The page you requested has moved and you've automatically been taken to its new location.
Please update your link or bookmark after closing this notice.
This section focuses on opportunities for integrating operations, safety, and multimodal planning at the statewide level. Greater integration at the statewide level should flow into strengthened integration of operations, safety, and planning at the lower levels, particularly when interdisciplinary teams and performance measures are brought into these efforts.
There are a number of required documents as part of the transportation planning process, including the SLRTP, SHSP, and STIP. State DOTs may also develop other specialized plans focusing on specific issues, such as operations, transit, bicycle and pedestrian activity, and freight. Opportunities for integration occur by developing links between safety-focused efforts (such as the SHSP), operations-focused efforts (such as operations or ITS plans), and other multimodal transportation planning efforts with the SLRTP, and ultimately in influencing projects and investments that are programmed in the STIP. These opportunities are briefly described below.
The SLRTP sets the direction for investments and should be a focus for DOTs that wish to integrate operations, safety, and multimodal planning. The statewide transportation planning process varies widely across the country. Unlike metropolitan transportation plans, the SLRTP is often a policy document or investment strategy and therefore does not contain information on specific projects and programs. A recommended approach to integrate operations and safety in the SLRTP involves the following steps:
There are a range of statewide plans that State DOTs develop outside of the SLRTP (see appendix A for a list). These plans should be linked to the SLRTP goals and policies. Development of specialized plans focusing on safety and operations provides opportunities for integration of these issues into long-range planning. Examples include:
The STIP is the programming document for the State DOT, and identifies the projects to be implemented in order to reach the vision for the State's transportation system and services. It represents a commitment for Federal-aid transportation and transit funding. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) from each of the State's metropolitan areas flows directly into the STIP; however, the STIP also contains projects from other sources, including non-metropolitan areas of the State.
Linking planning and programming is key to ensuring achievement of intended outcomes. If investments are not programmed to support the plan vision and specific objectives, it is likely that intended outcomes will not be achieved. Linking planning and programming occurs when projects in the STIP originate from strategies in the SLRTP. Fiscal constraint and a realistic assessment of available funding may raise awareness of cost-effective operations and safety strategies.
Eight opportunities for integration of operations, safety, and multimodal planning at the statewide level are identified in this section:
As noted above, these opportunities are linked and may be considered steps in an overall approach to integration.
|Description||Goals represent desired outcomes for the transportation system as a whole. Objectives are specific, measurable statements that identify what is to be accomplished in order to attain goals. An ideal objective starts with an action (e.g., "reduce," "increase," "attain," " maintain") and contains specific targets (e.g., "reduce fatalities by 10% by 2020," "increase the share of trips on non-motorized modes to 30% for work trips statewide").
At a minimum, a statewide plan that seeks to integrate operations, safety, and multimodal planning should reflect the importance of operations and safety within the goals in the SLRTP. Ideally, these goals should be multimodal. Establishing supporting objectives in the SLRTP should yield more focus on operations and safety investments.
|Who Is Involved||Planning staff working collaboratively with staff from operations and safety are essential to establishing goals and objectives. In order to effectively collaborate, each functional area will require a clear understanding of the planning process as well as the interests and responsibilities of the other functions.|
Oregon DOT Transportation Plan: "Management of the System" and "Safety and Security" Goals
The Oregon DOT's Oregon Transportation Plan , updated in 2006, is the overarching policy document among a series of plans that together form the State transportation system plan. One of the plan's seven goals focuses on system management: to improve the efficiency of the transportation system by optimizing the existing transportation infrastructure capacity with improved operations and management. 7 This goal provides a direct linkage to operations strategies with a focuses on a combination of both supply and demand management strategies to improve operational efficiency through activities such as:
Michigan State Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
The Michigan DOT's (MDOT) SLRTP, MI Transportation Plan Moving Michigan Forward: 2005-2030 State Long-Range Transportation Plan, adopted June 2007, directly supports efficient and effective operations. Its vision specifically states that Michigan's future transportation system will be:
One of the plan's goals is: to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system and transportation services and expand MDOT's coordination and collaboration with partners. This goal reflects MDOT's desire to optimize the performance from Michigan's existing transportation system, with objectives focusing on the application of technology, stronger coordination and cooperation with public and private sector partners, and improved intermodal transfers. Another goal is: Continue to improve transportation safety and ensure the security of the transportation system. The plan also lists those projects that are prioritized under each goal. Measuring performance for all modes, with a focus on highway operations, safety, and the condition and performance of other modes, is identified as a strategy, and the separate Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Report provides a detailed discussion of the plan's four goals and associated objectives.
