The Regional Concept for Transportation Operations: A Practitioner's Guide

2. Putting the RCTO into Practice – RCTO Demonstration Sites

The objective of the demonstration initiative was to help the FHWA demonstrate and further develop—from the realm of theory to that of practice—the Regional Concept for Transportation Operations. The sites receiving the demonstration grant were to enhance existing regional transportation operations collaborative activities, which may address one or more transportation systems management and operations activities through the development of an RCTO. Although Hampton Roads, Virginia did not apply for or receive a demonstration grant from FHWA, the participants of the RCTO development effort in that region were willing to participate alongside the other sites and open up their processes for the benefit of others interested in developing an RCTO.

Figure 6. Map of the RCTO Demonstration Sites

The four sections below provide a brief overview of the demonstration sites, the processes for RCTO development, highlights of their RCTOs, links to the metropolitan transportation planning process, and initial outcomes. The outcomes listed reflect the successes during the development and up to approximately 3 years after the RCTO had been drafted. Sites often began to implement some of the actions from the RCTO while it was being developed.

2.1 Portland, Oregon⁹

Operating agencies and other stakeholders in Portland have been working together for more than 15 years on the deployment of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) involving many aspects of the transportation system such as freeways, arterials, transit, and freight movement. Through the RCTO project, these agencies were able to fully engage Metro, the region's MPO, as a means to increase institutional support in the region and to formalize relationships that have enabled the unique culture of collaboration.

Organization and Process for Developing the RCTO

To organize for the development of the RCTO, the Portland grant was used to create a staff position within Metro rather than to retain a consultant. One significant motivation for this decision was to help effect institutional change in the region by installing staff, albeit temporary (for the 2-year duration of the grant), at Metro to build an operations program. The City of Portland served as grantor and hiring agency and detailed the temporary employee to Metro.

The champion for Portland's RCTO was the Portland City Commissioner in charge of Transportation. As a result of witnessing a minor fender-bender cause major traffic delays on Interstate 5 in downtown Portland, the Commissioner called for a detailed analysis of the crash as well as a multi-agency meeting to discuss ways to address these types of incidents in the future.

A few months later, the Commissioner convened a group, which comprised executives from agencies in the region and representatives from both other relevant City of Portland offices and the business community. After brainstorming on ways to improve management of minor incidents, the group reached the consensus that the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation would organize an inter-agency staff-level task force that would delve into the issue collaboratively. Staff involved in the RCTO project offered to help facilitate the group and the resulting task force was called the Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Team.

In this situation, a formal collaborative process was created where none were active with respect to the topic. This process established a two-tier system. The higher-level group, which was titled the Portland Operations Steering Team (POST), worked to form a consensus on the topics that needed to be addressed, including but not limited to traffic incident management, and to receive briefings on the progress being made by the staff-level task forces to which the work was delegated.

After a series of TIM Team meetings that involved brainstorming and discussions of strategies, the team developed a "menu of options" as well as a recommendation and an action plan.

Operations Focus Area

The RCTO focus area for Portland was the management of minor traffic incidents within the City of Portland. The objective for the RCTO was articulated as: "reduce unnecessary (excess) delay associated with minor (non-injury) incidents that occur on freeways within the City of Portland."¹⁰ Operations objectives identified in the early stages of the process were to:

• Reduce the economic cost of congestion.
• Reduce incident-induced delay.
• Reduce tow truck arrival and on-scene times.
• Reduce secondary crashes.
• Reduce lane-hours of blockage.¹¹

Table 1. Overview of Portland, Oregon Demonstration Site

Regional characteristics	Located in Northwest U.S. close to the Pacific Ocean. More than 1.5 million residents in metropolitan area.12]
Leadership team	Metro (MPO). City of Portland. Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT). TriMet (local transit operator).
History of collaboration	Operating agencies and other stakeholders in Portland have been working together for more than 15 years primarily through TransPort TAC (Transportation Portland Technical Advisory Committee). Collaborative efforts in the region have focused primarily around the design and implementation of ITS. Partners have included city, county, and State transportation departments as well as the local transit operator and university. The TransPort partnership was formalized as an MPO advisory committee in 2005.
RCTO Focus area	Traffic incident management.

