Richard Sesny Douglas Tomlinson Information Technology Program Office

Transcription

1 PENNDOT PLANNING SERVICES AND IMPLEMENTATION Transportation Systems Operations Plan 2007 Workshop February 21, 2007 Keystone Building, Harrisburg, Room 125 PARTICIPATING REPRESENTING Randall Brink District 1-0 Thomas McClelland District 1-0 Michael Baglio District 2-0 Dennis Prestash District 2-0 Jeff Walker District 2-0 Tim Wentz District 3-0 Matt Swartz District 3-0 Ron Bonacci District 4-0 Keith Williams District 4-0 Dennis Toomey District 5-0 Tom Walter District 5-0 Lou Belmonte District 6-0 Manny Anastasiadis District 6-0 Jason Bewley District 8-0 Richard Deen District 8-0 Scott Nazar District 8-0 Paul Koza District 10-0 Dave Tomaswick District 10-0 Todd Kravits District 11-0 Frank Cippel District 11-0 Jason Previte District 11-0 Rachel Duda District 12-0 Robb Dean District 12-0 Steven Koser BHSTE William Laubach BHSTE Girish Modi BHSTE Brenda Murphy BHSTE Mike Pack BHSTE Robert Pento BHSTE Craig Reed BHSTE Glenn Rowe BHSTE Richard Sesny BHSTE Douglas Tomlinson BHSTE Jay Bodenstein Information Technology Program Office Jim Hunt FHWA Michael Harris PB Steve Buckley PB Ryan Long PB Joel Ticatch Telvent Farradyne Erik Balsley CHPlanning TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 1 of 21

2 PennDOT TSOP 2007 Workshop Agenda February 21, 2007 Keystone Building, Harrisburg Room 125 9:30 AM to 3:00 PM Welcome and Introductions Opening Address Planning and Deployment Context General Discussion Operations Progress Break Overview: Advancing the Operations Infrastructure o Operations Command Centers o Roadway Surveillance and Response o Communications/Coordination o Data and Performance o Organizing for Operations Break-Out: Operations Command Centers Working Lunch ITS America Video Presentation Plenary Discussion o Roadway Surveillance and Response o Communications/Coordination o Data and Performance Break Break-Out: Organizing for Operations Discussion - Selected Program Areas Closing Remarks Adjourn TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 2 of 21

3 The meeting started at 9:33AM. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Joel Ticatch and Mike Harris identified the purpose of the meeting, which was to initiate the process of updating the Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP). It was noted that the original TSOP, adopted by PennDOT in 2005, was the first systematic attempt to consolidate transportation operations efforts in Pennsylvania. Mr. Ticatch noted that TSOP is scheduled to be updated every two years. The next update TSOP 2007 will build on the outputs of the Regional Operations Plans (ROPs) and will be continue with the discussion heard today as well as additional sessions throughout the spring and summer. TSOP 2007, which is expected to be completed next fall, will serve as a blueprint for operations planning and programming at the statewide level, yet also reflect the goals of each District and region. OPENING ADDRESS Craig Reed from BHSTE welcomed the group and led it through a brief PowerPoint presentation to set the context and tone for the meeting. He noted that he was going to over the leadership direction of the TSOP program. He noted that there were four main BHSTE operations areas: - Traveler Information, - Work Zones, - Traffic Signals, and - Incident Management Traveler Information Mr. Reed stated that traveler information is a cost-effective mechanism for providing information on weather, road conditions, incidents, construction, emergencies, lodging, transit, and tourism to motorists. The presentation next addressed targets for TSOP. He noted that it was desirable to have a website set up by 2008 and to have a 511 information system in place by He noted these were ambitious goals and that challenges to reaching these goals included increased data-collection and timely dissemination of information. He used the example of last week s weather event on I-78 to illustrate this difficulty. Work Zones Mr. Reed noted that additional efforts to improve worker visibility and utilize traffic control devices in order to meet the requirements of Subpart J of the Work Zone rule by October TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 3 of 21