More information is available at http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9621_14807_14809---,00.html or http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_SLRP_rept_Goals_Objectives_Performance_Report_11-17-06l_180916_7.pdf. Contact: Susan Gorski, Section Manager, Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis Section, firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Toolkit: Sample Operations and Safety-Focused Goals and Objectives|
|Sample Goal Types||Sample Objectives|
|Mobility and Travel Options||
|Innovation / New Technology||
|Work zone management||
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations and Office of Planning, Planning for Operations, http://www.plan4operations.dot.gov/index.htm.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report 546: Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning, http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/156716.aspx.
|Description||Incorporating performance measures into the SLRTP serves an important function for communicating and coordinating between a DOT's decisionmakers, policymakers, and the public and for assessing progress toward achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the SLRTP. Performance measures focused on safety and operations issues, such as reliability, access to traveler information, incident management, and transit operations, will help to focus attention on these issues and enable tracking performance. Combined with data and analysis tools, performance measures serve an important role in helping to provide a basis for prioritizing investments. When coordinated with planned operations activities such as the implementation of ITS infrastructure, the data collection efforts required for performance measures can be supported with limited additional cost. These performance measures can then be utilized in other documents, including operations plans, the SHSP, and modal plans, as well as regional and corridor planning efforts.|
|Who Is Involved||
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
New Hampshire DOT Transportation Plan: Mobility and Safety Objectives and Performance Measures
The New Hampshire DOT's transportation plan, A Framework for Transforming Transportation in New Hampshire 9 (public draft, May 2008) is built on a vision, goals, objectives, and strategies, which lead to performance measures that are used to assess progress. The plan's vision and goals were developed by the Community Advisory Committee through a facilitated, consensus-based process and appear to put a high emphasis on operations and safety. The vision indicates that transportation in New Hampshire provides safe and secure mobility and travel options for all the state's residents, visitors, and goods movement; it is well maintained, efficient and reliable; and provides seamless interstate and intrastate connectivity. Under the goal of "Mobility and Modal Choice," selected objectives include:
The New Hampshire DOT is currently in the process of finalizing updates to its 2008 SLRTP. This updated draft includes some minor edits that continue to emphasize and strengthen the areas of safety, operations, and multimodal planning, as well as strengthen discussions on security, climate change, and financial challenges. This plan is anticipated to be completed in fall 2010.
More information is available at http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/lrtbp.htm. Contact: Bill Watson, Planning and Community Assistance Administrator, email@example.com, (603) 271-3344.
Minnesota DOT Statewide Transportation Plan: Incorporating Operations Policies, Measures, and Targets 10
Mn/DOT's recently updated transportation plan from 2009, Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan 2009-2028: Your Destination...Our Priority, focuses on statewide efforts to achieve a new vision that "is broad and far-reaching... [and] speaks to transportation as a critical ingredient for the continued economic vitality of the entire state and livability of its communities." Previously, Mn/DOT addressed operations as a separate policy within its long-range plan, but, in the new plan, operations is emphasized as a strategy to help effectively manage the transportation system, particularly as it relates to congestion in Minnesota's major metro area, the Twin Cities. The 2009 plan update highlights safety, operations, and transit as areas within which transportation improvements will be made in order to achieve their long-range planning vision.
One of the opportunities Mn/DOT outlines for improvement, "new approaches to safety and congestion," notes using a systematic, data-driven approach to help solve safety and congestion problems. It highlights a new approach where the funding priority will be elevated for those projects that are low-cost, high-benefit, and utilize innovative solutions that are both effective and can be implemented in the short term. Mn/DOT has already begun to implement some of these solutions, which include rumble strips, cable-median barriers, high-occupancy toll lanes, expanded capacity through shoulder lane conversions, and lane remarkings within existing rights of way.
Complementing its discussion of opportunities to improve safety and congestion, Mn/DOT identifies a number of policies for realizing these opportunities, which are further supported by performance measures to keep Mn/DOT accountable and transparent to the public. Policy 1, Traveler Safety, focuses on improving safety by "reduc[ing] the number of fatalities and serious injuries for all travel modes." Policy 5, Statewide Connections, focuses on statewide travel and improving the connections between major centers of commerce within the State. Mn/DOT has supported this by developing corridor-wide average travel speed performance targets specifically for the Greater Minnesota Interregional Corridor (IRC), one of the State's main connectors. Policy 6, Twin Cities Mobility, emphasizes effective management and operations, focusing on transit, within the Twin Cities. Due to the limited potential for capacity expansion within the cities, Mn/DOT notes the priority for projects that are high benefit and low cost, reduce incident duration to help reduce congestion, and improve traveler communication efforts. Policy 7, Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility, focuses on improving travel outside of metro regions, at the subregional level, through improved coordination between jurisdictions and decisions regarding land use and transportation.
Performance measures associated with these policies include:
|Performance Measure||Relevant Policy|
|Annual number of vehicle-related fatalities on all State and local roads||Policy 1|
|Annual number of severe or incapacitating injuries on all Minnesota roads||Policy 1|
|Annual number of bicycle and pedestrian-related fatalities and injuries||Policy 1|
|Dollars spent on Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) stand-alone safety projects||Policy 1|
|Percent of Greater Minnesota IRC miles meeting or within 2 mph of target speed||Policy 5|
|Percent of Level 1 and 2 Regional Trade Centers with scheduled intercity bus service||Policy 5|
|Twin Cities" ranking among metropolitan areas for peak to off-peak travel times||Policy 6|
|Percent of freeway miles congested in weekday peak periods||Policy 6|
|Number of transit passengers served in the Twin Cities region||Policy 6|
|Miles of bus-only shoulder lanes||Policy 6|
|Average clearance time for urban freeway incidents||Policy 6|
|Metro signal retiming frequency on arterial routes||Policy 6|
|Total miles covered by the Freeway Incident Response Safety Team||Policy 6|
|Number of park-and-ride spaces in the Twin Cities region||Policy 6|
|Total number of public transit bus service hours provided compared to the total number of hours needed to meet transit demand||Policy 7|
|Number of counties in Greater Minnesota with county-wide transit service||Policy 7|
|Percentage of Minnesota workers commuting by a mode other than automobile||Policy 7|
The Plan's framework of opportunities and policies is supported by a variety of plans: Greater Minnesota Transit Implementation/Investment Plan, Greater Minnesota Transit Plan, Intercity Bus Study, and the Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan.
