with PDAs #11 – Explore Opportunities for Data

Sharing with Public and Private Entities

#13 – Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming with Traffic- Related Information


3.4 Traveler Information Operations Area The Traveler Information Operations Area builds on the statewide incident management traveler information priority by incorporating regional needs to develop and deploy a regional traveler information program. In particular, this program will:

• Expand partnerships for traveler information dissemination. • Examine best practices for using third-party vendor and infrastructure to deliver

traveler information. • Define means, media, and methods for delivering reliable traveler information,

especially so motorists can make informed pre-trip and en-route decisions.

The Traveler Information operational needs and candidate projects identified at Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Traveler Information - Regional Needs and Projects



• Getting information to users in a timely manner (i.e., in advance and while en-route)

• Customizing information for users • Providing timely information on travel

times for better reliability • Providing information to users before

getting on or off expressways

#1 – Identify Existing ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment

#5 – Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS

#6 – Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance Traveler Information Services


#11 – Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing with Public and Private Entities

#12 – Institute Real-Time Transit Information Systems

#13 – Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming with Traffic-Related Information


3.5 Traffic Signals Operations Area The Traffic Signals (TS) Operations Area incorporates the way for a more centralized traffic signal program that holistically plans and coordinates activities, as well as operates and maintains signals at the corridor and regional levels. In particular this program will:

• Implement an asset management system for

signals. • Pilot corridor-wide integrated freeway/arterial

signal management, and multi-jurisdictional traffic signal operations and maintenance (O&M) programs.

• Define new or expanded mechanisms needed for funding signal systems operations and maintenance.

The Traffic Signals operational needs and candidate projects identified in Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Traffic Signals - Regional Needs and Projects



• Coordinate signals along designated CMS corridors

• Integrate signals across municipal borders

• Upgrade existing signals into a integrated controllable system

#4 – Implement Limited ICM Pilot Project #8 – Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes

for Emergency Evacuation #11 – Explore Opportunities for Data

Sharing with Public and Private Entities


4. REGIONAL PROGRAM

4.1 Overview

Candidate projects identified as part of the Region 5 ROP process were developed based on PennDOT’s statewide vision and address one or more of PennDOT’s operational needs. The Region 5 candidate projects also can be included under most of the 19 statewide initiatives proposed under TSOP. The Region 5 candidate projects were identified due to their overall ability in establishing an operations framework for PennDOT and contributing towards achieving PennDOT’s operational goals. These candidate projects lay a foundation for having a significant impact in such operational areas as incident management, interagency coordination, traveler information, and traffic signal integration. The following is the list of TSOP Statewide Initiatives relevant to ROP efforts in Region 5 that were programmed in the TSOP:

� TSOP – 01: Inter-Agency Incident Reporting System � TSOP – 02: Road Closure Reporting System � TSOP – 03: Interstate Incident Management Program � TSOP – 04: IM Traveler Information � TSOP – 05: Incident Management Processes and Procedures � TSOP – 06: Roadway Weather Management � TSOP – 08: TAC Signal Study Implementation � TSOP – 09: STMC and TMCs � TSOP – 10: ITS Equipment Maintenance � TSOP – 11: Technology-Assisted Enforcement � TSOP – 12: Mobility in Work Zones � TSOP – 13: ITS and IT � TSOP – 14: Operations Mainstreaming � TSOP – 15: Advanced Planning and Strategy � TSOP – 16: Data Acquisition and Archive � TSOP – 17: Statewide Transit Operations � TSOP – 18: Freight Movements Acquisition

The candidate projects were identified based on regional impact and are the building blocks of the Region 5 ROP. As the region’s major transportation stakeholders will share responsibility for the successful implementation of ROP projects, interagency coordination and cooperation becomes increasingly important.

4.2 Mainstreaming Operations Pennsylvania’s Regional ITS Architecture established the plan for “mainstreaming” ITS throughout Pennsylvania. “Mainstreaming” basically involves getting technology issues in the transportation environment in front of the representative regional bodies for discussion, analysis, and decision-making in the same way that traditional transportation improvements are processed. ITS and Operations can no longer be considered merely a PennDOT initiative, but must now be viewed as requiring regional input.


The ROP lays out the region’s short-term and long-term approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operational-focused projects for the region that are consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. Mainstreaming the ROP ensures that projects are incorporated into the existing planning and programming functions of LVPC, RATS, and NEPA, including the 2009 – 2012 TIP and Long-Range Plan updates. ROP mainstreaming also ensures that the regional planning partners utilize and build on existing programs in their respective regions to implement the initiatives defined in the plan.

4.3 Project Priorities and Sequences The recommended ROP project deployments were developed based on group discussions held at the first round of regionally-based Task Force meetings. Each was defined based on overall need, required funding, and project complexity. The candidate ROP Projects are presented in Table 9 below:

Table 9: Candidate ROP Projects

ROP Candidate ROP Project

A Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols

B Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Plans

C Develop / Update Incident Management Plans

D Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region

E Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes

F Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies

G Identify ITS Technology Gaps / Deploy New Equipment

H Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing

I Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System

J Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services

K Investigate Co-Location of Operations

L Investigate Preemption of Media Programming

M Consolidate TI into One Web Site

N Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS

O Institute Real-Time Transit Information

P Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI

Q Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors


Once candidate projects were formulated, regional stakeholders at Task Force Meeting #2 ranked each operational project on a scale of 1 (low priority) to 5 (high priority) based on a number of factors, including the following:

� Perceived Need � Implementation Status � Lead Implementation Agents � Level of Effort � Order of Magnitude Cost � Implementation Timeline

Table 10 below highlights the candidate projects ranked according to priority as determined by their score.

Table 10: ROP Project Priority Rankings

ROP ROP Project Priority Rankings Priority Ranking

G Identify ITS Technology Gaps / Deploy New Equipment 66

C Develop / Update Incident Management Plans 61

A Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 59

Q Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors 58

N Implement Real-Time Travel Postings to DMS 54

J Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 53

B Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Plans 53

E Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes 52

M Consolidate TI into One Web Site 51

F Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff 46

K Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 46

H Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 45

D Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region 44

O Institute Real-Time Transit Information 44

P Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI 41

I Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System 39

L Investigate Preemption of Media Programming 32


Statewide Initiatives At Workshop #2, Region 5 stakeholders were provided the opportunity to review their priority rankings and to validate the results. Stakeholders noted that three of these projects were more suited for implementation at a statewide level:

� (M) Consolidate IT into One Web Site � (D) Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region � (I) Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System

These projects were subsequently extracted from the regional priorities list and identified separately as Statewide Initiatives (see Appendix A). Additionally, two projects (from Table 10) – (B) Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Plans and (P) Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI – were so similar in their descriptions and proposed actions that a decision was made to consolidate both and create Project #7 below – Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans. This revised list of prioritized projects is presented below. (See Appendix A for a detailed project description.)

Table 11: Final List - Prioritized ROP Projects

Project # Final List - Prioritized ROP Projects




4 Implement Integrated Corridor Management

5 Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS

6 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services

7 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans

8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation

9 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff

10 Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies

11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing

12 Institute Real-Time Transit Information Systems

13 Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming


MPO / RPO – Specific Project Priorities Subsequent to the prioritization of projects in Workshop #2, representatives from the three planning partners determined that specific priority needs existed for their planning areas. LVPC, for instance, determined that the top operational priorities for the Lehigh Valley involved (in order of preference): Exploring the Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols, Identifying ITS Technology Gaps and Deploying New Equipment, and Developing / Updating Incident Management Plans and Procedures (see Table 12 below).

Table 12: LVPC ROP Project Priorities

Project # LVPC Prioritized ROP Projects












12 Institute Real-Time Transit Information Systems



Representatives from RATS identified that their top operational priorities include identifying ITS technology gaps and deploying new equipment. RATS also determined that the staffing of one full-time person at the District 5-0 Traffic Management Center should be a high priority, and is included as Priority Project #3 below in Table 13 (see detailed Project Description for Project #4 in Appendix A.)

Table 13: RATS ROP Project Priorities

Project # RATS Prioritized ROP Projects



3 Provide Staff Person at District 5-0 TMC for Berks Cty Operations












In discussions with representatives from NEPA, it was determined that the priority listing of projects from Workshop #2 met their particular needs. For the NEPA Area, the only modification to the Final List of Prioritized Projects (from Table 11) involved excluding Project #5 (Implement Real time Travel Postings on DMS) due to the project’s focus on the I-78 corridor which does not extend into the three counties included within the NEPA region. The Prioritized List of ROP Projects for NEPA is included in Table 14, below.

Table 14: NEPA ROP Project Priorities

Project # NEPA Prioritized ROP Projects












12 Investigate Preemption of Media Programming

Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment During Workshop #2, representatives from LVPC, RATS, and NEPA, and staff from PennDOT District 5-0 jointly decided to coordinate with one another in identifying ITS technology gaps, as presented in Priority ROP Project #1 (see Table 11). Subsequent to Workshop #2, PennDOT District 5-0 representatives presented a list of proposed ITS field devices to the three MPO / RPO representatives in separate meetings for review and discussion. Once the MPO/RPO and District 5-0 representatives came to consensus on which ITS field devices to include in the ROP, this equipment was then prioritized and is included in Appendix C.

4.4 Approach to Funding Linking planning and operations is important to improving transportation decision-making and the overall effectiveness of the system. Coordination between planners and operators helps ensure that regional transportation investment decisions reflect full


consideration of all available strategies and approaches to meet regional goals and objectives. Funding is a powerful tool for promoting participation. Agencies may be unaccustomed to coordinating with other agencies for operations, or perceive that coordination provides more hardship than benefit. When this is the case, providing additional resources in exchange for participation may overcome this issue. Planning partners can champion operations through training and other forums to promote regional operations strategies. Linking participation to funding access is the key. For example, an agency may become eligible for matching funds only by participating in a regional operations training program or an established regional operations group. Almost every transportation agency identifies inadequate funding as a major concern. At the same time, virtually every agency acknowledges that funding constraints are a major impetus for advancing operations strategies. In many cases planners often become champions for relatively low-cost operations strategies after recognizing that the discrepancy between available funds and the cost of new capital investments to maintain regional mobility is excessively high. Funding Sources There are a number of funding sources that can support operations activities and equipment. Funding for system operations traditionally has relied on the discretionary budgets of individual agencies. However, due to the mainstreaming of operations through TSOP and ROP activities, statewide policies now allow several funding sources to be used for regional operations programs. Federal programs are also in place to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management and operation of integrated, intermodal surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight and to foster economic growth and development. Regional Funding Depending on the project type, various funding approaches may be available for consideration. In the ROP, for priority projects, a project description and high-level scope of the project has been developed. Projects have been defined in terms of planning-type projects or deployment-type projects. Planning-type projects are programmatic and policy-oriented in nature. If the project is a planning project, it may be considered in the Unified Planning Work Program of the MPOs or RPO. The process for planning partners to consider (including operations planning-type projects in the next Work Program) will begin in October 2007 and end with the delivery of a program to the PennDOT Program Center by February 2008. Projects that define and lead to specific ITS deployment can proceed into the TIP process for funding. These types of projects can either become stand-alone capital deployment or can be packaged as part of a wide-area deployment or construction project. These deployment projects will be required to follow the USDOT-defined systems engineering process. Using this process will ensure consistency with project definition, integration, and consideration of ongoing operations and maintenance requirements. The 2009 TIP update process for each MPO/RPO has already begun and will be completed by each planning partner by summer 2008.


At the discretion of each planning partner and PennDOT District, projects may arrange pooled funding to achieve multi-jurisdictional benefit. PennDOT’s Central Office may also decide to fund multiple cross-jurisdictional efforts using A-576 funds or other mechanisms to ensure coordinated statewide benefit. These types of pooled funding arrangements are project-specific and can be achieved when coordination and cooperation exists and the benefits of pooled or Central Office funding outweigh the administrative cost. Federal Funding

There is flexibility in the use of federal funds for operations projects championed by planning partners and PennDOT. FHWA can fund traffic monitoring, management, and control for continued operations of the system, freeway surveillance, incident management efforts, travel information systems, and traffic signal control. Federal funds are eligible for operating costs in labor, administrative, utilities, rent, and system maintenance associated with hardware and software maintenance (preventive and corrective).

For the use of interstate maintenance (IM) funds, eligibility is based on how "maintenance" and the Interstate Maintenance program are defined in Title 23 (USC 119, 116). If the project is a capital improvement to the interstate highway (such as deploying field devices to improve the highway) or involves preventive maintenance on the devices themselves, it would be eligible for IM funds.

Some of the eligible IM costs include:

• Infrastructure-based improvements, such as new DMS, CCTV, detectors, and communication systems,

• Replacement or rehabilitation of infrastructure, such as replacing components of DMS or CCTVs,

• Preventative maintenance on the roadway traffic management infrastructure, and • Preliminary engineering directly related to infrastructure improvements.

If the project involves operations costs involving communications maintenance (routine or corrective) it would not be eligible.

4.5 Regional Oversight ROP implementation will require the collaboration of many stakeholders to ultimately be successful. In advancing the implementation process, it is expected that the PennDOT District 5-0, with support from the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study, Reading Area Transportation Study, and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, will provide oversight and eventually be responsible for championing this Plan. This leadership group, or Region 5 ROP Steering Committee, will further track progress on implementation, oversee the development of regionally-based projects, track performance measures, and lead the update of any future ROPs.