4 He stated that planning for roadway projects must now include traffic management from project onset. He also noted that PennDOT was working on identifying a significant project where traffic management could be addressed at a regional level. Mr. Reed explained the importance of using new ITS technologies to get good metrics on safety and mobility in relation to work zones. As an example he noted potential research into using license plate readers to get a pulse on how traffic is flowing and to measure delays associated with work zones. He also noted the need to better link this information back to District traffic management centers. Traffic Signals Mr. Reed noted that steps are being taken to better maintain and modernize traffic signals in the Commonwealth. He said that a signal asset management system was being developed along with linkages to district transportation management centers (TMCs,). He also said steps were being taken to implement multi-municipal agreements to better manage signals at a regional level and improve signal timings. Incident Management Mr. Reed said that incident management offered the opportunity to tie the previously described efforts together. Regardless of whether the scenario involves weather, terrorism, or natural disaster, effective coordination and timely response are paramount to managing incidents. He further stressed the importance of having an Incident Command System based on established policies and procedures among Districts and government agencies. The presentation continued with a discussion on the role of the TMC as a central anchor point during an incident. The TMC was described as a location in which information about incidents would be shared within a District and also between Districts and the Statewide TMC. A key piece of this strategy might be the potential co-location of trained emergency response personnel in the TMCs. Statewide Operations Program Mr. Reed noted the Statewide operations program would offer an opportunity to pull all four operations areas together. The first is to employ traffic management software statewide. He noted that Districts 2 and 9 use such software and the State is looking at this as an opportunity to expand uniform and consistent ATMS software to each District TMC. Such software would also allow the Central office to update variable message signs (VMS s), etc., as needed, when incidents move beyond a single District or to a Statewide level. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 4 of 21

5 Mr. Reed said it was the intent of the State to move to 24/7 operations at the Regional Transportation Management Centers (RTMCs) by This timetable includes two fully-operational 24/7 RTMCs and a combination RTMC/Statewide TMC. Mr. Reed referenced the fact that District 11 just received authorization to begin 24/7 operations. He noted that the Central Office and Districts are undergoing an evaluation of strategic ITS equipment gaps. ITS Device Maintenance It was observed that Districts were struggling to keep ITS equipment maintained and there was a need to develop statewide standards for procurement of equipment. Performance Metrics Mr. Reed said there was a focus on developing performance metrics at the state level. He said there was a need to get meaningful data that represents roadway performance. Mr. Reed then mentioned some of the efforts underway at BHSTE to implement cell phone probe technology in the Commonwealth to monitor real-time congestion conditions and provide travel time estimates. Transportation Funding and Reform Commission (TFRC) Mr. Reed noted that BHSTE was actively engaged in the commission s work. He said that numbers for operations were put into the department s proposal so that operations would receive a portion of new funding. The figures were $83 million for operations and $60 million for traffic signals. He said that the commission was looking at additional funds to be generated by the oil gross profits tax, primarily for transit for highways, and prospective privatization of the Turnpike. Summary As the Department moves to update TSOP, Mr. Reed said that greater participation, feedback, and guidance from the Districts are needed. He noted the TSOP 2007 statewide plan would be right-sized and consistent with regional and local operations needs. He also reminded the participants that the TSOP process is ongoing and that updates will be at two-year intervals. He ended by noting that the current effort provides an opportunity to link and align Regional Operation Plans to TSOP Discussion following the presentation centered on several topics: The need to involve planning partners in the development of Regional Operations Plans. The determination that the figures provided by the TFRC would cover the annual costs for a 10 year program. The need for staff development and training. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 5 of 21

6 PLANNING AND DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT Mr. Ticatch presented the planning and deployment context for TSOP It was noted that PennDOT s operations program is not just a Central Office endeavor; rather, there is a need for input, insights, and participation from the Districts to develop the new TSOP. He likewise emphasized the importance of mainstreaming operations back through the regions and Districts. He also observed that today is the start of an ongoing dialogue that will continue over the next few months and culminate in adoption of TSOP Context Mr. Harris provided the group with some context for the TSOP process. He stated that the first TSOP was undertaken two years ago. He noted that the nine Regional Operations Plan efforts currently underway would feed into TSOP, but also said that there would be opportunities for input from other groups: other ADEs, planning partners (such as MPOs and RPOs), and external stakeholders. A key challenge for TSOP is that it involves a paradigm change in operations mindset for PennDOT. Mr. Harris said that TSOP started as an executive goal. GENERAL DISCUSSION OPERATIONS PROGRESS The next part of the TSOP Workshop focused on how PennDOT s Operations program was progressing and Mr. Harris then asked the group to share their thoughts on TSOP progress to date. Easel Notes from Operations Progress Deployment - Fast No standards for field deployment Contractor issues Consistency Standards - PennDOT design Integration System & equipment reliability Standardization Integration of evolving hardware o Too much trial-and-error o Reliability issue for vendors More guidance from Central Office Certification process Funding Communications network Functional requirements Specs & Plans from peers Maintenance $$ Equipment life-cycle $$ Replacement Peer-to-peer ( ) Central guide Procedures/process-based ITS statewide meeting Economies-of-scale on standardization Asset Management System (to track equipment) Contractual Issues Should there be a Statewide Maintenance Contract? Maintenance Contracts Sole-source Inspection Local/regional (cross-jurisdictional) Districts) Statewide TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 6 of 21