More information is available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/. Contact: Peggy Reichert, Director, Minnesota DOT Statewide Planning Unit, Peggy.Reichert@state.mn.us, (651) 284-0501.
|Toolkit: Sample Operations and Safety Performance Measures 11|
|Type||Measure||Definition||Sample Units of Measurement|
|Satisfaction with transportation system operations, safety, and service quality||Customer
|Qualitative measure of customers" opinions related to roadway and/or transit management and operations services.||Very satisfied
Don"t know / Not applicable
|Mobility||Extent of congestion-spatial||Miles of roadway within a predefined area and time period where average travel times are congested (30% longer than unconstrained times).||Lane miles of congested conditions
Percent of congested roadways
|Extent of congestion-temporal||Measure of time during which more than 20% of the roadway sections in a predefined area are congested (see definition above).||Hours of congestion|
|Recurring Delay||Repetitive vehicle delays for the current time frame (time of day, day of week, day type).||Vehicle-hours|
|Non-recurring delay||Vehicle delay in excess of recurring delay for the current time frame (time of day, day of week, day type).||Vehicle-hours|
|Speed||Average speed of vehicles measured in a single lane for a single direction of flow, at a specific location on the specified roadway.||Miles per hour
Feet per second
Kilometers per hour
|Throughput (Person)||Number of persons traversing a roadway section in a specified direction in a given unit of time (includes vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists).||Persons per hour|
|Throughput (Vehicle)||Number of vehicles traversing a roadway section in a specified direction in a given unit of time.||Vehicles per hour|
|Travel Time-Link||Average time required to traverse a section of roadway in a single direction.||Minutes per trip|
|Travel time-Reliability (Buffer time)||Buffer time is the additional time that must be added to a trip (measured according to the "travel time" definition above) to ensure that travelers making the trip will arrive at their destination at, or before the intended time at least 95% of the time.||Minutes
Percent of total trip time
|Travel Time-Trip||The average time required to travel from an origin to a destination on a trip that might include multiple modes of travel.||Minutes per trip|
|Incident Management||Incident Duration||Time between incident notification and complete incident clean-up.||Vehicle-hours|
|Incident Clearance Time||Average clearance times for major (90+ minutes) incidents on identified roadway.||Minutes|
|Safety||Traffic Fatalities||Number of traffic fatalities.||Number of fatalities|
|Pedestrian/Bicycle Fatalities||Number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities.||Number of fatalities|
|Transit Fatalities||Number of fatalities for passengers on transit services.||Number of fatalities|
|Fatality rate||Number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle or passenger miles (for each mode).||Number of fatalities per vehicle mile or passenger mile|
|Injuries||Number of serious injuries (for each mode).||Number of injuries|
|Injury rate||Number of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle or passenger miles (for each mode).||Number of injuries per vehicle mile or passenger mile|
|Crashes||Number of (fatal and non-fatal) crashes.||Number of crashes|
|Connectivity||Connectivity to Intermodal Facilities (driving)||Number of miles away from an identified intermodal facility.||% within 5 miles (1 mile for metropolitan areas)|
|Dwelling Unit Proximity||Number of miles away from identified dwelling units.||% within 5 miles,1 mile for metropolitan areas (driving), % within ¼ mile (walking)|
|Employment Proximity||Number of miles away from identified places of employment.||% within 5 miles, 1 mile for metropolitan areas (driving), % within ¼ mile (walking)|
|Percentage of Miles With Bicycle Accommodations||Number of miles on identified roadway with bicycle accommodations.||% miles with bike lane/shoulder coverage|
|Percentage of Miles With Pedestrian Accommodations||Number of miles on identified roadway with pedestrian accommodations.||% miles with sidewalk coverage|
|Service Coverage (walking/biking)||Number of transit stops within walking distance (less than ¼ mile) and/or biking distance (less than 2 miles) for an identified percent of the local population.||Number of transit stops|
Federal Highway Administration, Operations Performance Measures, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/index.htm.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, A Primer on Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwahep09043/cs4.cfm.
Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies (DOT HS 811 025), August 2008, Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis 311: Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for Highway Systems and Segments. Transportation Research Board. 2003. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_311.pdf.
National Transportation Operations Coalition. Performance Measurement Initiative: Final Report. July 2005. Available at: http://www.ntoctalks.com/action_teams/perf_measure.php.
|Description||Once performance measures have been established, agencies should collect data and develop a tracking system to evaluate progress in relation to these measures. Performance measure tracking can also be used to identify deficiencies, which can feed into regional and corridor and sub-area planning.