4.6 Measuring Success To better ensure that operations-related efforts are producing meaningful results, projects that lend themselves to measurement should in turn be measured. For most of the projects identified as part of this Region 5 ROP process, there are one or more key measures capable of monitoring their effectiveness. The goal of performance measurement is to attempt to quantify and understand the impacts of projects to assist in future decision-making. What worked? What did not work? And why? This is critical in assessing the benefits of policies or projects and will be useful in making the case for future operations projects. Some caveats should be provided. Isolating and measuring the true impacts of operations policies, programs, and projects is challenging. Determining and quantifying cause and effect can be extremely difficult in a dynamic environment such as a transportation system. Care needs to be exercised so that any such analysis is technically grounded and defensible. In developing each project, the Region 5 ROP Steering Committee should make a determination as to whether impacts of projects can be analyzed at a reasonable cost. Suggested performance measures for each project are listed in the project descriptions in Appendix A.

4.7 Institutional Considerations Throughout the ROP process, the Workshop and Task Force attendees raised numerous institutional issues and proposed various remedies. Many of the identified issues fell outside of the purview of Region 5. While this type of feedback did not neatly fit into the ROP, it was important to capture. Participants believed that to be appropriately addressed many of these suggestions and recommendations needed to be raised at a level higher than the PennDOT District or the region – either by PennDOT Central Office or the state government. This section identifies and discusses those institutional concerns that were identified as most critical in the opinion of ROP participants. These institutional recommendations, identified by importance according to Region 5 ROP participants, can be categorized into four basic categories:

• Elevate operations within PennDOT • Establish dedicated funding for operations • Strengthen a work force for operations • Permit the use of wireless communication systems

Elevate Operations within PennDOT One item of great interest within the Workshop and Task Forces was the perceived limited visibility and importance of ITS and operations within PennDOT. Participants felt that for operations to receive the attention necessary to “do it right”, it needs to be elevated. One step is to ensure that PennDOT is institutionally organized to address operations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has supported this concept


and recently issued guidance calling on DOTs around the U.S. to prepare to better operate the transportation system5. Recognizing that PennDOT’s mandate to design, build, and maintain is evolving to possibly include operating the transportation system, PennDOT should ensure that it has the organization, skills and expertise to be able to adequately meet this challenge. Recommendations to consider include the following:

• Create an ADE of Operations in Districts with considerable operations-related duties,

• Elevate a District ITS Coordinator to a full time position, • Create a full-time regional or Statewide Signals Manager position to

coordinate and advance traffic signal needs, and • Create ITS Operator positions for TMCs.

Establish dedicated funding for operations Unless there are dedicated funds for operations, participants believe that other competing transportation infrastructure needs will continue to be deemed more important. Limited resources tend to be used for familiar capacity expansion and rehabilitation projects. Too often when difficult decisions are being made about which projects to program, operations projects are pushed by the wayside as “non-critical”. Without a plan or systematic approach, the current approach of addressing operations and ITS deployment will continue to be performed haphazardly, often based more on opportunity than need. Better education and outreach to elected officials about the cost-benefit of ITS and operations is also needed. To ensure that operations is treated on equal footing as other needs within the Department, PennDOT should dedicate funds toward the operations program. A majority of the Region 5 participants believed that the only real way that this will occur is through the creation of separate funding for an operations program, similar to other statewide programs such as “Smooth Operator”, “Click It or Ticket”, etc. Recommendations to consider:

• Work to create dedicated funding for operations, and • Seek dedicated funding for a signal program.

Strengthen a work force for operations Historically, PennDOT’s mission has been to be the designer, builder and maintainer of the state roadway system. Due to the recognition of increasing congestion, the advent of new technologies, and fiscal constraints, it is now being asked to also better operate the transportation system. Unfortunately this requires some skill sets that have not historically been available in the marketplace or contained within DOTs. In most cases, the traffic engineering staff has taken on these responsibilities, requiring them to become experts on a wide range of skills, from systems engineering to communications equipment to hardware to software.

5 Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination. FHWA, publication FHWA-OP-03-

008, 2002.


While DOT engineers, who traditionally come from civil or traffic backgrounds have risen to the challenge, it has required a major shift in Departmental thinking. Many future transportation professionals might instead come from a host of technical specialties that will greatly enhance the Department’s ability to better function as an organization that is prepared for operations. In addition to considering new hires, there is a recognition that PennDOT also needs to better capture and share the knowledge that currently exists within the organization, especially with a recent rash of retirements. Recommendations to consider:

• Establish a mentoring program for operations, • Expand information sharing among District Operations and ITS staff, • Consider succession planning and knowledge transfer practices, • Consider recruiting new types of staff with IT backgrounds and knowledge of

software, hardware and communication platforms, • Increase supplemental technical training for operations staff, and • Work with Pennsylvania universities and institutions to better support the

education and training of ITS and operations professionals. Permit the use of wireless communication systems Under current Office of Administration policies, PennDOT is prohibited from using wireless communications. The current explanation is that there are concerns about the security of information transmitted through wireless communications. Although this concern may be valid and justified, the wireless communications community continues to develop enhanced products that address or mitigate these concerns. The current restriction implicitly requires that any permanent ITS devices connected to the PennDOT system be “hardwired” through telephone or fiber communications. The cost of making these communication connections can greatly increase the cost of deploying ITS devices. This situation is especially challenging in more rural locations where lines may need to be run for literally miles to deployment locations. This restriction results in PennDOT having in essence a redundant communications network or forces them to pay monthly service fees to third party telecommunications providers. In most cases, this is not the most cost effective approach. Other governmental entities are using wireless communication to cost effectively provide communication coverage. Agencies such as PEMA have offered to share their wireless communication systems at little or no cost to PennDOT. Revising these restrictions can make deployments significantly more cost-effective. Recommendations to consider:

• Change Office of Administration regulations to permit PennDOT to use wireless communication systems, and

• Seek opportunities for piggy-backing on communication infrastructure of other state agencies, such as PEMA.


5. CONCLUSION Transportation agencies today do not have the luxury of undertaking massive new capacity expansion projects, yet are challenged to improve mobility and reduce congestion for travelers, visitors and businesses on its transportation system. In response to these requirements, new approaches and innovative techniques are being explored to improve the system’s operational performance, as well as keep the network safe and secure. Better management of existing facilities is simply the new way of doing business. Through the guidance of the statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan and the implementation of region-specific projects documented in this report, these needs are being addressed. The regional solutions addressed in the Region 5 ROP tend to be cost effective in supporting (not eliminating) regional congestion issues. So as Region 5 begins the process of reviewing its transportation options, ITS and operations solutions should be examined, weighed and equally placed in the public forum for regional consideration and funding. This effort will ensure that innovative and cost effective solutions get a fair hearing alongside more costly capacity expansion projects. Continued success relies on integration and coordination between PennDOT District 5-0, the regional MPOs / RPO, and other regional transportation stakeholders who together will systematically build operations programs based on policies, studies and physical deployments. These improvements will ultimately help improve mobility, better manage incidents and emergencies, and provide for real-time traveler information. With the long-range scope of these efforts it will take hard work from PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC, RATS, and NEPA, and other regional stakeholders to fully realize the goals set out in the ROP. In return the Operations Region 5 will have a safer and more reliable transportation system for its future.


APPENDICES

A – Regional Project Descriptions

B – MPO / RPO - Specific Project Prioritizations

C – Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment

D – Description of the Region

E - Forum Participants

F - Forum Workshop & Task Force Meeting Summaries


APPENDIX A – Regional Project Descriptions

REGIONAL PROJECT #1: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW

EQUIPMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: � CCTV Cameras � Dynamic Message Signs � Highway Advisory Radio

� HAR Flashing Beacons � Queue Detectors � Ramp Metering Systems

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, LVPC, RATS, NEPA

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 – 2 years Design: 1 – 2 years Construction: 3 – 5 years

ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011):

LVPC - $753,000 (Design) $2,667,000 (Construction) RATS - $1,270,000 (Design) $4,250,000 (Construction) NEPA - $1,880,000 (Design) $8,550,000 (Construction)

Annual O&M (2013): LVPC - $190,000 RATS - $300,000 NEPA - $600,000 *See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0.

PROJECT TYPE: Plan Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): See Appendix C: Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment

PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None

PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of lane-miles of facilities (by classification) covered by CCTV, detection devices; reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay.

BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region’s highways with corresponding reduction in delay and queue due to improved response times.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None


REGIONAL PROJECT #2: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND

PROCEDURES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. � The Berks County IM Plan should be updated through a collaborative and inclusive approach,

involving the Planning Commission, PennDOT District 5-0, and County EMA. This effort should include updating the I-78 IM Plan, as well as developing IM Plans for Route 222 South, Route 422, I-176, and Route 61. Involvement of the various counties and their agencies is an important of the planning process.

� Protocols also need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county

911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume three (3) plans (one for each MPO / RPO) at $50,000 each.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, LVPC, RATS, NEPA, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 – 2 years Design: Construction:

ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $150,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None

PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in time to respond to an incident; % change in time to clear an incident; % change in number of accidents (or secondary incidents) along corridor

BENEFITS: Improves emergency response times to clear incidents, thereby minimizing travel delay.



REGIONAL PROJECT #3: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles in addition to assisting PSP and emergency responders at incidents. Elements of this expanded program in the Lehigh Valley includes extending operating hours of the existing system from seven hours/day to ten hours/day (6 – 10 am, 2 – 8pm), five days/week (Monday-Friday), 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. Three patrol vehicles and one back-up vehicles would be used. Costs also include one consultant staff in the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center, ten hours/day, five days/week, 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. The geographic coverage would remain as it is presently.

Evaluate the need for service patrols along limited-access freeways in Berks County (I-78, Route 422) and in the NEPA Region (I-80 in the Stroudsburg-NJ area), and if warranted, implement limited-term pilot programs. Projected operating program would include two active vehicles + one back-up vehicle, seven hours/day x five days/week x 52 weeks/year for one year (in Berks County and NEPA separately). The estimated cost does not include the cost of consultant staff in the TOC.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC, RATS, NEPA

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9


ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 (RATS) $50,000 (NEPA) Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $405,000 (LVPC) $265,000 (RATS – Pilot) $265,000 (NEPA – Pilot)

PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service; number of motorists served and change in incident time clearance.

BENEFITS: Keeps corridors safe and helps reduce travel time and delay. The current program in Lehigh Valley is well received by the region’s motorists.



REGIONAL PROJECT #4: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical corridors that could benefit from an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) signal system. The first step in this process would be to use the Signal Asset Management System and screening criteria (e.g., receptive municipalities, require little infrastructure, few jurisdictions) to identify corridors that would be good candidates. The strategy would culminate with the development of a pilot project (I-78 / Route 309 / Route 22) that can be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. This pilot project involves the coordination of fifty (50) programmable signals throughout the identified corridor (and assumes that signals do not require upgrades). According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, maintenance costs approximately $1,800 per signal annually.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, PennDOT CO, Local Municipalities, RATS, LVPC

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 – 2 years Design: 3 – 5 years Construction: 5 + years

ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $150,000 Capital (2011): $24,000 (Design) $155,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $90,000

PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex


PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would be developed in conjunction with Statewide ICM efforts and TSOP 8. It is anticipated that the Signal Management System (SMS) data will be useful in developing this project.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in peak travel times; delay reduction.

BENEFITS: Integrated signals can reduce delay, travel times, emissions, and fuel consumption. TMC-control of traffic signals has the capability to adjust signal timings along adjacent corridors when needed for incident management.



REGIONAL PROJECT #5: IMPLEMENT REAL-TIME TRAVEL POSTINGS ON DMS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project’s intent is to use data from PennDOT or collected from partners to provide real-time travel times and to inform travelers of the causes of congestion via DMS. This pilot project would be implemented along the interstate. There is potential for eventual implementation along I-80, I-81, I-476 (PA Turnpike), I-176, Route 422, Route 222, Route 61, Route 33, and Route 22. The pilot project involves twenty-five (25) interchanges along I-78. Each interchange would require four (4) sensors, for a total of 100 sensors, providing end-to-end coverage. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office ITS Cost Estimates, solar powered sensors are estimated to cost approximately $7,000 each, with poles and installation estimated at $4,000 each.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0


ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: 3 – 5 years Deployment: 3 – 5 years

ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): $121,000 (Design) $1,100,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $30,000


TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): This pilot project assumes existing DMS and camera deployments are adequate for verification and notification.


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of regional DMS signs that can post travel time information

BENEFITS: Real-time dissemination of travel times allows motorists and businesses to make better route decisions thereby saving time and money.



REGIONAL PROJECT #6: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE

TRAVELER INFORMATION SERVICES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project seeks to enhance the delivery of Traveler Information services through enhanced interagency cooperation and partnerships: � Improve coordination between PennDOT, DRJTBC, and New Jersey Transit in alerting NJT I-80

patrons (bus commuter operators and motorists) of roadway and bridge conditions via TI Systems. � Improve coordination between PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in the

management and operations of DMS at strategic intersecting locations. � Build on existing partnerships between traffic and emergency management agencies and local TV

and radio stations to better inform travelers of major incidents and traffic delays. This project builds on the PennDOT CO initiative to develop a statewide 511 Traveler Information system.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, NJT, PSP, County EMAs, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio)


ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1- 2 years Design: Deployment:


PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; traveler satisfaction.

BENEFITS: Low-cost effort for effectively disseminating traveler information to motorists throughout the region.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES:


REGIONAL PROJECT #7: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

PLANS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the coordination of PennDOT with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Venue Operators, Residential Associations, Industrial Park Operators, Local Municipalities


ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 – 2 years Design: Deployment:

ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $225,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2011): $45,000

PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Levels of congestion in vicinity of major trip generators

BENEFITS: Enhanced traffic management, freight movement, and incident response.