7 Standards and Best Practices One meeting participant noted there were no standards in place on how to install ITS devices Easel Notes from Operations Progress Cont d. Zero Inventory and the difficulties this caused when 24 VMS s VMS-Signs were installed on I-80. Others echoed this Policy concern and noted difficulties in dealing with Preparedness/Readiness at the District installation contractors due to lack of standards Needs to improve for installation and design and said they wanted Zero inventory is current policy to ensure proper installation statewide. It was Human Resources noted that TSOP-03 involves development of a People! list for ITS equipment that should be deployed. Training Incident Management Some meeting participants mentioned there is a Statewide Policy need for functional requirements so that hardware in the field can work with existing Trucks County Offices software. A disconnect between Inconsistencies between regions NTCIP-compliance and what is needed for Snow command in TMC software was noted. The discussion also noted Best PracticesD6 that specifications for ITS could potentially get Inconsistency between Districts done quickly if effort was taken to bring together Maintenance crews existing District plans. This could be done at a statewide ITS meeting and allow specifications Contracting for SSP (D11 staff) D6, D5-1 year limit (2-1 year options) and standards to be developed from peers, which Extend options - D11 would minimize the involvement of consultants. BHSTE-List Serve ( ) Standardize Also the discussion turned towards the need to Statewide software develop benchmarks for operations. A meeting o Track SSP participant noted that it might be useful to look at District-Employed Maintenance other states. Staff needed Contractor response an issue Maintenance and Reliability Permanent ITS Maintenance It was noted that the lack of standards also Staff needs creates equipment integration issues. One Information due to Craig participant observed that when his office began How much spending on Maintenance to install barrel traffic cameras and when the now? technology moved to gun cameras they had trouble integrating the new technology with the old. It was noted that the problem was made worse by the speed of technology change and the relatively few number of equipment vendors. As TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 7 of 21

8 technologies near the end of their life-cycles, there are often issues related to the availability of replacement parts and equipment (especially if one vendor is responsible for a specific type of equipment). In relation to replacement parts, some Districts expressed concern with zero inventory policies. These policies are designed to prevent excess inventory from accumulating. Several participants stated that such policies make it difficult to improve preparedness and readiness and be proactively responsive to incidents. Given the increasing number of ITS devices being added each year, it was suggested that an asset management system be developed to monitor equipment conditions and more efficiently mange maintenance. Contracts Related to the maintenance of equipment was the issue of standardizing maintenance contracts for administrative efficiency and to better negotiate deals with vendors. Meeting participants expressed concern that contracting out maintenance was not as efficient and reliable as getting in-house staff to do the work. Several Districts noted delays in contractor response times to fix hardware and software problems. The need for immediate assistance was noted and a participant pointed out that DelDOT has all in-house staff. Meeting participants also mentioned that the expansion of contracts for freeway service patrols is being addressed in the development of some regional operation plans. Several participants expressed interest in expanding such contracts for use with maintenance crews. One District mentioned they had negotiated an extended purchase contract for services through the Department of General Services (DGS). Funding It was noted that capital expenditures for ITS hardware, as well as O&M costs, were high and that funding continues to be an issue, especially in rural areas. It was also noted that there is a need to identify dedicated funding sources that allow for system expansion. Communications Network Meeting participants noted there was a need for more guidance from Central Office in general and in relation to standards specifically. Existing efforts, such as the forum, that allows participants to send queries to each other were noted. However, the difference between information that could be provided by District staff versus field staff was noted. It was generally agreed that in some cases field staff would have better knowledge of the equipment. Also, there is TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 8 of 21