Data are a critical element of the analysis that serves as the foundation for safety and operations planning. For many years, the quality and timeliness of crash data were lacking, constraining the ability of safety and transportation planners to understand what was happening on the road network. Similarly, the quality and availability of data on travel time reliability, incidents, and the sources of non-recurring delays have been a gap in knowledge regarding the system. The advent of geographic information systems (GIS) and global positioning systems (GPS) has provided much more effective and efficient ways of handling data. Many states are now requiring common police crash reporting forms so that data are consistent from one part of the State to another. Some states are using new communications technologies to provide crash information within a few days of the crash having occurred. 12 ITS technologies now provide a wealth of real-time data on travel speeds and volumes 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, allowing greater information on reliability problems and the sources of delay. Integrating these and other improvements in data management into planning help in prioritizing investments and more effectively address operations and safety strategies. (See opportunities 4.2 and 5.1. )
|Who Is Involved||
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
Maryland DOT: Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance
Since 2002, the Maryland DOT (MDOT) has published the Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance. The report details MDOT's tracking efforts to date for evaluating Maryland's transportation network performance. 13 The performance measures outlined in the report directly link back to the goals and objectives of the Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP). This tracking tool is particularly useful for Maryland's transportation agencies when they are determining their overall management strategies. The report outlines current performance measures, their evaluation, and future performance strategies.
For example, in the "System Preservation and Performance" section, performance measures for the 2010 report include user cost savings for the traveling public due to incident management and operating cost per passenger trip, which evaluates Maryland Transit Administration's (MTA) ability to effectively and efficiently meet passenger needs on various travel modes such as bus, light rail, metro service, light rail service, and paratransit and taxi services.
In the "Connectivity for Daily Life" section, performance measures include the percent of freeway lane-miles and arterial lane-miles with average annual volumes at or above congested levels, percentage of state-owned roadway centerline miles within urban areas that have sidewalks, percentage of state-owned roadway centerline miles with a Bicycle Level of Comfort (BLOC) grade "D" or better and mileage of MDSHA-owned highways with marked bike lanes, annual vehicle revenue miles of service provided (measures miles on bus, light rail, metro service, light rail service, and paratransit and taxi services), and average weekday transit ridership.
The "Safety and Security" section includes performance measures such as customers perceptions of safety on the MTA system while riding, waiting at stops, and while walking to a vehicle in an MTA parking lot, preventable accidents per 100,000 vehicle-miles, and the number and rate of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and injuries on all Maryland roads.
More information is available at http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/Plans_Programs_Reports/Index.html, Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance. Contact: Mike Haley, Office of Planning and Capital Programming, MHaley@mdot.state.md.us, (410) 865-1011.
Virginia DOT: Data Business Plan for System Operations
VDOT completed the Data Business Plan for System Operations in June 2008 to support data operations within the maintenance and operations functional area, and to ensure that investments in data coincide with VDOT's business needs. VDOT decided to develop the plan after performing an internal assessment of data collection and data use within the department. It found that while data sharing occurred in the areas of planning and environment and construction, in all other sectors of the department, data use was not integrated and often duplicated. The data business plan has been used to evaluate the contribution of data to VDOT's operations, establish a programmatic approach to planning for future investments in data collection, provide an understanding of available data resources across all levels of the maintenance and operations directorate, identify data needs, and define the roles and responsibilities related to data collection.
VDOT is also encouraging data stewardship as a way to improve accountability for data quality and data management and encourage collaboration among user groups, executives, information technology personnel, and other stakeholders related to data needs.
In developing its plan and facilitating the associated stewardship, VDOT aims to achieve the following:
More information is available at http://webservices.camsys.com/trbcomm/2009PresPap.htm, VDOT's Approach to Aligning Data Program. Contact: Jeff Price, Assistant Director Operations Planning Division, VDOT, Jeff.Price@vdot.virginia.gov, (804) 786-2826.
Washington State DOT: Gray Notebook
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is a known leader in system performance measurement and transportation systems operations. WSDOT began developing the Gray Notebook (formerly titled Measures, Markers, and Mileposts) 14 in 2001 to communicate agency and system performance to legislators and citizens alike. The publication links performance measures from the agency's Strategic Plan policy direction from the State's legislative and executive branches, and Federal reporting requirements. This type of aggressive reporting is an important step to transportation planning accountability, which will likely become a key part of the next surface transportation bill. (An example of a performance dashboard is shown in the image to the right.)
The Gray Notebook presents articles in a way that makes the topics" relationship to the five Legislative policy goals-and WSDOT's own strategic goals clear. The notebook is organized into five sections devoted to those strategic goals, each marked by a page that recaps WSDOT's goals for Safety, Preservation, Mobility/Congestion Relief, Environment, and Stewardship. The first four sections feature quarterly and annual reports on key agency functions, providing regularly updated system and program performance information. The Stewardship section reports on delivery of capital projects funded by the three main State funding programs and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). They contain summary tables, detailed narrative project summaries, and financial information. The information in these articles can be used by planners to update priorities and focus investments where performance improvements are needed.