REGIONAL PROJECT #8: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY

EVACUATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [EDRS]) now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, Emergency Responders, County EMAs, PSP

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16




TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Need to develop GIS and database to detour routing information. Need to develop access privileges. Develop link to Road Closure Reporting System.

PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project is anticipated to be implemented in conjunction with PennDOT CO’s RCRS.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of roadways (by classification) with pre-planned detour routes; time to institute detour routing.

BENEFITS: To develop clearly defined guidance for detour routings along major facilities. To reduce delays to the traveling public caused by incidents and emergencies.



REGIONAL PROJECT #9: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. � The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored. � The ongoing efforts between the Berks County EMA and the Berks County 911 Center to share

staffing, data feeds, incident response, information gathering, and web-based portal applications, should be encouraged.

STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, Berks County EMA, Berks County 911 Center






PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would likely require additional guidance from TSOP 9.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None

BENEFITS: Unified incident command and response. Additional benefits include data-sharing and communications streamlining.



REGIONAL PROJECT #10: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel should be provided with mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), to communicate effectively and immediately with the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The recommended PDAs would provide required services including voice (cell phone), email, Internet, camera, video, and text messaging. The associated operating costs would include monthly plans for phone, data, and text messaging. Assume $2,000 for each field person at 9 personnel total for capital costs. Annual operating & maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,500 for each PDA device.


PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 5, 9

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1 – 2 years

ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2009): $18,000 Annual O&M (2009): $13,500

PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in response time to incidents.

BENEFITS: Improved response times to incidents; enhanced communications between field staff, the Traffic Operations Center, and the Pennsylvania State Police.



REGIONAL PROJECT #11: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for data-sharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region’s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, efforts between DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data collected along I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap crossing could be explored.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio), County EMAs, Local Municipalities

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16




TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): PennDOT IES software application



BENEFITS: Greater information coverage area for travelers.



REGIONAL PROJECT #12: INSTITUTE REAL-TIME TRANSIT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: There are commercial providers who can provide real-time information to travelers using vehicle GPS systems through kiosks, pole mounted devices, the Internet, email, and telephone. This project would pilot one of these services for a trial period and assess the use/benefit to transit riders. A series of 5 kiosks will be deployed at key locations within the LANTA service area for the purpose of providing transit riders with static information about routes/schedules and real-time information regarding schedule adherence and ETA of transit vehicles at specific designated stops. There is potential to build this enhanced capability off of the BARTA AVL system.

STAKEHOLDERS: Commercial Providers, BARTA, LANTA



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): $35,000 (Design) $135,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $20,000

PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): AVL; Wireless Communications


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; customer satisfaction; transit vehicle on-time performance.

BENEFITS: This type of information would likely benefit users who make daily trips on long-distance, low-frequency routes that are often most susceptible to delays.



REGIONAL PROJECT #13: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA

PROGRAMMING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The capability and authority of EMAs to preempt or override commercial radio or television programming with urgent traffic-related messaging should be investigated.

STAKEHOLDERS: County EMAs, Local Media





TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): TBD



BENEFITS: More immediate information from local media (TV and radio) related to emergencies.



STATEWIDE INITIATIVES


STATEWIDE INITIATIVE: CONSOLIDATE TRAVELER INFORMATION INTO ONE WEB SITE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Traveler Information should be consolidated and located on one web site with comprehensive info in one user-friendly site. PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for a Statewide 511 System.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO


ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: N/A Study: Design: Deployment:

ESTIMATED COSTS: N/A Capital: Annual O&M:





BENEFITS: Consolidated traveler information may increase the number of users accessing the web for information.



STATEWIDE INITIATIVE: IMPLEMENT AN INTERSTATE ROAD CLOSURE SYSTEM WITHIN

THE REGION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project refines and deploys a system for the dissemination of timely and accurate information on road closures across the Commonwealth. A Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS), identified under TSOP-2, is currently deployed as a statewide initiative and will be PennDOT’s standard incident reporting tool. This system will provide information on routing patterns for vehicular traffic and for getting emergency responders to incidents.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: N/A Study Design: Deployment:


PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of motorists diverted; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay.

BENEFITS: Improved information flow to motorists regarding road closure; reduction in traffic delay.



STATEWIDE INITIATIVE: IMPLEMENT A STATEWIDE 800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expand the use of 800 Megahertz (MHz) radio systems to improve communications and information flow among traffic managers, EMAs, and emergency responders across the state. Secure the required funding for smaller agencies to obtain the 800 MHz radio technology. PennDOT C.O.’s statewide telecommunications master plan which is now under development will assess the implementation of this type of system. An 800 MHz system has been partially implemented within the Pennsylvania State Police.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PSP, County EMAs, County 911 Centers, Emergency Responders, PennDOT District 5-0

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: N/A Study: Design: Deployment:


PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of Emergency Responders utilizing the 800 MHz Radio System

BENEFITS: Enhanced communications between emergency responders.



APPENDIX B – MPO / RPO - Specific Project Prioritizations (LVTS)

LVTS PROJECT #1: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles. Elements of this expanded program in the Lehigh Valley includes extending operating hours of the existing system from seven hours/day to ten hours/day (6 – 10 am, 2 – 8pm), five days/week (Monday-Friday), 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. Two patrol vehicles and two back-up vehicles would be used. Costs also include one consultant staff in the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center, ten hours/day, five days/week, 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. The geographic coverage would remain as it is presently.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $405,000




PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service. Number of motorists served. Change in time to clear an incident.




LVTS PROJECT #2: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: � CCTV Cameras � Dynamic Message Signs � Highway Advisory Radio � HAR Flashing Beacons � Queue Detectors � Ramp Metering Systems

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, LVPC



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): $753,000 (Design)

$2,667,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $190,000

*See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0.





BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region’s highways.



LVTS PROJECT #3: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND

PROCEDURES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis.

Protocols need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume one (1) plan at $50,000.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, LVPC, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders








BENEFITS: Improves emergency response times to clear incidents, thereby minimizing travel delay and reducing the occurrence of secondary incidents.



LVTS PROJECT #4: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical corridors that could benefit from an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) signal system. The first step in this process would be to use the Signal Asset Management System and screening criteria (e.g., receptive municipalities, require little infrastructure, few jurisdictions) to identify corridors that would be good candidates. The strategy would culminate with the development of a pilot project that can be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. This pilot project involves the coordination of fifty (50) programmable signals throughout the identified corridor (and assumes that signals do not require upgrades). According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, maintenance costs approximately $1,800 per signal annually.












LVTS PROJECT #5: IMPLEMENT REAL-TIME TRAVEL POSTINGS ON DMS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project’s intent is to use data from PennDOT or collected from partners to provide real-time travel times and to inform travelers of the causes of congestion via DMS. This pilot project would be implemented along the interstate. There is potential for eventual implementation along I-80, I-81, I-476 (PA Turnpike), I-176, Route 422, Route 222, Route 61, Route 33, and Route 22. The pilot project involves twenty-five (25) interchanges along I-78. Each interchange would require four (4) sensors, for a total of 100 sensors, providing end-to-end coverage. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office ITS Cost Estimates, solar powered sensors are estimated to cost approximately $7,000 each, with poles and installation estimated at $4,000 each.









BENEFITS: Real-time dissemination of travel times allows motorists and businesses to make better route decisions resulting in more efficient use of travel time and reducing travel costs.



LVTS PROJECT #6: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER

INFORMATION SERVICES
















LVTS PROJECT #7: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the coordination of PennDOT with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs.












LVTS PROJECT #8: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY

EVACUATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. currently has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [(EDRS]) now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information.




ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009) $40,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None








LVTS PROJECT #9: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. � The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored.

STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC











LVTS PROJECT #10: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel should be provided with mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), to communicate effectively and immediately with the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The recommended PDAs would provide required services including voice (cell phone), email, Internet, camera, video, and text messaging. The associated operating costs would include monthly plans for phone, data, and text messaging. Assume $2,000 for each field person at 3 personnel total for capital costs. Annual operating & maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,500 for each PDA at 3 devices.












LVTS PROJECT #11: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for data-sharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region’s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, efforts between DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data collected along I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap crossing could be explored.












LVTS PROJECT #12: INSTITUTE REAL-TIME TRANSIT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: There are commercial providers who can provide real-time information to travelers using vehicle GPS systems through kiosks, pole mounted devices, the Internet, email, and telephone. This project would pilot one of these services for a trial period and assess the use/benefit to transit riders. A series of 5 kiosks will be deployed at key locations within the LANTA service area for the purpose of providing transit riders with static information about routes/schedules and real-time information regarding schedule adherence and ETA of transit vehicles at specific designated stops.

STAKEHOLDERS: Commercial Providers, LANTA





TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): AVL; Wireless Communications


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; customer satisfaction; transit vehicle on-time performance.

BENEFITS: This type of information would likely benefit users who make daily trips on long-distance, low-frequency routes that are often most susceptible to delays.



LVTS PROJECT #13: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING













APPENDIX B – MPO / RPO – Specific Project Prioritizations (RATS)

RATS PROJECT #1: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: � CCTV Cameras � Dynamic Message Signs � Highway Advisory Radio � HAR Flashing Beacons

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, RATS



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): $1,270,000 (Design) $4,250,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $300,000 *See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0.








RATS PROJECT #2: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND

PROCEDURES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. � The Berks County IM Plan should be updated through a collaborative and inclusive approach,

involving the Planning Commission, PennDOT District 5-0, and County EMA. This effort should include updating the I-78 IM Plan, as well as developing IM Plans for Route 222 South, Route 422, I-176, and Route 61.

� Protocols also need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county

911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume one (1) plan at $50,000.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, RATS, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders











RATS PROJECT #3: HIRE ONE FULL-TIME STAFF FOR REGION 5-0 TMC

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Project would involve hiring one full-time staff person to be located at the District 5-0 Traffic Management Center to monitor CCTV images produced from cameras located throughout Berks County, to post HAR messages and notifications regarding incidents and other traveler information on DMS, and to coordinate with 911 Centers, police, and other TMCs. Operational costs for the full-time staff person are calculated accordingly: 7 hours / day x 5 days / week @ 52 weeks / year (1,820 hours) + 260 contingency hours = 2,080 total hours @ $17.50 / hour = $36,400 annual O&M cost.

STAKEHOLDERS: RATS, PennDOT District 5-0



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: None Annual O&M: $36,400


TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Traffic Management Center


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay; % change in time to respond to an incident.




RATS PROJECT #4: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles. Elements of this program include evaluating the need for service patrols along limited-access freeways in Berks County (I-78, Route 422) and if warranted, implement limited-term pilot programs. Projected operating program would include two active vehicles + one back-up vehicle, seven hours/day x five days/week x 52 weeks/year for one year (in Berks County). The estimated cost does not include the cost of consultant staff in the TOC.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, RATS



ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $265,000

PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service. Number of motorists served. Change in time to clear an incident.




RATS PROJECT #5: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical corridors that could benefit from the integration of signal timing along adjacent corridors. Phase 1 of this process involves using the Signal Asset Management System and developing screening criteria to identify candidate corridors. Phase 2 of this project would involve implementing a limited Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) pilot project that could be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of ICM. This pilot project involves the coordination of up to fifty (50) programmable signals throughout the identified corridor (and assumes that signals do not require upgrades). According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, maintenance costs approximately $1,800 per signal annually.







PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would be developed in conjunction with Statewide ICM efforts and TSOP 8. It is anticipated that the Signal Management System (SMS) data will be useful developing this project.





RATS PROJECT #6: IMPLEMENT REAL-TIME TRAVEL POSTINGS ON DMS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project’s intent is to use data from PennDOT or collected from partners to provide real-time travel times and to inform travelers of the causes of congestion via DMS. This pilot project would be implemented along I-78. There is potential for eventual implementation along I-80, I-81, I-476 (PA Turnpike), I-176, Route 422, Route 222, Route 61, Route 33, and Route 22. The pilot project involves twenty-five (25) interchanges along I-78. Each interchange would require four (4) sensors, for a total of 100 sensors, providing end-to-end coverage. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office ITS Cost Estimates, solar powered sensors are estimated to cost approximately $7,000 each, with poles and installation estimated at $4,000 each.





PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex




BENEFITS: Real-time dissemination of travel times allows motorists and businesses to make better route decisions resulting in savings of time and money.



RATS PROJECT #7: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER

















RATS PROJECT #8: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves PennDOT coordinating with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs.












RATS PROJECT #9: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY

EVACUATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. currently has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [EDRS]), now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information.












RATS PROJECT #10: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. � The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored. � The ongoing efforts between the Berks County EMA and the Berks County 911 Center to share

staffing, data feeds, incident response, information gathering, and web-based portal applications, should be encouraged.

STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, Berks County EMA, Berks County 911 Center











RATS PROJECT #11: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS













RATS PROJECT #12: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for data-sharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region’s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, in Berks County, efforts between the Berks County EMA, Berks County Planning Commission, PennDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data from cameras and CCTV along I-78, I-176, Route 422, and Route 222 could be explored.












RATS PROJECT #13: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING













APPENDIX B – MPO / RPO Specific Project Prioritizations (NEPA)

NEPA PROJECT #1: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: � CCTV Cameras � Dynamic Message Signs � Highway Advisory Radio � HAR Flashing Beacons � Queue Detectors � Ramp Metering Systems

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, NEPA



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): $1,880,000 (Design) $8,550,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $600,000

*See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0.