Link to Planning

One of the primary goals for the Portland demonstration site team was to improve the coordination of planning and operations. Metro saw the FHWA demonstration project as an opportunity to become more engaged with the operations community in Portland and fully incorporate operations into the metropolitan transportation planning process. The demonstration initiative led to the establishment of an operations program at Metro. The RCTO laid the groundwork for Metro to develop a Regional Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) Plan that defines how management and operations can be used to support the desired performance outcomes.¹³ The TSMO Plan is a 10-year investment strategy that is part of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan completed in 2010.

Outcomes or Successes

The near-term outcome of the effort in Portland resulted in a framework of procedures, policies, and physical capital needs as well as a list of action items that the TIM Team used to advance incident management. The region made progress on several actions identified in the RCTO during the RCTO development and following its completion:

• Portland Bureau of Transportation introduced State legislation regarding quick clearance and "Move It" practices. Oregon State Legislature passed these into law during the 2007 session.
• The TIM Team task force met several times over approximately 1 year.
• Metro established a transportation operations program that includes a permanent staff position.
• A programmatic allocation of funding for ITS/operations projects was established in the TIP.
• Stakeholders developed an awareness of the importance of transportation operations through monthly newsletters, MPO and other stakeholder briefings, and an executive-level operations workshop.
• The City of Portland Bureau of Transportation hosted a 2-day FHWA course on incident management.
• Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division undertook the creation of a new training video for field officers related to the management of an incident.

The development of the RCTO in Portland led to a much stronger role for operations in the planning and programming processes. Shortly after the development of the RCTO, Metro began the process of updating its metropolitan transportation plan and recognized the need to create a more detailed strategy for managing and operating the transportation system over the next 10 years. The TSMO Plan was guided by the collaborative efforts of TransPort (the operations subcommittee), the Regional Travel Option (RTO) Subcommittee, and a newly formed TSMO Policy Work Group. The TSMO Plan addressed the issue of how to best use the programmatic allocations of funding for ITS/operations and travel demand management. It broadened the scope of operations from just TIM in the RCTO to cover four management and operations areas:

1. Multimodal traffic management;
2. Traveler information;
3. Traffic incident management; and
4. Transportation demand management.

The goals, objectives, and projects for traffic incident management in the TSMO Plan built on the content of the RCTO. Through the TSMO Plan, projects to expand incident management teams and training, integrate voice and data networks to improve inter-agency communication during incidents, and increase overall incident management capabilities were included as part of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The 2010-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program¹⁴ contains $1.65 million for "Active Traffic Incident Management" including improved towing performance. In addition, the TSMO Plan and the 2010-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program include projects to develop RCTOs on arterial performance measurement and active traffic management.

2.2 Tucson, Arizona Metropolitan Area¹⁵

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) embarked on this demonstration project to build on existing collaborative efforts in the region and to prepare for major reconstruction of Interstate 10 through Tucson. With a 60 percent increase in population between 1982 and 2003, advancing transportation operations on a regional level was needed to keep up with the influx of people and vehicles. Table 2 presents an overview of the Tucson demonstration site.

Organization and Process for Developing the RCTO

The Tucson area demonstration was led and hosted by PAG, the region's MPO, and its member agencies: the City of Tucson, Arizona DOT, Pima County Department of Transportation, and the Pima County Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The individual who served as the leader and convener for the RCTO was a senior planner from PAG. Through the FHWA grant, PAG hired a consultant to assist in facilitating the multi-agency meetings, to synthesize and document the input of the participants, and to work one-on-one with the RCTO leader to propose elements of the RCTO for discussion. PAG formed an RCTO working group drawing primarily from members of the Transportation Systems Subcommittee to develop the RCTO. The RCTO was developed using a series of stakeholder interviews and regular meetings of the RCTO development group.

Table 2. Overview of Tucson, Arizona Demonstration Site

Regional characteristics	Population of metropolitan region approximately 980,000.16 Region is experiencing rapid population growth. From 1982 to 2003, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) grew by 213 percent.
Leadership	Pima Association of Governments.
History of collaboration	Formal ITS planning began in the region in 1994, and PAG members provided financial and in-kind support for the effort. In 1996 the ITS Working Group, made up of operators in the region, was formed to guide the implementation of the 1996 ITS Strategic Deployment Plan. Members of the group increasingly used their meetings to discuss operations topics outside of ITS, which led to the group's renaming as the Transportation Systems Subcommittee in 2002.
Primary participants	Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). City of Tucson. Pima County Department of Transportation. Pima County Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Eight PAG member agencies (cities, towns, and tribes).
RCTO focus areas	Arterial management operations. Traveler information. Work zone management.