Among the 23 subjects addressed in the Gray Notebook are:
The Gray Notebook uses several important styles to better convey its performance to the reader: "no surprises reporting", "performance journalism," and good graphing technique. "No surprises" refers to a philosophy of reporting on news both good and bad so that decisionmakers can be well informed. "Performance journalism" refers to using a journalistic writing style to aid in conveying detailed and sometimes complex performance information to a reader that they will be able to understand and utilize. Finally, the notebook emphasizes good graphing technique to ensure that data is correctly, fairly, and clearly displayed to convey performance, whether using charts, tables, or maps.
Each edition of the Gray Notebook, as well as each performance measure going back to 2001, is archived quarterly on WSDOT's Accountability Web site at www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/congestion/.
Source: Washington State DOT. "The Gray Notebook." March 2010. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BD26D6F0-B554-497C-9D0E-35C546BF179F/0/GrayNotebookMar10.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2010.
|Description||Goals and objectives identified in the SLRTP, SHSP, and other planning documents should lead to development of policies, strategies, programs, and investments that support attainment of objectives. Performance measures are a useful tool to help prioritize investments because they provide a means to identify system deficiencies where investments are warranted. In this way funding can be allocated based on investment priorities that are measurable and can be tracked over time. Analysis tools can also be used to help develop tradeoffs between different kinds of strategies.|
|Who Is Involved||
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
New Jersey Transportation Plan: Strong Transit and Intermodal Operations Focus
New Jersey's SLRTP, called Transportation Choices 2030 (October 2008) 15 is developed jointly by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and NJ Transit. This policy plan provides broad direction for the transportation system, with a heavy emphasis on integrating transportation-land use planning (smart growth) to support transit, walking, and biking. It also emphasizes the importance of ITS to improve operations; facilities to move more freight by rail and policies that support moving freight during nonrush hours; travel demand management measures to shift travel out of cars and shift travel times; and strategic improvements to address bottlenecks in the highway system. The New Jersey SLRTP supports continued implementation of NJDOT's ITS Master Plan, which calls for significantly expanding the number of closed-circuit television cameras, electronic message signs on the state's highways, and continually improving the NJ511 free phone and Web service for transportation information. In addition, NJ Transit is applying ITS to improve safety, including Automatic Train Control (ATC) to monitor speed and apply brakes automatically if necessary.
One of the plan's goals is to "Improve Mobility, Accessibility, and Reliability," through operational and multimodal strategies such as improving the speed and reliability of bus service by establishing bus priority corridors and implementing preferential treatments for buses to reduce delays due to congestion; sustain efforts to improve the on-time performance and reliability of all public transit services; and aggressively pursue transportation demand management by giving greater emphasis to the work of transportation management associations. Another goal is to "Operate Efficiently" through strategies such as providing customers with real-time travel information about current conditions and the availability of choices; reducing the duration of incidents through increased coverage of emergency service patrols and increased coordination with local emergency responders; improving traffic signal operations; and making transit fare payment easier and more seamless.
More information is available at http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/njchoices/. Contact: Brent Barnes, Director of Statewide Planning, firstname.lastname@example.org, (609) 530-2866.
Virginia DOT: Northern Region Operations Program Development
Source: Virginia DOT. Northern Virginia ITS Architecture.
Accessed April 26, 2010.
VDOT's Northern Region Operations (NRO) has pioneered an integrated, full-cycle process for investing in, implementing, maintaining, evaluating, and enhancing ITS and operations projects. Over the course of several years, NRO developed and refined a process that can serve as a model for public agencies all across the United States. This integrated process flows from initial strategic program-level planning to tactical project planning and prioritization, investment decisions, ITS architecture and FHWA Rule 940 compliance, through project implementation, evaluation, and feedback to the ongoing strategic planning process. Along the way, some sophisticated approaches and methodologies developed by VDOT NRO are utilized to ensure that a high-quality, robust, and well-ordered ITS program is delivered to its customers.
In a resource-constrained environment with increased calls for accountability and growing mobility and safety needs, the delivery of the operations program requires VDOT NRO to make sound investment decisions between various projects with competing priorities. VDOT NRO's Planning and Program Delivery (PPD) Process consists of five phases: Planning, Program Development, Fiscal Programming, Program Delivery, and Program Evaluation.
VDOT NRO uses a three-step process for its annual Program Development phase: (1) identify program and project needs, (2) develop the Annual Strategic Focus, and (3) prioritize the system needs based on the identified annual goals and objectives. NRO begins by identifying its program and project needs through the objectives and goals of the long-range plan and Strategic Plan, and use of the ITS Decision Support Tool (www.vdot-itsdst.com) and ITS Device Master Plans. Once the program and project needs have been identified, NRO develops its Annual Strategic Focus, an identified subset of the goals and objectives contained in the Strategic Plan. The goals and objectives from the plan are assigned weights by NRO section managers during the Annual Program Planning Workshop. The weights are based on the current strategic focus, each manager's experience, recent technological advances, direction from administrators within the District and Central Office, and other factors. The weights are compiled and a rank order for the goals and objectives is established for the upcoming fiscal year. The result of the 2009 Annual Strategic Focus for Fiscal Year 2010 is below.
