September 2003 · Volume 85 · Number 8

Transportation Operations Management: Less Congestion, More Cooperation

Zia Burleigh 
Most local government transportation agencies routinely conduct activities designed to minimize traffic delay and service interruptions. As congestion and service disruptions in the United States continue to escalate, however, local government managers, now more than ever, are challenged by their communities and elected officials, despite significant decreases in local government budgets, to ensure that transportation agencies meet the objectives of reduced congestion, lowered emissions, and improved systems reliability, safety, and convenience.
Due to increased congestion, combined with higher rates of traffic incidents, and heightened public safety concerns, local government managers are beginning to realize that traditional strategies for managing the transportation infrastructure (building new roads and highways) are no longer effective. Even with the availability of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) such as variable message signs (VMS), roadway weather information systems (RWIS), and the growth of traffic management centers (TMCs), many transportation agencies are still functioning as “stove-piped” organizations, where responsibilities for varied operational activities are often widely dispersed and segregated. Consequently, different units within some transportation agencies manage specific tasks with separate budgets and staffs, often with little interagency or multi-agency coordination.[1]
During traffic-related incidents law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency medical services (EMS), and other public safety–related agencies are required to work together with transportation agencies because of their roles in highway incident response, traffic law enforcement, special event management, roadway maintenance, and highway construction work zone safety. Clearly, both entities—public safety and transportation—depend on each other to efficiently and effectively serve their communities, as timely emergency response requires navigable roadways, and efficient traffic operations rely on effective public safety services.
Despite this clear relationship both agencies have traditionally viewed themselves as providing two separate and distinct services that don’t require interaction or coordination until on the scene of an incident. While this may have been true in the past, the growth in traffic incidents and congestion has caused them to become more interrelated and, in many ways reliant upon each other today. The need for early planning and collaboration to improve emergency response and decrease congestion is vital.
Breaking down the barriers that have created these fragmented organizations is indeed a challenge that many city/county managers have already begun to address. With budget constraints taking priority, however, many jurisdictions are still struggling to find alternatives that can be used to assist them in implementing more multi-agency programs. The manager, therefore, as the supervisor of these key government services (e.g., transportation, law enforcement, emergency medical services, and fire and rescue), is in a critical position to initiate changes in the way transportation and public safety agencies function.
By encouraging their staffs to learn more about new approaches for performance that include greater coordination and cooperation, transportation and public safety agencies can perhaps begin to development and implement policies and procedures that facilitate a more collaborative environment. 
A Systems Management Approach
Transportation planners predict that the nations transportation infrastructure will suffer from unbearable gridlock over the next two decades; however, according to the 2002 Urban Mobility Study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), this prediction has already become a reality for many U.S. cities. The TTI study estimated that, in 2000, the nation’s 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 21.6 billion liters (5.7 billion gallons) in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity.
Roughly half of the congestion experienced is caused by recurring demands where road use exceeds existing capacity, while the other half is due to non-recurring congestion caused by temporary disruptions, such as traffic incidents, construction work zones, weather, and special events (see Figure 1). [2]
Highway and secondary roadway congestion is more than just a problem of recurring “rush hour” delays. TTI estimates that delay due to non-recurring incidents (disabled vehicles and crashes) are slightly larger than delay due to recurring incidents (peak hour commuting) in more than 68 cities. Under pressure to optimize performance during both types of incidents, many local governments are evolving towards a more integrated, systems-level approach to transportation operations management. [3] Increasingly, transportation and public safety agencies are working toward improvement of institutional relationships to foster more integrated day-to-day operations.
Some jurisdictions have adopted formal policies with states and surrounding jurisdictions to promote and maintain congestion management partnerships that provide regional frameworks for the integrated deployment of ITS, such as traffic conditions monitoring, computerized traffic control systems, traveler information systems, and public transit management systems. Many others are developing and implementing formal traffic incident management programs by reorganizing the priorities of transportation and public safety agencies to make improving coordination to reduce response and clearance times a clear operational objective. [4]
Figure 2 provides a model illustrating how the systems management approach can be implemented to link the various operations oriented activities into a synergistic program through coordinated planning, continuous day-to-day cooperation, information sharing, and the development of common performance measurement data. 
By implementing a more integrated transportation management approach, improvements to local government transportation operations are taking place on two levels. First, transportation agencies are beginning to recognize the need to replace traditional strategies focused on building more roads and highways with strategies that promote operations and management of existing systems. Second, local governments are beginning to develop a better understanding of the needs and perspectives of its public agencies to better coordinate functions through the following initiatives: [5]