NEPA PROJECT #2: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND

PROCEDURES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. � Protocols also need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county

911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume one (1) plan at $50,000 each.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, NEPA, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders











NEPA PROJECT #3: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles. Elements of this program include evaluating the need for service patrols along limited-access freeways in the NEPA Region (I-80 in the Stroudsburg-NJ area), and if warranted, implement limited-term pilot programs. Projected operating program would include two active vehicles + one back-up vehicle, seven hours/day x five days/week x 52 weeks/year for one year (in the NEPA region). The estimated cost does not include the cost of consultant staff in the TOC.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, NEPA


ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 – 2 years Design: 3 – 5 years Construction:

ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $265,000

PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service; number of motorists served, and change in clearance time




NEPA PROJECT #4: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical limited-access corridors that could benefit from the integration of signal timings along adjacent corridors. Phase 1 of this process involves using the Signal Asset Management System and developing screening criteria to identify candidate corridors. The screening criteria might include the receptiveness of municipalities, scope of required infrastructure needs, and the number of jurisdictions involved. Phase 2 of this project would involve implementing a limited Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) pilot project that could be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. In particular, this pilot project would involve the multi-municipal coordination and cooperation required to integrate fifty (50) programmable signals throughout one of the identified corridors. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, annual maintenance costs are approximately $1,800 per signal. (In developing cost estimates, it is assumed that traffic signals will not require upgrades). This pilot project could then serve as the basis for the future development of this ICM project involving the implementation of field hardware, communications equipment, and software and integration.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, PennDOT CO, Local Municipalities, RATS, LVTS











NEPA PROJECT #5: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER

















NEPA PROJECT #6: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves PennDOT coordinating with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs.












NEPA PROJECT #7: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY

EVACUATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. currently has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [EDRS]), now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information.












NEPA PROJECT #8: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. � The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored.

STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, NEPA











NEPA PROJECT #9: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS













NEPA PROJECT #10: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for data-sharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region’s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, efforts between DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data collected at Delaware River water crossings could be explored.












NEPA PROJECT #11: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING













APPENDIX C – Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment

LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES

PRIORITY

FUNDING

CYCLE FIELD

DEVICE LOCATION

DESIGN

COST

CAPITAL

COST 1* CCTV I-78 / Route 863 Interchange (MM 45) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 at Route 378 (MM 63) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 at Island Park Rd Bridge (MM 69) $25K $125K 1 CCTV Route 33 / Route 512 Interchange (MM 15.5) $25K $125K 1 CCTV Route 33 / Route 191 Interchange (MM 9.5) $25K $125K Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal: $125K$125K$125K$125K $625K$625K$625K$625K 2 HAR – B I-78 WB at MM 75 $15K $25K 2 HAR – B I-78 EB at MM 44 $15K $25K 2 HAR – B Route 22 WB at MM 334 $15K $25K 2 HAR – B Route 22 EB at MM 315.5 $15K $25K 2 HAR – B Route 33 SB at MM 16 $15K $25K Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal: $75K$75K$75K$75K $125K$125K$125K$125K 3* DMS I-78 EB at Lehigh/Northampton Cty Line (MM 63) $50K $325K 3 DMS I-78 WB at Lehigh/Northampton Cty Line (MM 63) $50K $325K 3 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Lehigh Street (MM 55) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 EB Just West of Route 412 (MM 67.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 WB Just East of Route 412 (MM 67.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Route 191 (MM 8.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 SB Prior to Route 191 (MM 11) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Route 512 (MM 14) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 100 (MM 50) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 22 EB Prior to Route 191 (MM 328.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 22 WB Prior to Route 512 (MM 328.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Rt 33 SB prior to Wind Gap (Monroe Co., MM 19) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Route 248 (MM 5.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Freemansburg Ave (MM 1.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 22 EB Prior to Cedar Crest Blvd (MM 318) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Route 22 (MM 50) $25K $50K 3 DMS Rte 22 WB Prior to Lehigh Rvr Br. (MM 324) $25K $50K Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal: $475K$475K$475K$475K $1,400K$1,400K$1,400K$1,400K

4 QD Route 22 – Replace 27 Existing Queue Detectors with Passive Acoustic Sensors (solar-powered sensor and pole installed @ $11,000 / each) that are able to cover up to five lanes providing vehicular counts per lane and speeds to provide real-time traffic / travel information

$45K $297K

4 QD I-78 / Route 22 / Route 33 Queue Detection to do vehicular counts per lanes / speeds to provide real-real-time traffic / travel information (20 units @ $11,000 / each)

$33K $220K

Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal:Subtotal: $78K$78K$78K$78K $517K$517K$517K$517K

Total:Total:Total:Total: $753K$753K$753K$753K $2,667K$2,667K$2,667K$2,667K *For Lehigh and Northampton Counties, the projects themselves included under Priority Funding Cycles #1 and #1 are listed in order of priority.


LegendLegendLegendLegend DMS = DMS (Dynamic Message Sign), VMS (Variable Message Sign), CMS

(Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) CCTV = Closed Circuit Television Camera HAR = Highway Advisory Radio HAR B = Highway Advisory Radio Beacons QD = Queue Detectors


BERKS COUNTY PRIORITY

FUNDING

CYCLE FIELD DEVICE LOCATION

DESIGN

COST

CAPITAL

COST 1 DMS I-78 EB Pr to Rte 625 on Distr 8 Structure

(MM 9) $25K $125K

1 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Route 61 (MM 27) $25K $50K 1 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 183 (MM 21) $25K $50K 1 DMS I-78–Install Concrete Pads / Elec Phone $30K $75K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 143 Interchange (MM 35) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 61 Interchange (MM 29) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 183 Interchange (MM 19) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 645 Interchange (MM 10) $25K $125K 1 HAR – B I-78 EB at Lebanon / Berks County Line $15K $25K 1 HAR – B I-78 EB West of Route 61 $15K $25K 1 HAR – B I-78 WB East of Route 61 $15K $25K 1 HAR – B Upgrade HAR to Permanent Sites – 4

Locations on I-78 $75K $225K

1 HAR – B Route 61 NB Prior to I-78 $15K $25K 1 HAR – B Route 61 SB Prior to I-78 $15K $25K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $355K$355K$355K$355K $1,150K$1,150K$1,150K$1,150K 2 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Route 737 (MM 38) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 737 (MM 42.5) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 143 (MM 34) $25K $50K 2 CCTV I-78 / Route 737 Interchange (MM 40) $25K $125K 2 HAR – B I-78 WB East of Route 737 $15K $25K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $115K$115K$115K$115K $300K$300K$300K$300K 3 DMS Route 222 SB Prior to Route 222 Bus. $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 222 SB Prior to Route 12 $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 222 Bus $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 662 $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 422 Bus $25K $50K 3 DMS I-176 NB Prior to Route 10 (MM 5) $25K $50K 3 CCTV Route 222 / Route 422/Route 12 I’change $25K $125K 3 CCTV Route 222 / Route 183 Interchange* $25K $125K 3 CCTV Route 422 / Route 222 Bus / Route 10

I’change (Lancaster Ave.) $25K $125K

3 CCTV Route 422/ Route 422 Bus Interchange $25K $125K

3 CCTV Route 422 / Penn St. / Penn Ave $25K $125K

3 CCTV I-176 / Route 422 Interchange (MM 11) $25K $125K

Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $300K$300K$300K$300K $1,050K$1,050K$1,050K$1,050K

4 DMS I-176 NB Prior to Route 10 (MM 0.5) $25K $50K

4 DMS I-176 NB Prior to Route 724 (MM 8) $25K $50K

4 DMS I-176 SB Prior to Route 10 (MM 5) $25K $50K



Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $125K$125K$125K$125K $400K$400K$400K$400K

5 DMS Route 222 SB Prior to Route 724 $25K $50K

5 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 568** $50K $325K

5 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 12 $25K $50K

5 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 61 $25K $50K

5 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 222 Bus $25K $50K


5 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 12 $25K $50K

5 DMS Route 422 EB Prior to Route 222 Bus $25K $50K

5 DMS Route 422 EB Prior to I-176 $25K $50K

5 DMS Route 422 EB Prior to Route 82

$25K $50K


6 CCTV Rte 222 / Rte 222 Bus / Park RD I’change $25K $125K

6 CCTV Route 222 / Route 61 Interchange $25K $125K


6 CCTV Route 222 / Route 222 Bus Interchange $25K $125K



Totals:Totals:Totals:Totals: $1,270K$1,270K$1,270K$1,270K $4,250K$4,250K$4,250K$4,250K

Comments:Comments:Comments:Comments: The priority funding cycles are associated with the following projects and/or locations: Cycle 1: I-78 & Route 61 Cycle 2: I-78 – 12M Project Cycle 3: Route 222 / 422 Urban Area Cycle 4: I-176 Completion Cycle 5: Route 222 / 422 Non-Urban Area – DMS Signs Cycle 6: Route 222 Non-Urban Area – CCTV

* Integrate into Interchange reconstruction project ** Joint effort with Lancaster County (Route 568 & Pennsylvania Turnpike)




SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRIORITY

FUNDING


DESIGN

COST

CAPITAL

COST 1 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 443 (MM 98) $25K $50K 1 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 61 (MM 122) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-81 SB Prior to Route 61 (MM122) $50K $325K 1 CCTV I-81 / Rte 443 Interchange (MM 100) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-81 / Route 61 Interchange (MM 124) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-81 / Route 54 Interchange (MM 131) $25K $125K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $200K$200K$200K$200K $1,075K$1,075K$1,075K$1,075K 2 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 25 (MM 112) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 309 (MM 136) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-81 SB S. of Luzerne/Schuylkill Cty Line

(MM 139) $50K $325K

2 DMS I-81 SB Prior to Route 54 (MM 133) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-81 SB Prior to Route 25 (MM 114) $25K $50K 2 CCTV I-81 / Route 25 Interchange (MM 112) $25K $125K 2 CCTV I-81 / Rte 309 Interchange (MM 138) $25K $125K 2 HAR I-81 (3 Sites) $50K $200K 2 HAR – B I-81 (8 Sites) $75K $225K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $325$325$325$325KKKK $$$$1,2001,2001,2001,200KKKK Totals:Totals:Totals:Totals: $525$525$525$525KKKK $2,275$2,275$2,275$2,275KKKK




CARBON COUNTY

PRIORITY

FUNDING


DESIGN

COST

CAPITAL

COST 1 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 940 (MM 277) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 115 (MM 282) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 940 (MM 281) $50K $325K 1 CCTV I-80 / Rte 940 Interchange (MM 279) $50K $125K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $200$200$200$200KKKK $1,10$1,10$1,10$1,100K0K0K0K 2 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 534 (MM 273) $50K $325K 2 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 534 (MM 276) $50K $325K 2 CCTV I-80 / Rte 534 Interchange (MM 274) $50K $125K 2 HAR I-80 $25K $100K 2 HAR – B I-80 (2 Sites) $30K $50K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $205$205$205$205KKKK $925$925$925$925KKKK Totals:Totals:Totals:Totals: $405$405$405$405KKKK $2,025$2,025$2,025$2,025KKKK




MONROE COUNTY

PRIORITY

FUNDING


DESIGN

COST

CAPITAL

COST 1 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Rte 715 (MM 297) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 715 (MM 301) $25K $50K 1 CCTV I-80/ I-380 Interchange (MM 293) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-80/ Route 33 Interchange (MM 302) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-80/ Route 209 Interchange (MM 309) $25K $125K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $150$150$150$150KKKK $7$7$7$750K50K50K50K 2 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 33 (MM 300) $50K $325K 2 DMS I-80 WB Prior to I-380 (MM 296) $50K $325K 2 CCTV I-80/ Route 191 Interchange (MM 307) $25K $125K 2 CCTV I-80/ Route 611 Interchange (MM 310) $25K $125K Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $1$1$1$155550000KKKK $9$9$9$900K00K00K00K 3 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 209 Bus (MM 304) $50K $325K 3 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 115 (MM 286) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-380 SB Prior to Route 611 (MM 9) $25K $50K 3 CCTV I-80/ Route 115 Interchange (MM 284) $25K $125K 3 CCTV I-80/ Route 715 Interchange (MM 299) $25K $125K

3 CCTV I-380/ Route 940 Interchange (MM 3) $25K $125K


3 HAR I-80 (4 Sites) $50K $300K

3 HAR – B I-80 (4 Sites) $75K $125K

Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $325$325$325$325KKKK $1,3$1,3$1,3$1,350K50K50K50K

4 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 611 (MM 308) $25K $50K

4 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 191 (MM 308) $25K $50K





Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $17$17$17$175K5K5K5K $725$725$725$725KKKK



5 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Scotrun Exit (MM 298.5) $25K $50K


5 DMS I-380 SB Prior to Route 940 (MM 5) $50K $325K

Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals:Subtotals: $1$1$1$150K50K50K50K $5$5$5$525K25K25K25K

Totals:Totals:Totals:Totals: $950$950$950$950KKKK $4,250K$4,250K$4,250K$4,250K


(Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) CCTV = Closed Circuit Television Camera HAR = Highway Advisory Radio HAR B = Highway Advisory Radio Beacons QD = Queue Detector


APPENDIX D – Description of the Region

Operations Region 5, in eastern Pennsylvania, is comprised of six counties: Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe. District 5-0 is one of the fastest growing districts in Pennsylvania. The influx of population is presumably a consequence of suburban growth extending out from New York and Philadelphia. The district consists of an unusual blend of urban and rural areas. The urbanized areas of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, located in the Lehigh Valley, along with the City of Reading in Berks County, are the economic hubs of the region. A large proportion of the region’s population lives in or near these two metropolitan areas and this has resulted in serious congestion issues, particularly in and around Allentown. Though the core of the region has a predominantly urban character, the outlying parts of the region, especially Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe Counties, are decidedly rural in nature. As shown in the map below, Operations Region 5 encompasses all of PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. Three of the region’s counties are included in two distinct MPOs (Lehigh and Northampton counties are located within the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study, and Berks County is located within the Reading Area Transportation Study), while the remaining three counties (Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe) are located within the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, a Rural Planning Organization. The Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) RPO itself is split between PennDOT District 4-0 and District 5-0, with Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe counties included in District 5-0.