Following the Annual Strategic Focus process, projects are mapped back to their associated goals and objectives, and the weights of each associated goal and objective are applied, resulting in a project prioritization score. This score provides a guideline for allocation during the fiscal programming phase when projects are linked with eligible funding sources.
More information on projects in Northern Virginia is available http://www.vdot-itsarch.com/planningprocess/planningprocess.html. Contact: Amy Tang McElwain, Northern Region Operations, AmyTang.McElwain@VDOT.Virginia.gov.
Source: Virginia DOT. NRO FY2010 Strategic Investment Program Plan (SIPP).
Available at http://www.vdot-itsarch.com/docsandfiles.html.
|Description||Each State must develop an SHSP as mandated in SAFETEA-LU, 23 USC 148. An SHSP is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP strategically establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas developed in consultation with Federal, State, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, and should be directly linked to the SLRTP and STIP. The SHSP must address engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key factors in evaluating highway projects. Through the establishment of statewide goals and objectives, the SHSP and SLRTP have a natural synergy. By collaborating on the setting of goals, planning and safety functions are integrated at the highest level within the organization. Linked goals and objectives allow the setting of strategies and monitoring that reinforce the relationship, and provide a mechanism for integrating safety considerations into long- and short-range transportation planning. The SHSP also can provide a potential opportunity for integrating operations considerations with safety.|
|Who Is Involved||
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
Virginia DOT's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The Virginia SHSP includes a section, "Transportation Safety Planning," that recognizes the important role of integrating safety within the transportation planning process. It notes: "Individual jurisdictions, as well as state and regional agencies have widely varied transportation safety planning practices. To make informed decisions about highway crash trends, state, regional, and local agencies need current data and analysis for accurate problem identification. With good crash records, strategies can be implemented to address the causes of crashes. In addition, safety between modes of transportation needs to be more fully addressed." 16
The SHSP also makes a tie between highway safety and operations. For instance in an emphasis area focusing on preventing roadway departures, Virginia's plan notes that the Commonwealth aims to improve the operations, maintenance and design process to incorporate safety reviews and to facilitate better design decisions. The plan also includes a section focusing on work zone safety, which includes operations strategies. Some examples of strategies in the SHSP that integrate operations, safety, and planning include:
More information is available at: http://www.virginiadot.org/info/hwysafetyplan.asp. Contact: Mike Sawyer, Assistant Division Administrator, VDOT Central office, Traffic Engineering Division, Mike.Sawyer@VDOT.Virginia.gov, (804) 786-4196.
Ohio DOT's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
ODOT's SHSP identifies its focus on integration up front. In the Introduction, it notes that the SHSP "is considered comprehensive because it asks government agencies and safety advocates to work across jurisdictional boundaries to address crash problems regardless of where they occur." 17 Examples of strategies included in the SHSP that relate to operations and planning include:
Additional integration efforts include ODOT's statewide Systematic Signal Timing & Phasing Program (SSTPP), which was launched in 2008 and is designed to evaluate and update the timing and phasing of signal systems in congested, high-crash corridors where signal timing can be linked to crashes. The program was developed based on a number of national studies that demonstrated a link between improved signal timing and significant reductions in crashes, travel times, fuel costs, and air quality improvements. The program is funded through Ohio's Safety Program (HSIP as well as State and local funding). Once the analysis is complete, ODOT uses this information to make decisions regarding improvements.
ODOT has made efforts to link its SHSP with other efforts such as its project development process, which now requires a work zone design review by the Ohio State Highway Patrol in major construction zones. This review will provide ODOT with input on how the work zone design could be improved in order to encourage safer speeds and to facilitate enforcement efforts during construction.
More information is available at: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/ProgramMgt/CapitalPrograms/Pages/SHSP.aspx. Contact: Jennifer Townley, Systems Planning and Program Management Administrator, (Unavailable May 2011) Jennifer.Townley@dot.state.oh.us, (614) 466-7493.
|Toolkit: Sample Operations-related Strategies to Consider in the SHSP|
|Focus Area||Operations Strategies|
|Work zone safety||
|Transit bus safety||
|Pedestrian and bicycle safety||
AASHTO and NCHRP Project 17-18, Implementing the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, http://safety.transportation.org/.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, Strategic Highway Safety Plan, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A Champion's Guide to Saving Lives, Interim Guidance to Supplement SAFETEA-LU Requirements. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/guides/guideshsp040506/.
|Description||Operations and/or Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) plans are developed to provide a statewide framework for enhancing the operational performance of the transportation system. The plan enables State DOTs to assess challenges they may experience in managing and operating the State's transportation infrastructure, goals and objectives for effective management and operations (M & O), and strategies. In order to maximize the opportunity for integration with the planning process, an operations/ITS plan should be developed with the intention of complimenting other existing statewide planning efforts and should be linked to the SLRTP. It can build off of the ITS Architecture. The operations/ITS plan can also include performance measures or analysis to help support regional and corridor plans and investment decision making. Although this type of plan is not required by statute, it can build upon the model of the SHSP as a comprehensive planning effort that ties into the SLRTP.|
|Who Is Involved||
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
Pennsylvania DOT: Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP)
The scale and magnitude of investment made in Pennsylvania's existing infrastructure compelled the Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) to start thinking "operationally." The agency's initial steps toward creating a more operations-oriented system began with its Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP), which was developed in 2005 to direct project development in ITS and operations. It provided a coordinated approach to operations under a statewide framework that defined project areas and set up guidelines for including operations projects within PennDOT's capital program. TSOP was intended to be considered before projects were planned, funded, and procured. As projects were developed, TSOP was intended to be considered in the development stage so that projects would ultimately emphasize information sharing among transportation stakeholders to ensure all relevant information was used in generating a solution.