9 for better communications with construction crews. It was noted that the loss of staff at Central Office is generally a big issue for the Districts. It was noted that when staff leave, there often is a loss in knowledge related to ITS. Some participants noted the need to develop an institutional knowledge base or mentoring program. The discussion also touched on the need for better communication between Districts to foster enhanced collaboration. It was also noted that many issues that arise are due to differences between Districts, specifically due to inconsistencies in resources and coverage. Some Districts have the staff to conduct 24/7 operations while others do not. Discussion addressed the need to develop clear statewide procedures for responding to incidents and emergencies in order to improve response times. The problem, participants noted, is exasperated by a lack of staff. The discussion further touched on the need to improve communications between PennDOT and DGS. Several Districts noted differences in what DGS had told them in relation to contracts. During these discussions, it was observed that when such issues arise, the Districts should follow up with Central Office. The use of the BHSTE listserv/ was mentioned as possible tool for doing this. Human Resources Many participants noted there was a need for more staffing to support operations at the regional and statewide levels. Given the volume of equipment that is in place, existing staff are unable to keep up with the technical support, maintenance, and related demands. Acquiring additional staff will frequently not solve the problem without complementary training. Requests from Central Office It was requested that District Offices identify their ITS maintenance staffing needs, and share this information with Central Office. These inputs will be used to identify statewide needs and get a better idea of the staffing resources needed. Districts were also asked to provide information on maintenance expenditures. This will allow Central Office staff to begin assessing the cost benefits of getting full time staff on board. Districts were further asked to identify their points-of-contact within DGS. ADVANCING THE OPERATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE It was noted that the concepts being presented are a baseline and a strawman for dialogue. The TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 9 of 21

10 strawman may be modified, discarded, or changed based on discussion. It was noted that the first TSOP had 19 projects, some of which are actively underway with others planned. The four priority areas that the projects in the first TSOP addressed are: (1) Incident Management, (2) Traveler Information, (3) Traffic Signals, and (4) Standardization. It was observed that the previous discussions showed that the 4 th priority area (Standardization) is not moving forward as fast as the others. It was also noted that since TSOP 2005 many programs and initiatives have been accomplished. In developing the TSOP 2007, the idea was to fill out the infrastructure necessary to create a fully functional operations program. One key objective of TSOP 2007, therefore, is to develop a cross-cutting operations infrastructure program. It was noted that prospective activities discussed today may expand the list of 19 TSOP projects. Operations Infrastructure To advance PennDOT s Operations objectives, it was proposed that the focus over the near term be directed towards completing build-out of the Commonwealth s Operations infrastructure. The key elements comprising this infrastructure were identified as follows: Operations Command Centers Roadway Surveillance and Response Communications/Coordination Data and Performance Organizing for Operations Discussion of each of these five elements followed, with focus on answering the following questions: (1) What still needs to be done? (2) What critical decisions need to be made? (3) What is an appropriate timeframe for implementing each element? These discussions are highlighted below. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 10 of 21

11 OPERATIONS CENTERS BREAK-OUT SESSIONS Workshop participants were broken out in three groups corresponding to the planned alignment of District TMCs to their respective RTMCs. Each group then discussed needs and critical issues associated with implementing the TMC/RTMC Easel Notes from Western TMCs (Districts 1, 10, 11, and 12) D11- RTMC 24/7 Erie -TMC run by 911 Center D1- Control off hours Communications & data transmission issues D12 & D11 Cube office structure. Need dedicated ITS Staff Communications backbone Central TMCs (Districts 2, 3, 8 and 9) (D9-0 was not able to attend the Workshop, though State Police want control of devices Data- weather clusters Brenda Murphy updated everyone on their activities.) Used to better operate Locations Each district furnished updates on TMC 911 Center - connectivity to TMC planning, implementation, and schedule. 511 link Procurement of Devices. Participants Foundation Partnership observed that better coordination between Within PennDOT - shared the Districts and planning partners is responsibilities needed to avoid duplication in purchases EMS and to improve region-wide planning and All partners strategic assessment about who is buying ISPs what. "Technical buyers" may ultimately Media be needed. Communication Gaps Hardware and Software Maintenance. Districts Data/Information need guidance and support here. Real-time knowledge/info Relationship between TMCs and Timeframe RTMCs. Districts continue to be D11-24/7 by end of 2007 concerned about the ability of staff at Need additional staff remote RTMC locations, who are not intimately familiar with the roads and conditions within the Districts, to be able o Compensation & classification to make appropriate operational decisions on behalf of the Districts during off-hours. (This concern extends to the need to set up detour routes.) Districts specifically worry about the realism of bringing local District staff back on-duty after major incidents, bad weather, or other large-scale tie-ups that bringing district staff back on-duty will waste precious time and that practical outcomes will not be much different than they are today. Staffing. The key to a successful Operations Command Center program will depend on TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 11 of 21