Operations Focus Areas and Objectives

During facilitated RCTO working group meetings, participants developed a wide variety of operations objectives and related performance measures for each of six operations areas. During the RCTO process, stakeholders recognized that significant effort and collaboration would be required to fully develop and implement action plans for each operations area. Because of this, stakeholders focused their efforts on three operations areas, which are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The Tucson Team's RCTO Focus Areas, Objectives, and Performance Measures¹⁷

RCTO Focus Area	Operations Objectives	Performance Measure
Arterial management operations Motivation: Arterial roads dominate the transportation system in the Tucson region, and they are becoming even more vital as I-10, a primary freeway through Tucson, is undergoing a major reconstruction effort over the next several years.	Provide more predictable travel times and reduce traveler delay due to both recurring events and non-recurring incidents on Tucson metropolitan arterials by: Improving traffic signal timing, coordination, and management across all jurisdictional boundaries. Improving traffic incident management. Improving coordination among traffic, public safety, and transit agencies. Improve traveler safety.	Number of signals for which traffic signal timing plans were reviewed and updated each year. Arterial travel times and standard deviation as measured by PAG travel time data program. Crash rates.
Traveler information Motivation: The stakeholders saw the need to coordinate traveler information systems in the region, reduce duplicative efforts, and make better use of the existing systems in disseminating information.	Reduce traveler delay by improving the quality, quantity, accessibility, and use of multi-modal traveler information services in the region. Improve the data management and storage of traveler information. Educate roadway users to improve driver habits. Provide current and accurate information to Tucson metropolitan area traveler information services (work zones, incidents, other closures).	Number of calls placed to 511 telephone system from the Tucson metropolitan area and number of website hits for Tucson-specific travel information. Number of events (incidents and planned events) that are entered into HCRS per year for the Tucson metropolitan area. Number of media outlets using traveler information to distribute to the public.
Work zone management Motivation: Construction in the Tucson area is performed by individual agencies with no formal coordination to schedule the work in ways that minimize the impact on travelers. In addition, there will be a significant increase in new construction projects in the region due to the 2006 passage of a 20-year Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Plan and the ½-cent excise tax to fund the plan.	Improve multi-agency coordination for large-scale work zones. Reduce traveler delay due to work zones. Improve speed management and travel time reliability within work zones. Maintain/improve work zone safety. Reduce the number of traffic-related incidents within work zones. Minimize the impact of work zones on emergency response routes.	Number of Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule training and certification classes held per year and number of attendees. Number of traffic related incidents within work zones. Jurisdictional partnership in the Construction Planning and Programming Coordination program.

Approach for Meeting Objectives

During the RCTO process, stakeholders began developing action plans for each of the operations areas. These approaches are described in Table 4.

Table 4. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives¹⁸

RCTO Focus Area	Approach
Arterial management operations	Implement a program to review and optimize traffic signal timing plans on major arterials, state highways, and at freeway interchanges regularly (every 3 to 5 years). Identify multi-jurisdictional opportunities for sharing resources to support transportation operations. A specific opportunity that should be explored is deployment and operations of arterial dynamic message signs (DMS).
Traveler information	Establish compatibility between Arizona 511 system and TransView: Improve the Tucson area maps within the Highway Condition Reporting System (HCRS) to be commensurate with ½ mile grid system. Integrate filtered CAD information into regional traveler information system. Improve quantity and quality of work zone information that is input into the ADOT HCRS. Implement real-time bus arrival capability into traveler information system.
Work zone management	Develop practices to facilitate inter-agency and inter-jurisdiction coordination of construction work zones: Establish and support a region-wide construction planning and programming coordination working group. Improve quantity and quality of work zone information that is input into the ADOT HCRS. Provide current and accurate work zone/closure/restriction information to Tucson metropolitan area emergency service providers, transit agencies and the public via traveler information services. Implement regular training and certification for Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (23 CFR 630 Subpart J). Attendees should include both jurisdiction staff and contractors.

Link to Planning

The link between the RCTO and the metropolitan planning process was facilitated in the Tucson region by the demonstration site leader, a senior planner from PAG. Once operations strategies were identified and agreed upon by the participating agencies, the leader from PAG helped include operations programs for consideration for regional funding. As a result, PAG established a regional traffic signal program in its 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and allocated funding in its TIP. Additionally, operators in the region are increasingly seeking out PAG as the host for regional operations coordination efforts. The Tucson region also used its RCTO as a starting point in establishing objectives, performance measures, and initiatives in its congestion management process.