TSOP was replaced in 2008 with the statewide ITS Strategic Plan, which in turn generated the Intelligent Transportation Program. This program was developed through coordination between the maintenance, planning, and research divisions within PennDOT, and focuses on identifying future ITS needs, increasing communication, and streamlining potentially duplicate project effort among various departments within the agency. The program is run by a working group made up of representatives from a number of bureaus within PennDOT including Business Solutions and Services, Construction and Materials, Design, Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, Infrastructure and Operations, Maintenance and Operations, and Public Transportation. The group meets weekly to discuss recommendations and strategies to how to implement strategies and develops roadmaps for taking projects from the planning stages to gaining dedicated funding and approval. Due to program organization, which guarantees extensive involvement from various bureaus within PennDOT, projects are developed efficiently with input from all stakeholders from the very beginning of the process.
The program is currently being developed further and the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering is currently putting together a program plan. Moving forward in the future, the program will work to accurately assess needs within Pennsylvania's transportation system and coordinate data sharing efforts among the bureaus within PennDOT as well as between statewide and local and county level efforts. As a result of this program, PennDOT has seen a greatly improved relationship between their business department and ITS division, as well as a more efficient use of financial and staff resources.
More information is available at http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/PennDOTROP.nsf/defaultTSOP?OpenPage and http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBHSTE.nsf/BHSTEHomepage?OpenFrameset. Contact: Douglas Tomlinson, Acting Chief, ITS Division, PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, DTomlinson@state.pa.us, (717) 787-3657.
Minnesota DOT: Highway Systems Operation Plan
The Mn/DOT Highway Systems Operation Plan (HSOP) was developed in 2005 to help the agency better understand the operations and maintenance needs of its highway system. The HSOP identifies the relevant ways that Mn/DOT operations programs connect to its strategic directions and statewide transportation plan policies. The HSOP uses performance measures to help capture how different levels of investment impact operations and maintenance activities and overall system performance. The HSOP aims to:
More information is available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/maintenance/hsop/. Contact: Timothy Henkel, Division Director, Modal Planning and Program Management, Tim.Henkel@dot.state.mn.us, (651) 366-4829 or Mitch Webster, Mn/DOT Office of Investment Management, Mitch.Webster@state.mn.us, (651) 366-3787.
Wisconsin DOT: Traffic Operations Infrastructure Plan
To better integrate operations projects into long-range planning, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) developed a Traffic Operations Infrastructure Plan (TOIP) in collaboration with several partners. The TOIP is a long-range planning effort undertaken by the Bureau of Highway Operations with the following goals: (1) to develop a methodology to evaluate operations projects in the same manner as traditional infrastructure projects, and (2) to integrate operations into the WisDOT planning process. It outlines Wisconsin's statewide traffic operations infrastructure needs and opportunities, resulting in a set of operational technology recommendations and associated costs. Recommendations are given on a statewide level and are further broken out by corridor.
In developing TOIP, it was recognized that the plan had to be based on traditional WisDOT planning perspectives, and had to speak to bureaus within WisDOT's Central Office, as well as the Region Planning staff. Consequently, input was gathered from the Central Office and all five regions, including staff from planning, programming, and operations. The plan also built on the structure of the 2030 update to the Wisconsin Long Range Plan, which used a strategic corridor approach that segmented the State trunkline system into 37 multimodal corridors.
The basis of the TOIP is a quantitative, data-driven methodology used to assess transportation corridors and determine levels of necessity for operations improvements. In this methodology, ten operationally oriented criteria were selected addressing recurring and nonrecurring congestion, including safety-related considerations, using both traditional and nontraditional data sources such as weather conditions and the number of major special events. These factors include ADT, LOS, as well as crash rate, crash severity index, a weather index, and a special event rating. The result of this assessment was a score that prioritized corridors for different intensities of operations technology improvements. The results were then incorporated into Wisconsin's Long Range Plan, fostering inclusion of operations needs within planning activities such as feasibility studies and environmental analyses.
Sample of Roadway Segment Scoring
Source: Hedden, Christopher. Wisconsin DOT ITS Sketch Plans: Corridor Sketch Plan Methodology.. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. October 2008. Available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2008%20OTEC%20Presentations/48A-Hedden.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2010.
By creating a long-term vision for statewide investment in traffic operations infrastructure, the TOIP allows WisDOT to prioritize locations for operations deployment and more efficiently allocate limited resources. It also makes it easier to compare operations needs within the entire transportation network that WisDOT manages, and has facilitated communication and collaboration between WisDOT's central and regional offices since all staff now use the same basis when conducting more detailed corridor analyses.