Figure 3: Region 5 Geographic Boundaries


Table 15 below reveals that 1,403,656 people—or approximately 12% of the Commonwealth’s population — live in Region 5. Close to one-half of the region’s population resides in Lehigh and Northampton counties, comprising the Lehigh Valley. When Berks County is added to the Lehigh Valley, these three mostly urban counties account for 73% of the region’s population, leaving the remaining 27% in the three rural counties of Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe.

Table 15: Operations Region 5 - Population by County, 2006

County Number % Population

Berks 401,149 28.6

Carbon 62,567 4.5

Lehigh 335,544 23.9

Monroe 165,685 11.8

Northampton 291,306 20.7

Schuylkill 147,405 10.5

Total Population in Region 5

1,403,656 100.0

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Communities Survey)

Table 16 compares specific population traits in Region 5 to those across Pennsylvania and the U.S. generally. The table demonstrates that the residents of Region 5 are somewhat more homogeneous than Pennsylvania and the U.S. as a whole. Whereas 8.1 percent of the residents of Region 5 are characterized as minorities, the minority population is 15 percent statewide and 25 percent nationwide. Both median age is comparable and mean family size in the region are closer to the statewide figures than the national figures. Per capita income in Region 5, however, is 15% lower than both the state and national averages.

Table 16: Comparison of Key Population Demographics – Region 5, Pennsylvania, and the United States, 2006

Demographic Factor Region 5 Pennsylvania United States

Total Population 1,403,656 11,979,147 288,378,137

% Minority Population 8.1% 15.42% 25.33%

Median Age (In Years) 39.9 39.7 36.4

Mean Family Size 2.52 2.46 2.60

Per Capita Income $20,671 $24,591 $25,035

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Communities Survey)


Table 17 examines commuting patterns in Region 5 to the state and national commuting conditions. The 2005 American Communities Survey did not tabulate these data elements by county so the comparison is from the 2000 Census. Four-out-of-five Region 5 workers drive to work alone, slightly higher than the state and national “drive-alone” rates. Over ten percent of workers in Region 5 carpool to work, comparable to the statewide average. Less than 2 percent of workers use public transportation, which is significantly lower than state and national transit usage trends. The average one-way commute time for Region 5 workers is 26.6 minutes, which compares favorably to the 25-26 minutes for Pennsylvania and U.S. workers generally.

Table 17: Comparison of Commuting Patterns among Workers 16 & Over – Region 5, Pennsylvania, and the United States, 2000

Commuting Pattern Region 5 Pennsylvania United States

Total Workers 16 & Over 602,272 5,556,311 128,279,228

% Commuters Driving Alone 80.9% 76.5% 75.7%

% Commuters Carpooling 10.5% 10.4% 12.2%

% Commuters Using Public Transportation

1.53% 5.2% 4.7%

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 26.6 25.2 25.5

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000)

As shown in Table 18, Region 5 encompasses a substantial network of roadways. As reported in PennDOT’s 2005 Highway Statistics, Region 5 contains 11,349.2 linear miles of roadway, signifying 9.4 percent of the Commonwealth’s total linear mileage. This includes 3,302.3 linear miles of roadway maintained by PennDOT, with the remaining road miles maintained by the PTC, municipalities, and other entities.

Table 18: Region 5 - Linear Miles, 2005

County PennDOT Linear Miles Total Linear Miles

Berks 884.6 3,270.0

Carbon 268.0 717.8

Lehigh 529.9 1,969.0

Monroe 520.2 1,565.1

Northampton 501.1 1,933.4

Schuylkill 598.5 1,893.9

Regional Total 3,302.3 11,349.2

Statewide Total 39,889.6 120,667.2

(Source: PennDOT’s 2005 Highway Statistics)


Table 19 depicts the daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) across Region 5, which is substantial. Total DVMT on all roadways in Region 5, as reported in the 2005 Highway Statistics was approximately 32.5 million miles. The DVMT on PennDOT roadways was approximately 25.6 million miles.

Table 19: Region 5 - Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 2005

County PennDOT DVMT Total DVMT

Berks 7,051,115 8,716,056

Carbon 1,204,425 2,121,746

Lehigh 5,454,711 7,872,887

Schuylkill 4,038,656 4,440,281

Northampton 4,441,623 5,453,766

Monroe 3,426,471 3,903,700

Regional Total 25,617,001 32,508,436

Statewide 224,176,551 295,628,006

(Source: PennDOT’s 2005 Highway Statistics)

Region 5 contains significant highway corridors, including:

Table 20: Significant Highway Corridors

Interstates United States (U.S.) Routes

Pennsylvania (PA) Routes

Interstate 78 (I-78)






US Route 22 (US-22)

US Route 222 (US-222)

US Route 422 (US-422)

US Route 33 (US-33)

PA Route 61 (PA-61)

PA Route 100 (PA-100)



PA Route 73 (PA-73)


A range of public and private providers offer transit services in the southwestern region, including:

• Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, • Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority, • Schuylkill Transportation System, • Monroe County Transit System, • Greyhound Lines.

Region 5 contains intermodal facilities and service providers that support passenger and freight, including:

• Reading Regional Airport Authority,


• Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority, • Humbolt Industrial Park.

Region 5 also contains, or is affected by, major traffic generators, including:

• Mt. Laurel Center for Performing Arts, • Humbolt Industrial Park, • Pocono Mountains Visitors area, • Pike County Residential Community, • New Jersey Transit stations, • Lehigh Gap Nature Center.

Several significant ongoing planning initiatives are underway in the region, including the following:

• LVPC Long Range Transportation Plan updates • RATS Long Range Transportation Plan updates • NEPA Long Range Transportation Plan updates • LVPC Regional Transportation Improvement Plan updates • RATS Regional Transportation Improvement Plan updates • NEPA Regional Transportation Improvement Plan updates


APPENDIX E – Workshop & Task Force Participants

Participant

Organizational Representation

Laurie Bailey Lehigh County 911 Center

Kurt Bauman Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

Victor Berger Greenwich Township

Tony Blackwell Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association

Lou Cortelazzi Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Jason Davis LANTA

Kathy Dimpsey Federal Highway Administration

Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Transportation Study

Kristin Egresits PennDOT Program Center

Lt. Frank Fetterolf Pennsylvania State Police

Michael Golembiewski Reading Area Transportation Study

Howard Grossman HJG Associates

Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Transportation Study

Bruce Henry Monroe County Public Safety Center

Gary Hoffman Monroe County 911 Center

Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration

Oscar Kleinsmith I-78 Coalition

Bill Laubach PennDOT BHSTE

Amanda Leindecker PennDOT District 5-0

Donald Lerch PennDOT District 5-0

Tanya Light Lehigh County EMA

John Matz Schuylkill County EMA

Matt McGough Reading Area Transportation Study

Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center

Guy M. Miller Monroe County Public Safety Center


Carey Mullins PennDOT District 5-0

Participant Organizational Representation

Matt Neeb Monroe County Planning Commission

Tom Nervine Lehigh County EMA

Mike Pack PennDOT BHSTE

Bob Pento PennDOT BHSTE

Alan Piper Reading Area Transportation Study

Glenn F. Reibman Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission

Mathilda Sheptak Pocono Vacation Bureau

Cpl. Carol Sherland Pennsylvania State Police

Stephen Simchak Carbon County Planning Commission

George Tomaszewski PennDOT District 5-0

Doug Tomlinson PennDOT BHSTE

Dennis Toomey PennDOT District 5-0

John Townsend PennDOT District 5-0

Tom Walter PennDOT District 5-0

Jeffrey Weidner Berks County EMA

Joseph Wydock Pennsylvania State Police

Dirk Yahraes Pennsylvania State Police

Dennis Zahora Schuylkill Transportation System


APPENDIX F – Steering Committee, Workshop & Task Force Meeting Summaries

Steering Committee – Kick-off Meeting Summary (FINAL) PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 ROP Steering Committee Kick-Off Meeting January 18, 2007, 1:30 pm PennDOT District 5-0 Office, Allentown, PA Participating Representing Tony Blackwell Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Gary Hoffman Monroe County 911 Arthur Kaplan Schuylkill County EMA John Matz Schuylkill County EMA Matt McGough Berks County Planning Commission Michael Pack (by phone) PennDOT (BHSTE) Corporal Carol A. Sherland PSP, Hamburg Barracks Dennis Toomey PennDOT – District 5-0 John Townsend PennDOT – District 5-0 Thomas Walter PennDOT – District 5-0 Staffing Representing Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming Matthew Schiemer (by phone) Gannett Fleming Mike Harris (by phone) PB Introductions Tim Lidiak commenced the meeting at 1:30 pm, and thanked Regional Operations Forum (Steering Committee) members for their attendance and began with participant introductions and then outlined the agenda for the meeting. T. Lidiak stated that the intent of the first meeting was to explain the Statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP), the Regional Operations Plan (ROP) process, and then to discuss next steps which include developing a list of stakeholders for attendance at the Needs and Priorities Workshop.


Operations Planning & TSOP T. Lidiak began by defining operations according to PennDOT, noting that operations plans assist in identifying technologies, institutional arrangements, and projects that allow transportation systems to operate more closely to their maximum design intent in terms of capacity, speed, safety, navigation, logistics, and user convenience. He also noted that operations plans for not used for deployment, but for programming purposes. T. Lidiak highlighted two important purposes of operations – to improve congestion, and to improve safety. He stated that 60% of the causes of congestion (special events, poor signal timing, bad weather, work zone, and traffic incidents) cannot be solved through adding new lanes. Only operational improvements can address these sources of congestion. He noted that approximately 20% of incidents occur as a result of primary incidents. T. Lidiak noted that under the Congestion Strategies developed in the Statewide Mobility Plan, three major options were identified – building additional capacity, reducing demand, and managing capacity. He noted that due to constrained budgets, escalating construction costs, constrained space availability, and limited success in managing demand, statewide focus is now on managing existing capacity. T. Lidiak noted that the purpose of the statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP) is to set the statewide direction for projects in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and operations. The TSOP identified four key priorities, including building and maintaining a statewide transportation operations foundation, improving highway operational performance, improving safety, and improving security. The TSOP also identified 19 key initiatives, including 8 initiatives that have been identified as priority initiatives. ROP Process Overview T. Lidiak then provided an overview of the Regional Operations Plans (ROPs), stating that the ROP extends the statewide TSOP to the regional level; expands cooperative relationships between regional partners; defines the strategic transportation operations program for the region; and specifies and prioritizes regional operations projects. He noted that one of the main goals of the ROP is to work with key stakeholders and planning partners in the region to develop and prioritize a list of operations projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long-Range Plan (LRP). T. Lidiak noted that the ROP needs to be completed by July 31, 2007 in order to be included in the 2009 TIP. The ROP will require adoption by the three regional MPOs and will be updated every two years. T. Lidiak reviewed the roles, process, and product of the ROP. He noted that from the client side, Dennis Toomey will provide support from PennDOT District 5-0, Mike Pack will serve as PennDOT Central Office Liaison, and Mike Harris (PB Farradyne) will provide support program management support. On the consultant side, T. Lidiak will serve as the Project Manager and Matt Schiemer (Gannett Fleming) will serve as QA/QC Reviewer.


T. Lidiak noted that PB will be available to provide support and review of the ROP, as needed. PB should be copied on all correspondence related to the ROP. PB will likely participate in the Workshops and Task Force Meetings and provide explanation of the ROP process. T. Lidiak highlighted seven core processes or tasks required in the implementation of this project:

1. Establish a Regional Operations Forum (ROF). This ROF, or Steering Committee, will serve as representative, decision-making body of knowledgeable planning partners and key stakeholders across the region to plan and oversee transportation operations, specifically development of the ROP.

2. Conduct Document Reviews and Review of Projects. This task includes the

review of several key documents, such as TSOP, the Pennsylvania Mobility Plan, Region 5’s Regional ITS Architecture, and The Lehigh Valley Early Deployment Plan.

3. Define Regional Needs and Priorities. This effort should consider the general

needs and priorities included in TSOP as a guideline, with the needs and priorities for the region determined through the “Needs & Priorities Workshop”. Defining “regional” needs will be a challenge given the distinct urban and rural character of the region. In the course of the Workshop, participants will be asked to define “need areas” based on TSOP priority areas, such as Incident Management, Traffic Signals, Traveler Information, and Equipment Standardization.

4. Identify Regional Operations Concepts. For this task, several high-level operations concept(s) will be identified based on the priority areas identified in TSOP. Some, but not all, of the 19 priority areas of TSOP will apply in Region 5.

5. Define Operations Projects. For each TSOP priority area and through each task force, identify and prioritize the specific projects for each of the “needs” areas.

6. Develop the Regional Program. Develop a program of prioritized projects for

short- and long-term funding and placement in Long-Range Plans (LRPs) and the 2009 TIP.

7. Prepare and Adopt the ROP.

T. Lidiak reviewed the Project Schedule, noting the challenge to complete this project by July 31, 2007, given the need for 30-day notice prior to all meetings/workshops, and the need for ROF review and comment. Organizing the Needs & Priorities Workshop T. Lidiak remarked that the next step involved organizing the first of two workshops, focusing on identifying the operational needs and priorities for Region 5. He asked the Region 5 ROF/Steering Committee to assist in identifying who should attend the Workshop, and to be the champions in encouraging stakeholders to attend the session.