Outcomes or Successes

Coordination of existing practices such as traveler information and work zone management allows agencies to provide better service to travelers:

• PAG has secured funding for a regional traffic signal program.
• Multi-jurisdictional coordination of work zones began through meetings between construction representatives from multiple agencies, although this effort slowed down approximately a year after the RCTO due to challenges implementing a common system for tracking construction activities.
• PAG has been identified as an effective regional table for operations collaboration and is used to help coordinate and improve traffic incident management for major projects such as the I-10 reconstruction project.
• ADOT and local agencies in Tucson have worked through road blocks to sharing and coordinating traveler information. Real-time bus information and computer aided dispatch (CAD) data from the Pima County Sheriff's Office and the City of Tucson Police Department is now fed into TransView.org, an online traveler information system operated by the City of Tucson.

Figure 7. Map of Southeast Michigan

Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

In the 3½ years since PAG and its operations partners developed the RCTO, they are still working together to implement the approach set out in the RCTO. There have been several successes, as noted above, and regional coordination for operations continues through the PAG Transportation Systems Subcommittee. Additionally, a smaller multi-agency traffic signal program group and traveler information group work specifically on those RCTO focus areas. The PAG RCTO leader reports that the RCTO has led to other collaborative efforts between planners and operators because the RCTO effort "got operators to think like planners." One follow-on success has been acquiring the resources needed to bring all of the operators onto the same wireless network for signal communications resulting in significant cost savings.

2.3 Southeast Michigan¹⁹

With numerous jurisdictions, agencies, and service providers responsible for safely and efficiently operating various aspects of the transportation system, the agencies in Southeast Michigan must cross agency and jurisdictional boundaries to be successful. Development of an RCTO allowed the agencies in the Metropolitan Detroit area to continue, formalize, and expand their collaborative efforts.

Table 5 presents an overview of the Southeast Michigan demonstration site.

Table 5. Overview of Southeast Michigan Demonstration Site

Regional characteristics	The Southeast Michigan region has a population of 4.7 million.20 Located in southeast Michigan on the Detroit River. Encompasses 7 counties, 2 MDOT regions, 233 local units of government.
Leadership team	Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Michigan State Police (MSP).
History of collaboration	Regional collaborative efforts on incident management date back to 1991, and include incident management conferences, incident management committees, and the development of a "Blueprint for Action." MDOT, several counties, and SMART transit have been collaborating on managing snow and ice removal since 1998. Collaboration on ITS has been ongoing since 1999. MDOT, several counties, and several cities began working to improve traffic signal timing and progression over 10 years ago.
RCTO Focus areas	Priority corridors for future investments. Traffic signal management. Traffic incident management. Operations information sharing.

Organization and Process for Developing the RCTO

The kick-off meeting for the Metro Detroit initiative was held by SEMCOG and included stakeholders, both administrative and technical, from State, regional, county, local, and private sector transportation operating agencies. The major outcome of the meeting was that the direction, scope, and elements of the RCTO program were introduced to region-wide stakeholders.

Following the meeting, extensive stakeholder interviews were conducted. Over 70 delegates from approximately 40 agencies in traffic management, operations, law enforcement, communications, and transit in the Metro Detroit tri-county area were interviewed regarding their agencies' operations needs and priorities. The RCTO objectives were developed using the results of these interviews. The objectives were refined and the approach for the RCTO was developed through a series of meetings between an RCTO development team made up of approximately 10 representatives from SEMCOG, Michigan DOT, and Michigan State Police. Additionally, two workshops were held on the RCTO development with a larger group of stakeholders in the region.

Operations Focus Areas and Objectives

The Southeast Michigan RCTO focus areas are shown in Table 6 along with the operations objectives.

Table 6. The Southeast Michigan Team's RCTO Focus Areas and Objectives²¹

RCTO Focus Area	Operations Objectives
Priority corridors for future investments	Identifying priority corridors: Establish and maintain a region-wide list of priority corridors for operations improvements.
Traffic signal management	Retiming traffic signals regularly: Facilitate a region-wide traffic signal retiming program: Priority corridors would be the top candidates for signal retiming. Signals along corridors that cross multiple jurisdictions will be coordinated.
Traffic incident management	Clearing incidents quickly and safely: Significantly reduce incident clearance times by establishing quick clearance legislation and enhancing the Freeway Courtesy Patrol (FCP) program.
Operations information sharing	Disseminating operations information: Continue to promote freeway camera video sharing among agencies. Standardize, expand and improve communications between agencies. Assist the development of the Michigan Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS). Disseminate operations information via a unified website.