12 PennDOT's ability to properly "staff" the Easel Notes from Western TMCs TMCs, participants said. The current Cont d. (Districts 1, 10, 11, and 12) perception is that Districts are substantially Roles & Responsibilities constrained from hiring the people they Control hierarchy need, often cannot get access to the needed Districts staff skills and expertise, are unable to offer Counties prospective and hired staff 911 clearly-articulated career paths, and are not PSP able to pay appropriate marketplace PennDOT LAN salaries. Participants further noted that as Eyes PennDOT incentivizes career employees to OA - gaps take early retirement, and other staff move Security on to greener pastures, PennDOT is at Homeland Security Networks risk of losing its institutional memory. Urban & Rural communications gaps Eastern TMCs (Districts 4, 5, and 6) Interstates & integrated Potential challenges: corridors The hours of operation of each TMC Interchange currently vary. messages/511/har D6 currently handles maintenance calls Regional Meetings TMCS after-hours for the D6 Maintenance District. Statewide RTMCs o What is the policy in other Districts? Would it be expected that D6 cover maintenance calls in the other Districts as well? Is there sufficient equipment to monitor at RTMCs or is additional equipment needed at RTMCs? Will an RTMC be able to handle maintenance calls? Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) coverage o Can D6 cover? Familiarity with other District roads and detour routing. Concerns about integrating the system: o There wasn t confidence that this could be done as easily as it was said. o ATMS should help, but there is still a legacy equipment issue. Standards for ensuring interoperability. Would likely require greater automation notification of incidents, detour planning, etc. What about coordinating with other States? o In many cases, relationships have been built. Would the RTMC be able to work as well as the local TMC staff? Staffing Will staffing economies-of-scale actually be achieved? Has this been analyzed, or TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 12 of 21

13 might 24/7 at D4 and D5 make greater economical sense? Other staffing issues: o Proven value of going to an RTMC structure. o Dedicated ITS staffing. o Central staff to support statewide initiatives (i.e., regional statewide procurement to ease the burden). o Maintenance activities/work zone knowledge by RTMC staff: o Risk of ITS in work zones. o Dedicated organizational structure. o Elevation of operations. Jim Hunt from FHWA brought the group up to-date on FHWA s 511 program. He said the agency was exploring the use of Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) technologies and looking to auto makers to identify infrastructure improvements need for 511 communications. These technologies will facilitate communications between the road and car, cars to cars, and from equipment to cars so that motorists are fully informed of roadway conditions. He noted that all 50 states must agree to the infrastructure items required for such communications and that Congress has recognized the need to improve this infrastructure. Such needs can be seen in the Harrisburg freight study that projects 80% growth in freight travel in the region over the near term. Mr. Hunt also noted other developments in ITS related to transit, telecommuting, and valuepricing. He noted that now that London s approach to value-pricing has been judged successful, other cities, such as New York and San Francisco, are considering similar measures. VIDEO ON ITS This ITS America video was presented to suggest a vision about the long-term possibilities offered by a comprehensive, structured, and strategically-planned Operations program. One workshop participant, however, observed that the video does not touch on the difficult institutional issues that will need to be addressed in order to realize this mission. OPERATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE PLENARY DISCUSSION The topics Roadway Surveillance and Response, Communications and Coordination, and Data and Performance were explored by the entire group in a Plenary Discussion. Roadway Surveillance and Operations The discussion addressed issues related to the technologies required for real-time data-collection and distribution. Technologies that were discussed were the use of EZPass transponders, SEPTA s In-Vehicle Annunciation system, and cell phones. A meeting participant mentioned the potential of requiring a front license plate that would have a transponder chip in it to monitor traffic and TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 13 of 21