After much discussion it was determined that the following stakeholder entities should be invited: 1. Four of the transit agencies (LANTA, BARTA, Monroe County Transit, Schuylkill

Transportation System) 2. All six of the county planning agencies 3. All three transportation planning organizations (LVPC, RATS, NEPA) 4. All six county EMAs 5. All six county 911 centers 6. Monroe County’s new Emergency Services Coordinator 7. DRJTBC 8. The three PSP Troop Headquarters (Bethlehem, Jonestown, Hazleton) 9. A representative from the New Jersey TMC (North NJ) 10. The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 11. Pocono Mountain Vacation Bureau 12. Two airport authorities (Allentown, Reading) 13. PA Turnpike Commission 14. PEMA 15. Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security 16. One representative from the County Fire Chiefs’ Association for each of the six

counties 17. FHWA 18. PennDOT Central Office 19. PennDOT District 5-0 20. PennDOT Program Center 21. PA DEP Joe Gurinko volunteered to reserve space at the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for Workshop #1, scheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 9 – 11 am. Dennis Toomey made final remarks underscoring the purpose, need, and importance of effectively advancing this ROP process. Next Steps

1. Develop/Finalize List of Stakeholders – T. Lidiak will contact Steering Committee members to request names of potential participants.

2. Organize Needs & Priorities Workshop – Scheduled Date: Tuesday, February

20, 2007, 9 – 11 am, Lehigh Valley Planning Commission offices, 961 Marcon Blvd, Suite 310, Allentown, PA.

This meeting concluded at 3 pm. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meeting that was conducted on January 18, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2) weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,


GANNETT FLEMING, INC.

Timothy Lidiak Timothy Lidiak Consultant Project Manager cc: Region 5 ROF/Steering Committee


Workshop #1 – Operational Needs Identification - Meeting Summary (FINAL) PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 Workshop #1 – Operational Needs Identification Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 February 20, 2007, 9 - 11 am Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, Allentown, PA Participating Representing Laurie Bailey Lehigh County 9-1-1 Victor Berger Greenwich Township (Berks County) Jason Davis LANTA/Metro Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Kristin Egresits PennDOT Program Center Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Jim Hunt FHWA Oscar Kleinsmith I-78 Coordinator John Matz Schuylkill County EMA Tom Nervine Lehigh Valley EMA Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission Michael Pack PennDOT - BHSTE Glenn F. Reibman DRJTBC Dennis Toomey PennDOT – District 5-0 Thomas Walter PennDOT – District 5-0 Joseph Wydock PSP – Troup N Dirk Yahraes PSP – Bethlehem Dennis Zahora Schuylkill Transportation System Staffing Representing Mike Harris PB Farradyne Dennis Lebo Gannett Fleming Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming I. Introductions At 9:05 am, Tim Lidiak welcomed everyone and began introductions. II. Operations Planning & TSOP

T. Lidiak kicked-off the meeting by stating that the intent of this Workshop was to describe the Statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP) and Regional Operations Plan (ROP) processes, and to identify the transportation operational needs of the region. Dennis Lebo began the slide show by defining operations according to PennDOT, noting that operations plans assist in identifying technologies, institutional arrangements, and projects that allow transportation systems to operate more closely to their maximum design intent in terms of capacity, speed, safety,


navigation, logistics, and user convenience. He also noted that operations plans are not used for deployment, but for programming purposes. D. Lebo highlighted two important purposes of operations – to improve congestion, and to improve safety. He stated that 60% of the causes of congestion (special events, poor signal timing, bad weather, work zone, and traffic incidents) cannot be solved through adding new lanes. Only operational improvements can address these sources of congestion. He noted that approximately 20% of incidents occur as a result of primary incidents. D. Lebo noted that under the Congestion Strategies developed in the Statewide Mobility Plan, three major options were identified – building additional capacity, reducing demand, and managing capacity. He noted that due to constrained budgets, escalating construction costs, constrained space availability, and limited success in managing demand, the statewide focus is now on managing existing capacity.

D. Lebo noted that the purpose of the statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP) is to set the statewide direction for projects in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and operations. The TSOP identified four key priorities, including building and maintaining a statewide transportation operations foundation, improving highway operational performance, improving safety, and improving security. The TSOP also identified 19 key initiatives, including eight initiatives that have been identified as priority initiatives.

III. ROP Process Overview

T. Lidiak then provided an overview of the Regional Operations Plans (ROPs), stating that the ROP extends the statewide TSOP to the regional level; expands cooperative relationships between regional partners; defines the strategic transportation operations program for the region; and specifies and prioritizes regional operations projects.

He noted that one of the main goals of the ROP is to work with key stakeholders and planning partners in the region to develop and prioritize a list of operations projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long-Range Plan (LRP). T. Lidiak noted that the ROP needs to be completed by July 31, 2007 in order to be included in the 2009 TIP. The ROP will require adoption by the three regional MPOs and will be updated every two years. T. Lidiak reviewed the roles, process, and product of the ROP. He noted that from the client side, Dennis Toomey will provide support from PennDOT District 5-0, Mike Pack will serve as PennDOT Central Office Liaison, and Mike Harris (PB Farradyne) will provide program management support. On the consultant side, T. Lidiak will serve as the Project Manager and Matt Schiemer (Gannett Fleming) will serve as QA/QC Reviewer.

T. Lidiak highlighted seven core processes or tasks required in the implementation of this project:


1. Establish a Regional Operations Forum (ROF). This ROF, or Steering Committee, will serve as a representative, decision-making body of knowledgeable planning partners and key stakeholders across the region to plan and oversee transportation operations, specifically development of the ROP.

2. Conduct Document Reviews and Review of Projects. This task includes the

review of several key documents, such as TSOP, the Pennsylvania Mobility Plan, Region 5’s Regional ITS Architecture, and The Lehigh Valley Early Deployment Plan.

3. Define Regional Needs and Priorities. This effort will consider the general

needs and priorities included in TSOP as a guideline, with the needs and priorities for the region determined through today’s “Needs & Priorities Workshop”.

4. Identify Regional Operations Concepts. For this task, several high-level operations concept(s) will be identified based on the priority areas identified in TSOP. Some, but not all, of the 19 priority areas of TSOP will apply in Region 5. 5. Define Operations Projects. For each TSOP priority area and through each

task force, identify and prioritize the specific projects for each of the “needs” areas.

6. Develop the Regional Program. Develop a program of prioritized projects for

short- and long-term funding and placement in Long-Range Plans (LRPs) and the 2009 TIP.

7. Prepare and Adopt the ROP.

Upon concluding the presentation on TSOP and ROP processes, D. Toomey made follow up remarks underscoring the purpose, need, and importance of effectively advancing this ROP process.

IV. Needs Areas / Needs Identification (from Flip Charts)

The remainder of the meeting focused on identifying operational needs and specific “Needs Areas” for Operations Region 5 that reflected TSOP priorities and regional concerns. As a basis, Mike Harris noted that at some of the other regional ROP Workshops, various “Needs Areas” were identified: � Incident Management Processes and Procedures � Traveler Information � Traffic Signals � Goods Movement � Transit Related ITS Applications

The working discussion on operations needs is described below. These needs were transcribed on several easel pads by the facilitators. They were later reassigned under the Needs Areas below following the meeting. These needs have not been ranked or prioritized.


1. Incident and Emergency Management � IM communication needs to be improved between the State/Local Police,

Emergency Responders, 911 Centers, PERS, EMS, PennDOT, Road Closure Reporting, and CVO distributors

� ITS infrastructure, such as incident detection, cameras, message boards, and highway advisory radio, is currently absent from much of Region 5, including Berks County. Most of the existing infrastructure is concentrated within the Lehigh Valley area

� Significant equipment gaps presently exist along I-78 and other Interstates, including message boards, cameras

� Existing ITS infrastructure within the Lehigh Valley, such as ramp meters and cameras, needs to be maximized

� Physical access for emergency equipment is required along the major Interstates. (For instance, shoulders do not exist along much of I-78 and contributed to the inability of emergency responders to access incidents during the Valentine’s Day event.)

� Service patrols have proven to be very popular and need to be expanded � Incident management plans need to be developed in order to coordinate

the responses of emergency managers and to avoid the confusion experienced during the I-78 Valentines Day event.

2. Communications

� Overall communications systems and protocols need to be established or significantly improved between agencies

� Secondary incidents are a major issue and a communications systems needs to be in place to accelerate the clearance of such incidents

� Communications technologies, such as Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), need to be installed and/or upgraded on transit vehicles

� Communications links need to be improved with the freight community (i.e. truckers) who often are a good first source of information regarding roadway conditions/incidents.

3. Traveler Information

� Traveler information and communications is lacking in most of the Region � Traveler information would have been useful to divert travelers from I-78

during the Valentine’s Day event.

4. Traffic Signals � Traffic signal coordination is needed along designated CMS Corridors � Given that traffic signals are owned and operated by municipalities, multi-

municipal action is required to coordinate traffic signals across municipal borders.

5. Institutional

� Input from regional stakeholders needs to be considered regarding agency co-location plans.

In the course of the Needs discussion, Workshop participants concluded that Communications, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals all fall under the broader topic of Incident Management Processes and Procedures. D. Toomey suggested that participants focus on one main theme of IM Processes and


Procedures and then develop a plan that is usable and executable. In furtherance of this approach, he suggested that for the Task Force meetings the region be divided into Planning Partner areas. The reason put forth was that each of the Planning Partner areas -- Lehigh Valley, Berks County, and Northeastern Pennsylvania -- have their own unique issues and challenges, and secondly, that by hosting the Task Force meetings within these areas, crucial stakeholders will be more likely to attend. D. Toomey also suggested that the overall focus at each of these Task Force meetings should be Incident Management Processes and Procedures, while also addressing Communications, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals. Workshop participants agreed with this approach.

The Task Forces will include the following: 1. Incident Management Processes and Procedures – Lehigh Valley 2. Incident Management Processes and Procedures – Berks County 3. Incident Management Processes and Procedures – NEPA

Joe Gurinko (LVPC) is the point of contact for setting up Lehigh Task Force Group meeting, Alan Piper (BCPC) is the contact for setting up Berks County Task Force Group meeting, and Kurt Bauman is the contact for setting up the NEPA Task Force Group meeting.

V. Next Steps

After the Needs Areas/Needs Identification discussion ended, participants were asked to sign up for Task Force groups based on Planning Partner areas. T. Lidiak mentioned that the purpose of these Task Forces is to refine and prioritize the needs identified today, define operation concepts and linkages amongst stakeholders, and begin to identify projects in support of the operation concept. Task Force Meetings (First Round) Scheduled Dates/Locations: - LVPC - Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 2 – 4 pm, Lehigh Valley Planning Commission offices, 961 Marcon Blvd, Suite 310, Allentown, PA. - Berks County – Thursday, March 22, 2007, 8:30 – 10:30 am, Berks County

Planning Commission, Berks County Services Center, 633 Court Street, 14th

Floor (Conference Room), Reading PA - NEPA – Thursday, March 22, 2007, 1:30 – 3:30 pm, Northeastern

Pennsylvania Alliance, 1151 Oak Street, Pittston PA T. Lidiak stated that he will be contacting Planning Partners and Meeting participants to obtain names of additional stakeholders for the Task Force meetings. This meeting concluded at 11:10 am. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meeting conducted on February 20, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2)


weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, GANNETT FLEMING, INC.

Timothy Lidiak Timothy Lidiak Consultant Project Manager cc: Region 5 ROP Steering Committee


TASK FORCE MEETINGS #1 – Operational Projects Definition PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 Lehigh Valley Task Force (FINAL) March 21, 2007, 2 – 4 pm Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, Allentown, PA Participating Representing Laurie Bailey Lehigh County 9-1-1 Jason Davis LANTA/Metro Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Jim Hunt (by phone) FHWA Amanda Leindecker PennDOT – District 5-0 Tanya Light Lehigh County EMA Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center Michael Pack PennDOT – BHSTE Bob Pento (by phone) PennDOT - BHSTE Glenn F. Reibman DRJTBC John Townsend PennDOT – District 5-0 Thomas Walter PennDOT – District 5-0 Staffing Representing Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming, Inc. Mark Metil Gannett Fleming, Inc. I. Introductions

At 2 pm, Tim Lidiak welcomed the Task Force participants and began introductions.

II. ROP, TSOP, and Statewide Initiatives

T. Lidiak kicked-off the meeting by stating that the intent of the Task Force meetings was to identify the operational concepts and projects of the region. T. Lidiak presented the purpose of the statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP) and the Regional Operations Plans (ROPs), stating that the ROP extends the statewide TSOP to the regional level; expands cooperative relationships between regional partners; defines the strategic transportation operations program for the region; and specifies and prioritizes regional operations projects.

He noted that one of the main goals of the ROP is to work with key stakeholders and planning partners in the region to develop and prioritize a list of operations projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long-Range Plan (LRP).


T. Lidiak noted that the ROP needs to be completed by July 31, 2007 in order to be included in the 2009 TIP. The ROP will require adoption by the three regional MPOs and will be updated every two years. T. Lidiak highlighted seven core processes or tasks required in the implementation of this project:

1. Establish a Regional Operations Forum (ROF). 2. Conduct Document Reviews and Review of Projects. 3. Define Regional Needs and Priorities. 4. Identify Regional Operations Concepts. 5. Define Operations Projects. 6. Develop the Regional Program. 7. Prepare and Adopt the ROP.