Approach for Meeting Objectives

During the RCTO development process, stakeholders began to identify the approach for each of the operations focus areas. These approaches are described in Table 7.

Table 7. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives²²

RCTO Focus Area	Approach
Priority corridors for future investments	Supported by the Regional Operations Committee, the Arterial Traffic Management Committee will take the lead and act as the champion to: Develop a consensus for operations improvements. Prioritize corridors specifically for the traffic signal retiming program. Establish additional criteria for setting priorities.
Traffic signal management	A traffic signal retiming program will be facilitated by the Arterial Traffic Management Committee in two phases: Phase I, Analysis – Conduct fundamental analysis work and prepare the initial proposal, which will lay out the entire plan describing the overall scope, specify the projects for each year, outline the implementation plan, and develop a financial plan. Phase II, Implementation – Collect data, optimize signal timing plans, and install new signal timing plans.
Traffic incident management	The Incident Management Committee will act as champion to: Promote the development of vehicle removal legislation. Promote the development of obstruction removal legislation. Facilitate the enhancement of the Freeway Courtesy Patrol (FCP) program.
Operations information sharing	The Communications Committee will be champion to: Communications enhancement: Facilitate the establishment of "Talk Groups" to share information/resources. Promote the adoption of 800 MHz radio that is currently used by all City of Detroit departments. Promote better coverage of communication systems. Promote better communication and coordination between MSP and local law enforcement. Michigan ATMS: Review Control Software Replacement Project. Meet with stakeholder from across the state to assess the needs of a wide range of users. Provide one-stop shopping for information. Disseminate operations information. Significantly facilitate data and resource sharing among agencies. Unified Web Site: Continue to improve web site. Periodically distribute newsletter among agencies with news of RCTO development and operations information.

Link To Planning

In Southeast Michigan, the RCTO provided a significant link to the planning process in at least three ways. Through its RCTO, SEMCOG has incorporated a traffic signal retiming program into its 2030 and 2035 metropolitan transportation plans and recent TIPs to optimize traffic signals. Secondly, as part of the RCTO development, a region-wide ranking of priority corridors was performed with operating agencies. The ranking will be used to inform decisions on future operations projects. Finally, the RCTO provided SEMCOG planners the opportunity to expand their understanding of operations needs in the region and grow the network of operations stakeholders.

Outcomes or Successes

A major success resulting from the development of the RCTO in Southeast Michigan is that effective procedures and relationships have been established to discover the high priority needs of the region for operations improvements, and these needs have been translated into specific actions and projects. Other outcomes and successes include:

• Development of a Southeast Michigan transportation operations website featuring RCTO work.
• A ranking of the region-wide corridors based on the selected criteria.
• A change of the law regarding abandoned vehicles, reducing the time limit from 48 hours to 18 hours.
• Establishment of an internet-based utility to permit public safety, transportation, and other government agency representatives access to a subset of the 164 closed-circuit cameras owned and operated by MDOT for real-time freeway traffic surveillance across the Detroit metropolitan area.
• Identification of funding for signal retiming projects in the region.

Three and a half years after the Southeast Michigan operations stakeholders developed the RCTO, the operations objectives from the RCTO still help to guide collaborative operations activities. The objectives and action items have been revised over time and incorporated into the second generation of the region's operations "Blueprint for Action." Objectives and associated initiatives/actions and champions are linked to the five RCTO focus areas on the SEMCOG Regional Operations website.²³ The "Blueprint for Action" provides direction for the activities of the Regional Transportation Operations Steering Committee (includes the former Incident Management Committee as of 2009), Freeway Operation Subcommittee, and the Arterial Traffic Management Subcommittee.

2.4 Hampton Roads, Virginia²⁴

The agencies in Hampton Roads viewed the RCTO as a mechanism to enhance the existing spirit of collaboration in the face of new challenges faced by the region in terms of continued growth and constrained capacity.

Figure 8. Map of Hampton Roads, Virginia

Source: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Table 8 presents an overview of the Hampton Roads demonstration site.