14 travel times. These were all identified as prospective Easel Notes from Roadway technologies that might be subjected to pilot tests. Surveillance and Operations Cell Phone/ Transponder A meeting participant asked if consideration was Tracking for real-time being given to using private contractors to monitor roadway conditions. The response was that there are currently no such plans on a statewide level, but that conditions License Plate Large scale discussion of PPP pilot exercises in select locations around the state ISP s traffic.com may from time-to-time be conducted. Integration needed with PennDOT Need ½ mile spacing In relation to technologies, one meeting participant commented on the importance of identifying incidents and verifying information quickly. He acknowledged the need to integrate the technologies Strategies for travel time may differ for incident management 911 Detection - Verification Best Practice- NY Internet Access within PennDOT and observed that the strategy and infrastructure required to compute travel times may be different than that required to verify incidents. He said that incidents require pinpoint verification, while travel time can be computed with more flexibility. Another meeting participant asked whether the growth of cell phones would create problems in reporting an accident. Would too many people swamp the emergency lines so that they could not verify the incident? It was noted that in Pennsylvania, 911 gets the incident call but that someone else verifies. Some meeting participants said that the cameras are the best technology for determining if there is a crash or normal congestion on a roadway. It was noted that, in Maryland, 911 calls often report an accident, but that cameras are used to verify it. It was noted that roadside information was important so maintenance crews can focus on getting incidents cleared quickly. Another participant noted the need to give responders clear guidance and timeframes for accident removal. However, it was also noted that even when accidents can be pinpointed with technology, they may not be readily removed. Another participant said that New York State just instituted a system to send pictures of accidents over cell phones to 911 centers. When this occurs the pictures get transmitted to 911 and their TMCs. Communications and Coordination This discussion focused on developing infrastructure for the exchange of information with PennDOT Districts and to the traveling public. The discussion was framed as a way to determine a vision on how to serve the public some years into future. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 14 of 21

15 One meeting participant emphasized the need to better coordinate the collection and dissemination of information that is provided to the clearinghouse. It was noted that the OnStar system provides detour information to customers (an example of VII). Other examples of communications devices were discussed such as Europe s new cell phone system that can transmit more types of data than the G3 standard and PDAs. Another participant pointed out that any discussion of new infrastructure and equipment to exchange information should be consistent with national IT and communications standards. Easel Notes from Communications and Coordination Video Share with partners; D-6 as best practice Parking availability ISP (i.e., Traffic.com) Stakeholder participation AccuWeather partnership VII Clearinghouse to the vehicle Cell phone/pdas/european standards Data transmissions Comes back to standards Building of frameworks Statewide - National In relation to communications, the group noted that there was an issue of how to push information to customers/planning partners after the TSOP planning process was completed. Another issue was the quality and accuracy of data. The need for data differentiation was also raised as data provided to the public and PennDOT s planning partners can be same, but may also need to be different. A meeting participant noted that some Districts have been working with news media and sharing videos of incidents in the hopes of communicating on a regular basis on such events. It was also agreed that this shows that data can be shared both ways in these relationships. Discussion addressed how this topic could also cover how to capture best practices from the Districts that can be shared with other Districts. Another potential communication tool that was discussed was a coordinated system to tell people where to park. As this was discussed it was noted that there were issues related to obtaining information from the private garages and placing it into private vehicles. SpotScout.com was mentioned as a service that offers information on available parking (currently in Boston, New York, and San Francisco only). The issue of places in the data stream for various stakeholders to contribute and obtain information from the data stream was pointed out as another consideration in deploying a communications infrastructure. AccuWeather cameras were mentioned as a potential means to involve stakeholders in communications about roadway conditions. This example demonstrates the use of public/private partnerships for communication on road conditions. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 15 of 21

16 Data and Procedures This discussion focused on the development of metrics for measuring performance. The responsibility for archiving the performance data will reside with the STMC. Jim Hunt brought examples of the monthly reports that are developed as part of Florida s operations system and similar standardized monthly reports from ITS/Operations activities were proposed. If Pennsylvania moved to such reports, more robust data would be required. As discussion progressed, it was mentioned that all Districts rarely have 100% of their field equipment fully functional at a given point in time. This is because equipment breakdowns are rampant and arranging maintenance and repairs is time-consuming. One participant said it was important to have realistic operations performance goals since deployments at 100% 24/7 are unrealistic. Therefore, there is a need in the Districts to set a realistic target for equipment operating levels. This would also help Districts with maintenance by creating a benchmark that can be used to determine when equipment needs to be fixed. Another meeting participant, however, noted that developing a statewide performance standard might be difficult due to the wide array of equipment and manufacturers. Also, some systems collect and report data hourly while others perform these tasks monthly. Easel Notes from Data and Procedures Equipment working Realistic operations performance Standardization of what is acceptable Customer surveys Delay Fuel Time - Productivity D6 - Highway color coding of back-ups and congestion for benchmarking model Used for executive policy Highway improvement program Historical trend analysis VMT - Overtime Variable Speed-Limits Tennessee example Hard to standardize Equipment/systems not the same Set expectations for executives Be able to respond & be accountable Product warranty- standard specs Equipment purchase Useful life Numbers for future deployment D5- SSP measurement D6- Ramp metering Reduction in delay IM D6- Clearance times Related to performance measures was the issue of setting meaningful performance criteria. It was discussed that better roadway monitoring with technology, might show the number of incidents increasing. Finding appropriate metrics for performance of response times could also create challenges. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 16 of 21