Upon concluding the presentation on TSOP and ROP processes, M. Metil provided an overview of three Statewide Initiatives related to Incident Management, Traveler Information, and Signal Study Implementation.

III. Existing Region 5-0 ITS Infrastructure and Identified Key Operational Needs T. Walter of PennDOT District 5-0 presented an overview of existing Region 5-0 ITS infrastructure and field elements. T. Lidiak then presented the Operational Needs identified by stakeholders at Workshop #1:

1. Incident and Emergency Management � Communications between Police, ERs, 911 Centers, PERS, EMS,

PennDOT, Road Closure Reporting, and CVO distributors needs improvement

� ITS infrastructure is absent from much of Region 5 � Significant equipment gaps presently exist along I-78 and other Interstates � Existing ITS infrastructure within the Lehigh Valley needs to be maximized � Service patrols are very popular and need to be expanded � IM plans need to be developed to coordinate responses of emergency

managers

2. Communications � Overall inter-agency communications systems/protocols require

improvement � Communications systems required to accelerate clearance of secondary

incidents � Communications technologies need installation/upgrade on transit vehicles � Communications links need to be improved with the freight community

3. Traveler Information � Traveler Information and communications is lacking in most of the Region � TI would have been useful to divert travelers during the Valentine’s Day

event


4. Traffic Signals � Traffic signal coordination is needed along designated CMS Corridors � Multi-municipal action is required to coordinate traffic signals across

borders

5. Institutional � Input from regional stakeholders to be considered regarding co-location

plans

IV. Identification of Operational Concepts & Projects T. Lidiak stated that the core purpose of the Task Force meetings is to begin identifying those operational concepts and projects that may effectively address the key operational needs identified in Workshop #1. He highlighted the following guidelines to follow for this process: Operations Concepts � Define a regional operations concept for each needs area. � The operations concept should show:

- The relevant linkages among stakeholders - The types of information to pass between stakeholders, and - The direction in which information will flow

Operations Projects � Identify projects that implement the operations concept � Projects may be regional in scope or localized � Projects should build on TSOP initiatives Projects and be thoroughly defined � Projects should be prioritized within each needs area

In all three Task Force meetings, participants proceeded to identify operational concepts and projects for the Lehigh Valley, Berks County, and Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The operational concepts and projects identified at the three Task Force Meetings are listed below: � Improve partnerships between traffic management agencies and local

television stations for informing travelers of major incidents and traffic delays. � Provide Flashing Beacons (that can be activated by the Traffic Management

Center) to alert motorists of urgent messages on Highway Advisory Radio (HAR).

� Implement a statewide 800 Megahertz (MHz) radio system for traffic and

emergency management agencies to improve communications and information flow. Secure the required funding for smaller agencies to obtain the 800 MHz radio technology.

� Improve communications processes and procedures between agencies for the

notification of roadway incidents. In particular, a communications protocol needs to be developed between the Pennsylvania State Police and the county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents.


� Investigate the potential for co-locating the local Pennsylvania State Police

(PSP) traffic operations with the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center. Consider locating District 5-0 TOC personnel at the PSP Traffic Center.

� Provide mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), for

PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel to communicate with the Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies.

� Expand Emergency Service Patrol operations in the Lehigh Valley area to

complete the geographic “loop”; expand the existing fleet of three vehicles to five vehicles, and provide additional operating times outside of the existing AM and PM peak-hour coverage.

� Consider deploying Regional Traffic Management Center (RTMC) personnel in

Philadelphia to the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center to assist in operations (upon the activation of the RTMC Interim Environment).

� Display real-time travel times on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) initially along

I-78 and then expand along Route 22 and Route 33. � Investigate the capability, capacity, and authority of Emergency Management

Agencies to preempt or override regular radio programming with urgent emergency or traffic-related messaging.

� Implement smaller-scale, lower-cost Variable Message Signs (VMS) and

Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) monitored by CCTV to fill in existing gaps within the urbanized areas of the Lehigh Valley.

� Utilize Variable Advertising Signs to post emergency messaging. � Consolidate Traveler Information into one web site.

V. Next Steps

T. Lidiak stated that the Next Steps will include the following tasks: 1. Distribute the Task Force Meeting #1 Meeting Minutes and List of Operational

Concepts and Projects to all attendees for review so as to accurately reflect what was conveyed at Meeting #1.

2. Refine the List of Operational Concepts and Projects. 3. Prepare a draft List of Candidate Projects based on the refined List of

Concepts and Projects. These Candidate Projects will be categorized according to the 19 TSOP Initiatives. For each project, the List would contain columns for the Candidate ROP Project, a description of its components, its implementation status, the lead implementation agent(s), the level of effort


required to implement (minimal, moderate, complex), cost range, and implementation timeline (1-2 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years).

4. Distribute the List of Candidate Projects to all Project Stakeholders for review

and comment. 5. Bring the Stakeholders from all three geographic regions together for

Workshop #2 for the purpose of prioritizing the Candidate Projects. This meeting will be scheduled for mid- to late-May 2007.

6. Schedule a final Workshop (Regional Operations Forum) in June 2007 for the

purpose of sorting out the prioritized Candidate Projects according to MPO/RPO.

This meeting concluded at 4:00 pm. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meetings conducted on March 21, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2) weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting.


Timothy Lidiak Timothy Lidiak Consultant Project Manager


PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 Berks County Task Force (FINAL) March 22, 2007, 8:30 – 10 am Berks County Planning Commission, Reading, PA Participating Representing Kristin Egresits PennDOT Program Center Lt. Frank Fetterolf PSP – Reading Patrol Section Michael Golembiewski Berks County Planning Commission Jim Hunt (by phone) FHWA Matt McGough Berks County Planning Commission Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center Michael Pack (by phone) PennDOT - BHSTE Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission George Tomaszewski PennDOT – District 5-0 Dennis Toomey PennDOT – District 5-0 John Townsend PennDOT – District 5-0 Thomas Walter PennDOT – District 5-0 Jeff Weidner Berks County EMA Staffing Representing Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming, Inc. Mark Metil Gannett Fleming, Inc. I. Introductions

At 8:30 am, Tim Lidiak welcomed the Task Force participants and began introductions.



He noted that one of the main goals of the ROP is to work with key stakeholders and planning partners in the region to develop and prioritize a list of operations projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long-Range Plan (LRP). T. Lidiak noted that the ROP needs to be completed by July 31, 2007 in order to be included in the 2009 TIP. The ROP will require adoption by the three regional MPOs and will be updated every two years.






1. Incident and Emergency Management � Communications between Police, ERs, 911 Centers, PERS, EMS,

PennDOT, Road Closure Reporting, and CVO distributors needs improvement


managers





event

4. Traffic Signals � Traffic signal coordination is needed along designated CMS Corridors


� Multi-municipal action is required to coordinate traffic signals across borders

5. Institutional

� Input from regional stakeholders to be considered regarding co-location plans

IV. Identification of Operational Concepts & Projects T. Lidiak stated that the core purpose of the Task Force meetings is to begin identifying those operational concepts and projects that may effectively address the key operational needs identified in Workshop #1. He highlighted the following guidelines to follow for this process: Operations Concepts � Define a regional operations concept for each needs area. � The operations concept should show:




The operational concepts and projects identified at the three Task Force Meetings are listed in the attached document:

� Increase the number of Variable Message Signs (VMS) and Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) along I-78, Route 61, I-176, Route 222, and Route 422.

� Expand camera and CCTV coverage along I-78, Route 61, I-76 (PA Turnpike),

Route 222, and Route 422. � Install Flashing Beacons alerting motorists of HAR (1630 AM) at major County

entrances and interchanges. � Evaluate the need for an expansion of the Emergency Service Patrols to I-78 in

Berks County. This evaluation should involve identifying the number and locations of incidents along I-78 and US 422, and if Service Patrols are so warranted, implement a limited-term pilot program.

� Investigate the capability, capacity, and authority of Emergency Management

Agencies (EMAs) to preempt or override commercial media programming with urgent emergency or traffic-related messaging.


� Explore the use of ramp gates along limited access roadways. � Expand the use of 800 Megahertz (MHz) radio systems to emergency

responders statewide (once the 800 MHz system is adopted by the PSP). � Investigate potential for co-location of Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and

PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center staff. Consider deployment of PennDOT District 5-0 TOC staff to PSP Barracks.

� Support ongoing co-location efforts between the Berks County Emergency

Management Agency and the Berks County 911 Center to share staffing, data feeds, incident response, information gathering, and web-based portal applications. Funding of cameras and traffic monitoring infrastructure may be available from the FHWA CMAQ program (with Berks County as the sponsor) and from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (with Berks County EMA as the sponsor.)

� Evaluate needs, applications, and uses of Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) data

and technologies for BARTA’s bus operations. � Update the Berks County Incident Management (IM) Plan through a collaborative

and inclusive approach, involving Berks County Planning Commission, PennDOT District 5-0, and Berks County EMA. The IM Plan should incorporate an understanding of pre-determined roadway routing. IM plans should be developed for Route 222 South, Route 422, I-76, Route 61, with an update provided for I-78.

� Provide Berks County EMA with access to information and data from camera and

CCTV (“situational awareness”) along I-78, I-176, Route 422, and Route 222. � Coordinate multi-municipal traffic signal timings along Route 422 West. � VMS (Variable Message Signs), CMS (Changeable Message Signs) - (Structure-

Mounted or Trailer-Mounted): - I-78 EB Prior to Route 625 on District 8 Structure (MM 9) - I-78 EB Prior to Route 61 (MM 27) - I-78 EB Prior to Route 737 (MM 38) - I-78 WB Prior to Route 737 (MM 42.5) - I-78 WB Prior to Route 143 (MM 34) - I-78 WB Prior to Route 183 (MM 21) - Implement Concrete Pads / Electric Phone Service at CMS Locations on I-78 - I-176 NB Prior to Route 10 (MM .5) - I-176 NB Prior to Route 724 (MM 8) - I-176 SB Prior to Route 10 (MM 5) - Route 222 SB Prior to Route 222 Business - Route 222 SB Prior to Route 12 - Route 222 SB Prior to Route 724


- Route 222 NB Prior to Route 568 - Route 222 NB Prior to Route 222 Business - Route 222 NB Prior to Route 12 - Route 222 NB Prior to Route 61 - Route 422 WB Prior to Route 662 - Route 422 WB Prior to Route 422 Business - Route 422 WB Prior to Route 222 Business - Route 422 WB Prior to Route 12 - Route 422 EB Prior to Route 222 - Route 422 EB Prior to Route 222 Business - Route 422 EB Prior to I-176 - Route 422 EB Prior to Route 82

� CCTV (Closed Curcuit Television Cameras):

- I-78 / Route 737 Interchange (MM 40) - I-78 / Route 143 Interchange (MM 35) - I-78 / Route 61 Interchange (MM 29) - I-78 / Route 183 Interchange (MM 19) - I-78 / Route 645 Interchange (MM 10) - I-176 / Route 422 Interchange (MM 11) - I-176 / Route 10 Interchange (MM 7) - I-176 / Route 10 Interchange (MM 1) - Route 222 / Route 222 Business / Park Road Interchange - Route 222 / Route 61 Interchange - Route 222 / Route 183 Interchange - Route 222 / Route 422 / Route 12 Interchange - Route 222 / Route 724 Interchange - Route 222 / Route 222 Business Interchange - Route 222 / Route 568 Interchange - Route 422 / Route 222 Business / Route 10 Interchange - Route 422 / Route 422 Business Interchange

� Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) Beacons:

- I-78 EB at Lebanon / Berks County Line - I-78 EB West of Route 61 - I-78 WB East of Route 737 - I-78 WB East of Route 61 - Route 61 NB Prior to I-78 - Route 61 SB Prior to I-78 - Upgrade HAR to Permanent Sites – Four (4) Locations


V. Next Steps




Concepts and Projects. These Candidate Projects will be categorized according to the 19 TSOP Initiatives. For each project, the List would contain columns for the Candidate ROP Project, a description of its components, its implementation status, the lead implementation agent(s), the level of effort required to implement (minimal, moderate, complex), cost range, and implementation timeline (1-2 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years).






This meeting concluded at 10:30 am. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meetings conducted on March 22, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2) weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting.




PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 Northeastern Pennsylvania Task Force (FINAL) March 22, 2007 @ 1:30 – 3:30 pm Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, Pittston, PA Participating Representing Kurt Bauman Northeast Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) Howard J. Grossman NJG Associates (rep. Pocono Vacation Bureau) Bruce Henry Monroe County EMA Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center Carey R. Mullins PennDOT District 5-0 Matt Neeb Monroe County Planning Commission Michael Pack (by phone) PennDOT – BHSTE Bob Pento (by phone) PennDOT – BHSTE Stephen W. Simchak Carbon County Planning Dennis Toomey PennDOT – District 5-0 John Townsend PennDOT – District 5-0 Thomas Walter PennDOT – District 5-0 Joseph Wydock PSP – Troup N Staffing Representing Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming, Inc. Mark Metil Gannett Fleming, Inc. I. Introductions

At 1:30 pm, Tim Lidiak welcomed the Task Force participants and began introductions.



He noted that one of the main goals of the ROP is to work with key stakeholders and planning partners in the region to develop and prioritize a list of operations projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long-Range Plan (LRP). T. Lidiak noted that the ROP needs to be completed by July 31, 2007 in order to be included in the 2009 TIP. The ROP will require adoption by the three regional MPOs and will be updated every two years.