Table 8. Overview of Hampton Roads, Virginia Demonstration Site

Regional characteristics	Encompasses 10 cities and 6 counties in southeastern Virginia, including: Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Williamsburg. Metropolitan area population of over 1.6 million.25 Natural harbor and home to large ports such as Newport News Marine Terminal and Norfolk International Terminals. Home to many military facilities including the Norfolk Naval Base.
Leadership team	Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), the MPO for the region. Virginia Department of Transportation.
History of collaboration	For more than a decade, the Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HRHIM) Committee, which consists of a cross section of the responding agencies within the region, has been a forum for cooperation and coordination. The Hampton Roads ITS Committee formed in the early 1990s, under the guidance of HRTPO to coordinate and guide cross-jurisdictional ITS initiatives. Champions on this committee wanted to strengthen the ties between planning and operations with regard to ITS and to coordinate ITS between agencies and modes. It is now titled the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Subcommittee.
Other participants	Virginia State Police (VSP). Local fire and rescue. Local traffic engineers and public works staff. Local law enforcement. Environmental and hazardous materials (hazmat) staff. Local emergency medical services. Members of the towing and recovery community.
RCTO Focus area(s)	Traffic incident management.

Organization and Process for Developing the RCTO

A core group of representatives from participating agencies formed an RCTO working group to guide the development of the RCTO through regular meetings and other activities. In order to gain a clear picture of the current state of TIM in Hampton Roads, the RCTO working group conducted in-person interviews with six different stakeholder groups, including freight, bridge tunnel, towing, hazmat, transit, and medical examiners. The purpose of the interview sessions was to gather information about the concerns, problems, and possible solutions regarding traffic incident management. Following the interviews, an RCTO workshop was held that brought together first responders, secondary responders, traffic operators, and representatives of several special functions related to incident management. The key stakeholders in the RCTO process also played an important role in discussions that took place within the framework of the workshop.

Operations Focus Areas

The Hampton Roads team chose TIM as their operations focus area. Interest in TIM came from high-profile incidents at tunnels and bridges that caused major delays. The MPO board subsequently requested improvements be made to incident management. The RCTO objectives, performance measures, and targets for the TIM focus area are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. The Hampton Roads Team's RCTO Objectives and Performance Measures for the TIM Focus Area²⁶

Operations Objectives	Performance Measures
Increase responder safety by eliminating struck-by incidents and fatalities.	Ratio of crashes per 100,000 miles driven for VSP. Incidents involving vehicle fires.
Decrease incident clearance time.	Incident duration. Average number of incidents lasting longer than 30, 60, and 90 minutes.
Decrease secondary incident occurrences.	Number of secondary accidents.
Improve inter-agency communication during incidents.	Input (e.g., what improvements have been most beneficial, where deficiencies remain, what improvements they would like to see) from survey of stakeholder agencies.
Identify existing regional incident management resources and establish plans for inter-agency utilization and acquisition.	Identification of resource arrangements, mutual training agreements, and information sharing.
Establish a regional incident management pro-active and post-incident review consortium.	Scheduling all post-incident review meetings. Posting meeting minutes to RCTO web site in a timely fashion. Creating and updating the Hampton Roads Incident Responders Contact, Jurisdiction, and Resource Guide.

Approach for Meeting Objectives

During the RCTO process, stakeholders developed action items for each of the operations objectives. These approaches are described in Table 10.

Table 10. Approach for Meeting Operations Objectives²⁷

Operations Objective	Approach
Increase responder safety	Start a regional public awareness campaign concerning the "Slow Down, Move Over" law and the "Move It" law. Encourage optimal lighting and traffic control equipment for secondary responder vehicles.
Decrease incident clearance times	Implement the use of intermediate reference location signs. Pursue the use of incentive based towing contracts or other innovative towing initiatives.
Decrease secondary incident occurrences	Provide Virginia Port Authority (VPA) and other regional entities information regarding major incidents in Hampton Roads. Enhance the dissemination of incident-specific information to the motoring public.
Improve inter-agency communication during incidents	Improve external and internal communication related to traffic incident management. Explore the possibility of multiple agencies being co-located at the Hampton Roads Traffic Management Center (HRTMC).
Identify existing regional incident management resources and establish plan for inter-agency utilization and acquisition	Conduct cross-agency training. Provide more total station equipment to be utilized in investigations.
Establish a regional incident management pro-active and post-incident review consortium	Hold meetings of the post-incident review consortium following any problematic incidents. Creation and maintenance of the Hampton Roads Incident Responders Contact, Jurisdiction, and Resource Guide

Link To Planning

In Hampton Roads, the link between the RCTO and planning was established early on. The champions for the RCTO in Hampton Roads applied for and received CMAQ/STP funding to assist in developing an RCTO in that area through the region's TIP. HRTPO served as one of the two hosts for the development of the RCTO. This facilitated a flow of information between operators and metropolitan planners regarding operations needs and funding opportunities. Through the development of the RCTO, performance measures were identified for traffic incident management and the Virginia DOT began collecting and analyzing traffic incident management performance data. Performance information was shared regularly with the MPO board and planners.