17 During the discussion, a meeting participant noted that it is possible to create specifications for equipment warranties that could help improve maintenance. However, it was also pointed out that many Districts buy what they need and rely on vendors for maintenance. Of course, there are potential problems once equipment breaks down and maintenance contracts expire. It was recommended that the current contract process for hiring ITS maintenance contractors be based on ITS guidelines as opposed to existing contracting mechanisms for construction/maintenance. This would provide Districts flexibility in choosing the best vendor to repair specific equipment. This issue also brought up the need for more trained ITS technicians in-house to perform repairs and maintenance tasks. In order to meet performance standards for operations, another meeting participant noted that redundancy of ITS devices in the field, or larger equipment inventories, could meet performance criteria. It was pointed out that there is a need to consider the amount of equipment based both on useful life and the volume of equipment required for future deployment. In terms of data to be collected, a participant said that it was possible to keep statistics on SSP measurement. It was noted that District 6 had reduced congestion on roadways due to ramp metering. This can be seen due to a reduction in measured delays and in clearance time. In particular, clearance time was reduced from 8 hours to 2 hours for major incidents. Discussion turned to the issue of an appropriate measure for delay such as fuel, time, and productivity. In relation to performance, the meeting moderators asked whether the improvements being made in relation to operations are adequately publicized. It was generally agreed that there was not a lot of information getting out to the public on existing operations. In terms of reaching the public for feedback, customer surveys were mentioned as a potential method for measuring public satisfaction. To illustrate an example of improvements that are not widely publicized, a participant from District 6 said that his office had developed a system to visualize entire highways so that they can see daily congestion based on color coding of delayed corridors. It was hoped this system would provide benchmarks on daily highway performance. The data collected are put into a database which can be used for reporting historic trends, disseminating information to travelers (like detour routes) and even for decision-makers to set policy. Another measure of performance would be volume per hour handled on roadways. One participant noted that variable speed limits were employed in Tennessee and that roadway volume per hour had increased. BREAKOUT GROUPS ORGANIZING FOR OPERATIONS For the next round of discussions, meeting participants were broken out into two discussion TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 17 of 21

18 groups: Traffic Engineers and ITS Coordinators. Key issues broached by each group in their respective discussions are summarized below. Traffic Engineers Participants noted that discussions about PennDOT organizational and human resources are painful, but necessary. At the outset of the original TSOP effort, a conscious decision was made to defer examination of the organizational issue within PennDOT for Operations. TSOP was to define its program and then come back to define the organization necessary to support that program. In order for Districts to run TMCs, perform other Operations functions, and manage these programs, additional staffing will be necessary. This will entail: Identifying and recruiting the right staff. Training staff. Participants discussed a couple of possible organizational changes, including: Creation of an Operations silo at the District level. Modification of the Service ADE portfolio to encompass Operations. It was noted that if Operations will need to compete with Design and Construction needs, it would need to compete on equal footing. The group also discussed how to make these changes happen, given the recent HR trends within the Department. They pointed out the realities faced by Operations, since it is not the only program in PennDOT that is under-staffed and in need. However, the group did note that the program that was adopted 17 months ago by the Department is ambitious and will require significant infrastructure support. Therefore, the group said that the case for Operations will need to be made at the highest levels within PennDOT in order to move forward. The group also made note of the fact that TSOP 2007 is due to be completed next Fall. Based on this, the group said that it cannot wait that long to get things rolling. District TMCs are scheduled to roll out in June 2008 and work needs to get done beforehand. ITS Coordinators The Coordinators covered many of the same issues. Several of the key issues they discussed are highlighted below: Organizational/Staffing The elevation of Operations on par with other functional areas was discussed, as well as a need to define roles and responsibilities within PennDOT and other TMCs. As TMCs are developed in TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 18 of 21