1. Incident and Emergency Management

� Communications between Police, ERs, 911 Centers, PERS, EMS, PennDOT, Road Closure Reporting, and CVO distributors needs improvement


managers





event

4. Traffic Signals � Traffic signal coordination is needed along designated CMS Corridors


� Multi-municipal action is required to coordinate traffic signals across borders

5. Institutional

� Input from regional stakeholders to be considered regarding co-location plans

IV. Identification of Operational Concepts & Projects

T. Lidiak stated that the core purpose of the Task Force meetings is to begin identifying those operational concepts and projects that may effectively address the key operational needs identified in Workshop #1. He highlighted the following guidelines to follow for this process: Operations Concepts � Define a regional operations concept for each needs area. � The operations concept should show:




The operational concepts and projects identified at the three Task Force Meetings are listed in the attached document: � Install mile markers along I-80, I-380, I-81, and Route 33. � Install fog detection systems and variable speed limit triggering systems in

Schuylkill County. � Evaluate the need for Emergency Service Patrols along I-80 in the Stroudsburg

– NJ area. If a need is determined, implement a pilot program during the summer months.

� Improve coordination between PennDOT, DRJTBC, and New Jersey Transit in

alerting bus commuter operators and motorists along I-80 (who are arriving / departing from NJT Rail Transit stations) of roadway and bridge conditions.

� Improve coordination between PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike

Commission in the management and operations of Dynamic Message Signs. � Improve overall Incident Management and Traveler Information systems along

I-80 to facilitate the heavy eastbound traffic (of empty) trucks traveling east on


Sundays, the heavy westbound traffic (of loaded) trucks traveling west on Fridays, and the heavy weekend passenger traffic traveling west on Fridays and east on Sundays during warm weather months.

� Install cameras along I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap crossing and share this

data with DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and TV Stations. Also, provide real-time information on Dynamic Message Signs, including travel times and causes of congestion.

� Coordinate with operators of major trip generators, such as Humbolt Industrial

Park (operated by Can-Do) to become more pro-actively involved in addressing and solving employee mobility, and freight movement, issues.

� Identify and evaluate locations for Emergency Response vehicle crossovers

along I-81 (northbound and south of I-80). � Disseminate traveler information to visitors to entertainment venues (i.e. Mt.

Laurel Center for Performing Arts) and recreational destinations (i.e. Lehigh Gap Nature Center) prior to trip highlighting parking, bus shuttle, and roadway routing opportunities, and encourage major venues and destinations to pre-plan transportation operations for upcoming events, as exemplified by the operators of Hershey Park.

� Engage the project developer (Wolfington) of the Pike County Residential

Community (4,500 residents + commercial activities) to develop and implement strategies for minimizing transportation impacts to adjacent communities and uses.

� Implement an Interstate Road Closure system that provides information on

routing patterns for vehicular traffic and getting emergency responders to incidents.

� Improve public understanding of emergency evacuation, and incident

management, systems, such as the Blue Detour system, and encourage more detailed pre-planning, ongoing forums, and the development of protocols, hierarchy, and formalized plans for such systems. The existing Regional ITS Architecture for PennDOT Region 5 (February 2005), which is based on a FHWA mandate to incorporate all potential stakeholders and users, provides the framework and the lines of interrelationships and communications for developing regional ITS systems.

� Adjust traffic signal timings on adjacent corridors to I-81 to facilitate traffic

movement when I-81 is affected by roadway incidents. Consider I-81 as a future pilot effort for the Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Pilot Effort.

� Provide county Emergency Management Agencies (EMAs) with media override

authority for commercial radio and TV to post announcements related to major emergencies and roadway incidents.


� Provide Variable Message Signs (VMS), Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), and Changeable Message Signs (CMS) coverage at strategic interchange locations along I-81, I-80, and Route 380.

� Promote the use of 800 Megahertz (MHz) radio systems statewide for traffic

and emergency management agencies to improve communications and information flow.

� Ensure close coordination between all appropriate stakeholders, including

PennDOT District 5-0, Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Pocono Mountains Visitors Bureau, New Jersey DOT, New Jersey Transit, county EMAs and 911 Centers, local media, and private developers.

V. Next Steps




Concepts and Projects. These Candidate Projects will be categorized according to the 19 TSOP Initiatives. For each project, the List would contain columns for the Candidate ROP Project, a description of its components, its implementation status, the lead implementation agent(s), the level of effort required to implement (minimal, moderate, complex), cost range, and implementation timeline (1-2 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years).






The meetings concluded at 3:30 pm. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meetings conducted on March 22, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2) weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Sincerely, GANNETT FLEMING, INC.



TASK FORCE MEETING #2 – Operational Projects Prioritization PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 Task Force Meeting #2 (FINAL) May 31, 2007, 1:30 – 4 pm Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, Allentown, PA Participating Representing Kurt Bauman Northeast Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Bruce Henry Monroe County EMA Amanda Leindecker PennDOT – District 5-0 Donald Lerch PennDOT – District 5-0 Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center Matt Neeb Monroe County Planning Commission Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission Glenn F. Reibman DRJTBC Mathilda Sheptak Pocono Mountain Visitors Bureau Stephen W. Simchak Carbon County Planning George Tomaszewski PennDOT – District 5-0 Dennis Toomey PennDOT – District 5-0 Jeffrey Weidner Berks County EMA Lt. Dirk F. Yahraes PSP – Troup M Staffing Representing Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming, Inc. Mark Metil Gannett Fleming, Inc. I. Introductions

Tim Lidiak welcomed the Task Force participants and began introductions. II. Brief Overview of TSOP & ROP

T. Lidiak kicked-off the meeting by stating that the intent of this second Task Force meeting was to prioritize the regional operational concepts and projects identified at the first round of Task Force meetings. T. Lidiak presented the purpose of the statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP) and the Regional Operations Plans (ROPs). He stated that the TSOP, which is a recommendation of the statewide long-range (25-year) transportation plan (“Mobility Plan”), sets the statewide direction and goals for projects in ITS and operations. The TSOP proposed nineteen separate and detailed initiatives. The ROP extends the statewide TSOP to the regional level; expands cooperative relationships between regional partners; defines the strategic transportation operations program for the region; and specifies and prioritizes regional operations projects.


He noted that one of the main goals of the ROP is to work with key stakeholders and planning partners in the region to develop and prioritize a list of operations projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long-Range Plan (LRP). T. Lidiak noted that the ROP needs to be completed by July 31, 2007 in order to be included in the 2009 TIPs. The ROP will require adoption by the three regional MPOs and will be updated every two years.

III. Region 5 ROP Status T. Lidiak noted that the ROP is multi-step process which includes the following major efforts:

1. Define Regional Needs, Needs Areas, and Priorities 2. Identify Regional Operations Concepts and Projects 3. Prioritize Regional Operations Projects 4. Develop the Regional Program – Prepare Prioritized Projects for the TIP and

UPWP 5. Prepare and Adopt the ROP.

T. Lidiak noted that Workshop #1, which corresponded to Step #1 above, defined operational needs areas as the following: � Incident Management Processes and Procedures � Interagency Communications and Coordination � Traveler Information � Traffic Signals Task Force Meeting #1, which corresponded to Step #2 above, identified and defined regional operational projects. The following list of candidate operational projects was identified at this meeting: A. Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols B. Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Management Plans C. Develop / Update Incident Management Plans D. Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region E. Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes F. Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies G. Identify Existing ITS Equipment Gaps H. Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing I. Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System J. Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services K. Investigate Co-Location of Operations L. Investigate Preemption of Media Programming M. Consolidate TI into One Web Site N. Implement Real-Time Travel Time Information O. Institute Real-Time Transit Information P. Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI Q. Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors to Freeways.


IV. Prioritization of Candidate Operational Projects T. Lidiak stated that the focus of today’s meeting, corresponding to Step #3 above, is to prioritize the candidate list of projects identified at Task Force Meeting #1 and listed above.

T. Lidiak presented a list of candidate projects for review. These projects were categorized according to major TSOP Needs Areas (previously defined in Workshop #1), which included Incident Management Processes and Procedures, Interagency Communications and Coordination, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals. For each project, the list contained columns for the Candidate ROP Project, project description and components, its implementation status, the lead implementation stakeholders + agent, the level of effort required to implement (simple, moderate, complex), cost range ($0 - $50K, $50K - $250K, $250K - $1M, $1M - $10M, and >$10M), and implementation timeline (1-2 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years). T. Lidiak then asked Task Force meeting participants to review the list and to rate each of the candidate ROP projects for need, importance, and urgency to the region based on a numerical score of 1 – 5 (with 5 signifying the greatest need, importance, and urgency, and 1 having the lowest.) Task Force meeting participants then spent approximately twenty minutes rating each of the candidate ROP projects. Upon completion, T. Lidiak and M. Metil inputed each participant’s score in a spreadsheet, and then presented the cumulative totals* at the meeting: ROP

# Proposed ROP Project

Priority Rating

A Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 59 B Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare TMPs 53 C Develop / Update Incident Management Plans 61 D Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region 44 E Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes 52 F Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 46 G Identify Existing ITS Equipment Gaps 66 H Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 45.5 I Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System 39 J Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 53 K Investigate Co-Location of Operations 46 L Investigate Preemption of Media Programming 32.5 M Consolidate TI into One Web Site 51 N Implement Real-Time Travel Time Information 54 O Institute Real-Time Transit Information 44 P Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI 41 Q Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors 58

*(These results also included project scoring provided by Mike Pack, who was not present at Task Force Meeting #2.)


The prioritized results are as follows:

ROP #

Proposed ROP Project Priority Rating

G Identify Existing ITS Equipment Gaps 66 C Develop / Update Incident Management Plans 61 A Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 59 Q Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors 58 N Implement Real-Time Travel Time Information 54 J Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 53 B Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare TMPs 53 E Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes 52 M Consolidate TI into One Web Site 51 F Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 46 K Investigate Co-Location of Operations 46 H Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 45.5 D Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region 44 O Institute Real-Time Transit Information 44 P Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI 41 I Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System 39 L Investigate Preemption of Media Programming 32.5

V. Project Schedule & Next Steps

T. Lidiak stated that the Next Steps will include the following tasks: 1. Distribute the Task Force Meeting #2 Meeting Minutes and List of Prioritized

Operational Concepts and Projects to all participants for review. 2. Schedule Steering Committee Workshop #2 (Regional Operations Forum) in

June 2007 for the purpose of reviewing Task Force Meeting #2 results and preparing the prioritized Candidate Project List for inclusion in three regional TIPs and UPWPs.

This meeting concluded at 3:30 pm. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meeting conducted on May 31, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2) weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting.




WORKSHOP # 2 – Field Device Prioritization PennDOT Planning Services and Implementation Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 Workshop (ROF) #2 June 11, 2007, 1:30 – 4 pm Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, Allentown, PA Participating Representing Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Amanda Leindecker PennDOT – District 5-0 Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission Dennis Toomey PennDOT – District 5-0 Tom Walter PennDOT – District 5-0 Staffing Representing Tim Lidiak Gannett Fleming, Inc. Michael Harris Parsons Brinkerhoff I. Introductions

Michael Harris welcomed the Steering Committee members to Workshop #2 and began introductions. Tim Lidiak stated that the purpose of this Workshop was to review Task Force Meeting #2 results, prepare the prioritized Candidate Project List for inclusion in the three regional TIPs, and prioritize the deployment of field devices.

II. Region 5 ROP Status Tim Lidiak presented the outcomes of Task Force Meeting #2 which involved the following prioritization of the Candidate Operational Projects: 1. Identify Existing ITS Equipment Gaps - 66 2. Develop / Update Incident Management Plans - 61 3. Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols – 59 4. Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors – 58 5. Implement Real-Time Travel Time Information - 54 6. Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare TMPs – 53 7. Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services - 53 8. Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes - 52 9. Consolidate TI into One Web Site - 51 10. Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies - 46 11. Investigate Co-Location of Operations - 46 12. Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing – 45.6 13. Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region - 44 14. Institute Real-Time Transit Information - 44 15. Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI - 41 16. Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System - 39 17. Investigate Preemption of Media Programming – 32.5


III. Preparation of Candidate Project List for Inclusion in TIPs In discussing the preparation of candidate projects for inclusion into the regional

TIPs, Alan Piper stated that Berks County will focus on early deployment planning and developing and updating Incident Management Plans and Procedures. He stated that a consultant should potentially be contracted to bring County stakeholders and agencies together, assess capabilities, manage task forces, facilitate the execution of the IM Plan, and implement field devices.

A. Piper stated that I-78 and the urbanized areas of the County (i.e. City of Reading) should be a high priority for any prioritized ITS technologies.

Joe Gurinko stated that ITS technologies are in place in the Lehigh Valley that are

not being utilized. He stated that in terms of priority, LVPC should focus on extending operating hours with the existing freeway service patrol system.

IV. Prioritization of Field Device Deployment

Upon initial discussion of prioritizing field devices for deployment throughout the region, it was decided that more time than was allotted for this meeting was required to complete this task. Meeting participants agreed that PennDOT District 5-0 staff and the ROP contractors should meet separately with each of the MPOs to prioritize ITS field devices for future deployment.

V. Project Schedule & Next Steps

T. Lidiak stated that the Next Steps will include meeting with each of the three MPOs to further prepare the Candidate Projects List for inclusion in the TIPs and to prioritize ITS field devices for future deployment.

This meeting concluded at 4:30 pm. These meeting minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meeting conducted on June 11, 2007. Any revisions or additions to these meeting minutes should be sent to my attention within two (2) weeks of receipt. At that time they will become the final official version of the meeting.



rop region 5 final report 10-19-2007 5_final_re… · • cpl. carol sherland pennsylvania state...

Documents