Outcomes or Successes

As a result of the RCTO effort in Hampton Roads, the planners and operators have had a number of achievements in advancing traffic incident management including:

• Began a practice of collecting and analyzing traffic incident management performance measurement data.
• Produce quarterly and annual performance measure reports to track progress toward the RCTO's operations objectives.
• Regularly hold post-incident review meetings guided by a detailed post-incident analysis worksheet with key participants.
• Developed a standard hazmat reporting document.
• Held a workshop with senior management in State police, fire/rescue, local law enforcement, VDOT, and MPO.
• Planned joint outreach for "Slow Down, Move Over" law.
• Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management RCTO approved by MPO board.
• Developed a Hampton Roads RCTO website to disseminate RCTO information to the public and facilitate communication between RCTO members.
• Worked to obtain three more total stations to be utilized by Virginia State Police in fatal incident investigations in order to reduce clearance times.
• Consolidates and distributes real-time traffic incident information gathered from different agencies and jurisdictions to local traffic management centers and VDOT's Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Center (TOC). The information distributed includes Virginia State Police CAD.

In the 2 ½ years following the development of the RCTO, Hampton Roads RCTO participants from local and State DOTs, local and State public safety agencies, and HRTPO continue to meet on a quarterly basis as the Hampton Roads RCTO subcommittee. Despite fluctuations in participation level and staff changes, the group continues to make progress on the actions identified in the RCTO. As of early 2011, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was being developed to formalize the commitment of the agencies participating in the RCTO to collaboratively advance TIM in the region.

---

⁹ City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, November 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 9. ]

¹⁰ City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, November 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 10. ]

¹¹ Ibid. [ Return to note 11. ]

¹² Metro Regional Government, About Metro, 2011. Available at: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24201, last accessed June 13, 2011. [ Return to note 12. ]

¹³ Metro Regional Government, Regional Transportation System Management and Operations Plan, June 2010. Available at: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/regional_tsmo_refinement_plan_june2010_final.pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011. [ Return to note 13. ]

¹⁴ Metro, 2010-13 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, September 21, 2010. Available at: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/mtip_draft_council_adopt_web.pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011. [ Return to note 14. ]

¹⁵ Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 15. ]

¹⁶ U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Population and Housing Occupancy Status: 2010 - United States -- Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area; and for Puerto Rico. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, last accessed June 13, 2011. [ Return to note 16. ]

¹⁷ Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 17. ]

¹⁸ Pima Association of Governments, Regional Concept for Transportation Operations, Final Report, July 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 18. ]

¹⁹Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) for Southeast Michigan, June 2007 (Unpublished) and Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO) Final Report: Southeast Michigan Experience, July 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 19. ]

²⁰SEMCOG and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Data for Southeast Michigan, March 25, 2011. Available at: http://library.semcog. org/InmagicGenie/DocumentFolder/QuickFacts2010Census.pdf, last accessed June 13, 2011. [ Return to note 20. ]

²¹ Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) for Southeast Michigan, June 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 21. ]

²² Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Concept of Transportation Operations (RCTO) for Southeast Michigan, June 2007 (Unpublished). [ Return to note 22. ]

²³ See: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Operations. Available at: http://www.semcog.org/RegionalOperations.aspx. [ Return to note 23. ]

²⁴ Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. [ Return to note 24. ]

²⁵ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, last accessed June 14, 2011. [ Return to note 25. ]

²⁶ Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. [ Return to note 26. ]

²⁷ Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Resource Document Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operation (RCTO) Version 1.0, July 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Hampton%20Roads%20RCTO%20SRH%207-21.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. Hampton Roads Highway Incident Management (HIM) Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO), June 2008 (Unpublished). Available at: http://www.hrrcto.org/pdf/Summary.pdf, last accessed June 14, 2011. [ Return to note 27. ]

You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDFs on this page.