19 each District, more staff positions will be needed instead of placing double-duty on existing coordinators. The following organizational observations were made: Perhaps there should be a Deputy Secretary for Operations. Perhaps there should be an ADE for Operations separate from Maintenance. Each District organization would then include four distinct ADEs (Construction, Maintenance, Design, and Operations), each with its own budget. Perhaps there should be a designated Manager for Operations (similar to the Traffic Engineer level) under the ADE. The ITS Coordinator position would still be retained. Each Manager would oversee one or more ITS Coordinators, whose primary duty would be to focus on planning and management of existing operations and ITS equipment. Coordinators at Districts with TMCs would have additional responsibilities. The ITS Coordinators would also be involved early in the planning and design of new equipment (prior to procurement), in defining specifications and needs, etc. The full complement of Operations staff at the Distict level would, ideally, include an ADE, Managers, Coordinators, ITS Technicians, and support staff. There was discussion about whether this full staff would be necessary in every District. Ultimately, it was agreed that some flexibility was needed to adjust to regional needs. IT Support Any new Operations service line will need its own dedicated in-house IT staff, including one or more ITS Technicians to sustain a 24/7 operations environment, troubleshoot problems, and provide a general level of routine maintenance support. The ITS Technicians will also help to provide routine equipment inspections. A dedicated and specialized IT staff would widen the skills base and keep pace with changing technology demands (i.e., integrated signals, ITS and communications equipment, data archiving, etc.), typically outside of a civil engineers scope. It was also mentioned that ITS technical specifications have tended to get lost as policies are developed because as policies are implemented there is a need to get technology designed and deployed. This often results in last-minute design of new equipment while needs to design and inspect existing equipment continue. The group suggested the development of statewide Technical position to develop specifications and guidelines for equipment. Other suggestions included: One alternative to each District having its own IT staff would be to have an in-house Statewide IT Group that supports each District, as needed, and for routine maintenance/inspections. Another possibility for IT support would be to co-locate IT staff next to TMCs at Districts, but typically this type of structure results in poor working relationships and could communicate that Operations is not a priority. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 19 of 21

20 PennDOT IT staff needs more familiarity with ITS software. Outsourcing of IT and ITS support is attractive, but would probably require the development of standardized procedures and statewide control/oversight. For example, standard contracts for outsourcing maintenance of ITS equipment would be needed. Currently, it appears that the same vendors and contractors are working the system by providing different costs for the same services at different Districts. One District reported having a contractor sit at the TMC to provide ITS maintenance support quickly. Other Districts thought it would be more cost-effective to have an on-call contract but worried about response time, especially in light of recent road closures on I-78. Command Structure Operations should have decision-making authority to act as Incident Commander (as part of NIMS), when necessary. This would include the ability to close roads during emergencies. Examine co-locating personnel at Operations centers (either real or virtual). A solution might be to create formal agreements between agencies and designate a Regional Operations Coordinator (possibly a non-penndot position) who has responsibility to communicate with PSP, PEMA, local emergency responders, etc. Better coordination among other state agencies and local responders is vital. Outreach Need to better document Operations achievements and benefits to help prove the value and costs/benefits to legislators and the public. Need to define and integrate Operations into the PennDOT Business Plan. SELECTED PROGRAM AREAS Participants examined current TSOP projects in relation to TSOP 2007 and made the following observations: TSOP-05, Incident Management Processes and Procedures, needs to be initiated. It is an important project, central to statewide incident management activities and relevant to regions as they define their individualized incident management programs. Perhaps there is the need for a new project, TSOP 20, PennDOT Operations Organization. Potentially Homeland Security and Asset Management should be accorded greater emphasis in TSOP The need to meet federal guidelines was mentioned. Jim Hunt observed that TSOP s projects are generally consistent with FHWA s programs. Congestion and value-pricing might need to be added to the list. TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 20 of 21

21 Telecommuting should be added. All TSOP projects should be revisited and the major projects should be forwarded to be championed at the Central Office. This comment was initially made in relation to TSOP 17, 18, and 19. TMCs will need to be able to manage evacuations. There is a need for standards and standardization for cellular vendors to participate in ITS. There is a need for better tracking of statewide assets (asset management). TSOP projects should be better matched to work that needs to get done. The original TSOP project list should be revisited. Incident management should be elevated to a TSOP goal. CLOSING REMARKS AND NEXT STEPS The workshop concluded with a discussion of next steps in the process of updating TSOP Steve Koser wrapped up the meeting with some thoughts on the proceedings. He said that he was taking away from today that organizing for Operations is something that needs to be addressed in the next TSOP. He then thanked everyone for their participation and hard work. The meeting adjourned at 3:00PM. This meeting served as the first TSOP 2007 Workshop for PennDOT s Planning Services and Implementation Contract #354R15. These minutes were prepared to serve as the official, documented account of the meeting conducted on February 21, TSOP 2007 Workshop Summary Pg 21 of 21