•	Building consensus among public safety and transportation agencies to establish cross-agency commitments that identify roles for operations and management activities on a cooperative regional basis (e.g. memorandum of understanding, cooperative agreements, etc.). 
•	Facilitating coordination among transportation and public safety agencies through the establishment of recurring planning exercises and meetings. 
•	Allocating funding and operating resources to sustain a continuing commitment to joint systems operations and management (interagency and multi-agency). 
•	Coordinating the implementation of new information technologies to achieve interoperable communication systems. 
The box illustrates how Austin, Texas, is using the systems management approach to integrate transportation, law enforcement, and fire/EMS services to better coordinate emergency response and traffic incident management.
Bridging the Gap
At the federal level, the emphasis is clearly shifting toward measurable customer service benefits as a strategic priority. On May 13, 2003, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled the Bush Administration’s six-year $247 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal. “If enacted by Congress, SAFETEA will help modernize safety programs, reduce congestion and minimize project delays, increase funding flexibility for states and local jurisdictions, improve public transit efficiency, and help protect the environment,” said Secretary Mineta. [6]
Calling for a safer, simpler, and smarter transportation system, under this bill, the US DOT will attempt to be more efficient, achieve better results, and increase accountability through the amalgamation of public safety and transportation management and a stronger commitment to measuring progress through performance measures. As a result, it is likely that future eligibility for federal funding will require a stronger focus on measuring and reporting of performance.
The reduction of travel time, increased system reliability, and heightened system safety and security are examples of customer service benefits that can be designated as program goals. [7] Measurement of these performance variables is increasingly feasible using ITS technologies. Because of the crucial role they play in today’s incident management and highway operations functions, public safety agencies will also come to inevitably share accountability for measurable improvements in system performance. Therefore, the development of common performance measures can provide local governments with a framework that can be used to evaluate and quantify their overall efficiency and effectiveness.
Overall customer satisfaction relies on local government’s ability to provide the traveling public with safe, efficient, and reliable transportation networks. The systems management approach is a first step towards bridging the gaps in many of today’s transportation agencies. Extending these concepts across transportation and public safety entities is the next frontier. Shared use of communications infrastructures and other technologies will assist in real-time integration of transportation and public safety operations and establish a foundation for developing and achieving common objectives. 
Integrated Transportation, Law Enforcement, and Fire/EMS Services in Austin, Texas 
The local police, fire, EMS, and transportation agencies in Austin, Texas, have partnered with Travis County, the Texas Department of Transportation, and the regional transit authority to integrate transportation and emergency services to develop a Regional Emergency Communications and Transportation Management Center that will serve the Travis County area. The new center will provide an unprecedented degree of coordination among the region’s fire and EMS, law enforcement, and transportation services at the city, county, and state levels. Using an integrated communications system, the center will include wireless radio, telephone, video, fax, and microwave technology combined with countywide geographic information system mapping. Both EMS dispatchers and transportation managers will view real-time maps showing traffic and crime incident locations and the location of emergency responders. This will result in quicker, safer emergency response and traffic incident management.	
Additional Resources
For more information on transportation operations and management strategies, visit http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov. For information on the Regional Emergency Communications and Transportation Management Center in Austin, Texas, visit http://www.its publicsafety.net/docs/austin.htm, or contact David Stone, city of Austin project manager at 512/469-5041.
For more information on SAFETEA, visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization, and for information and assistance on performance measures, visit the International City/County Management Association Center for Performance Measurement at www.icma.org/performance. 
[1] Lockwood, Stephen. “A Systems Management Approach to Transportation Operations Management.” ITS Public Safety Case Studies. Internet: http://www.itspublicsafety.net.
[2] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations. “The Congestion Picture.” Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/congpress.htm (19 November 2002).
[3] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations. “Congestion Mitigation.” Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/congest2.htm (November 2002).
[4] Lockwood.
[5] Lockwood.
[6] U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs. “Secretary Mineta Unveils Bush Administration Surface Transportation Reauthorization Proposal.” Internet: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot04003.htm (14 May 2003).
[7] Lockwood.

Zia Burleigh is transportation project manager, International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C.

This article was made possible through a joint project between the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). ICMA has partnered with U.S. DOT to provide local governments with relevant tools and resources that can be used to assist them in meeting the challenges of implementing and managing safe and effective transportation systems.

For more information about ICMA’s transportation program or to request additional information on this subject, visit www.icma.org or e-mail Zia Burleigh at zburleigh@icma.org.