More information is available at http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/workgroups/toip.html or Wisconsin DOT ITS Sketch Plans: Corridor Sketch Plan Methodology, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2008%20OTEC%20Presentations/48A-Hedden.pdf. Contact: John Corbin, State Traffic Engineer, John.Corbin@dot.wi.gov or Peter Rafferty, ITS Program Manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Traffic Operations and Safety Lab, PRafferty@wisc.edu, (608)890-1218.
|Toolkit: Sample Statewide Operations and Safety Strategies|
|Access management||Improves traffic flow||Improves safety through reduced potential vehicle entry/exits||
|Active traffic management (e.g., variable speed limits, managed lanes, advanced signal systems)||Increases throughput||Decreases accident rate||
|Incident management||Improves traffic flow and reliability||Reduces potential for secondary crashes||
|Transit signal priority||Improves transit operations, may encourage mode shift to transit||Mode shift to transit may improve safety, since transit tends to be a safer mode||
|Transportation demand management||Improves mobility and may reduce congestion||May improves safety through less vehicle exposure (i.e., for measures that result in reduced vehicle travel)||
|Traveler information||Improves mobility, reduces unexpected travel delay||Improves safety by advising the public of adverse weather, work zones, and other potential safety hazards||
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations, Facilitating Integrated ITS Deployment Program, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/int_its_deployment/index.htm.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, Transportation Safety Planning, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/.
Transportation Research Record, Number 2065: Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations; Managed Lanes 2008, December 2008, http://www.trb.org/OperationsTrafficManagement/Blurbs/Regional_Transportation_Systems_Management_and_Ope_160506.aspx.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, National ITS Architecture, http://www.iteris.com/itsarch/.
|Description||There are a range of statewide plans that State DOTs develop outside of the SLRTP. While these additional plans should have a linkage to the overall SLRTP goals and policies, the development of specialized plans offers opportunities to integrate planning, operations, and safety considerations. These specialized plans include freight plans, bicycle/pedestrian plans, and transit plans.|
|Who Is Involved|| Developing a specialized plan benefits greatly from multifunctional and multijurisdictional collaboration.
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
South Carolina DOT: Statewide Transit Plan 18
The South Carolina DOT (SCDOT) recognizes that transit alternatives cannot be an either/or proposition when considered with highway construction. The State's transportation infrastructure could greatly benefit from improvements in both areas. In order to incorporate transit to the greatest extent possible in new construction projects, the State analyzes opportunities for transit at the environmental stage of highway projects before the project's construction funding has been determined. Considerations include Transportation Demand Management-based alternatives such as bus pullouts, queue-jumping capabilities, and transit vehicle HOV lanes that would support existing or future BRT service within the right-of-way. In addition to BRT, the State is also considering implementing high-speed rail along various corridors as well as supporting a more extensive commuter rail service. The increased transportation network will be evaluated alongside planning efforts in an effort to align increased density with increased transit service. As of yet, no State or local funding has been identified to address the capital needs for increased transit service.
The transit plan outlines particular goals in the areas of improving the viability and accessibility of transit, increasing economic growth, and using transit as a way to increase sustainable land use decisions. When it comes to improving the viability and accessibility of transit, SCDOT plans to address cost allocation among operations to facilitate greater coordination and cooperation. The State's needs assessment indicates that transit can and will play a larger role in maintaining mobility by providing alternatives to increasingly congested roadways and increasing the options for transit-dependent populations.
More information is available at http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/transit-coord-plans.shtml#StatewideTransitPlan. Contact: Douglas Frate, Statewide Intermodal Planner, FrateDW@dot.state.sc.us, (803) 737-1436.
The Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan (Texas Department of Transportation, TxDOT) and the Texas Transportation Needs Summary (Texas 2030 Committee)
The Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan (TMMP) and follow-up Texas Transportation Needs Summary provide an example of long-range transportation planning 19 that includes both planning for operations and using operations data to plan. Developed outside of the SLRTP process itself, the TMMP Program, led by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), is a compilation of regional TMMPs for Texas" largest metropolitan areas. TMMPs were developed by Texas" Metropolitan Planning Organizations under the direction of TxDOT to show the effect on spending to reduce congestion, and to quantify the magnitude of each region's funding shortfalls and unmet needs. The outcome of the TMMP was to show what can be done to develop goals and objectives related to congestion reduction and match those goals to a total cost. Performance goals were set in TMMP development using regional travel time index and a congestion index. The TMMPs were used by the metropolitan areas to characterize unfunded congestion needs documented as the elimination of level-of-service F.
In addition to the aggressive congestion-reduction goal-setting that the TMMPs supported, the analysis also provided a backdrop for the initial incorporation of transportation system management and operations (TSMO) strategies into the planning processes. The Texas TMMP analysis provided the basis of a more recent 30-year needs summary developed by the 2030 Committee under the direction of Texas Governor Rick Perry and Texas Transportation Commission Chair Deidre Delisi. Led by the Texas Transportation Institute, this unique needs analysis incorporates TxDOT's original TMMP analysis to estimate the costs necessary to allow each Texas urban region to have a mobility level:
More information is available at http://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/tmmp/. Contact: Michael Burbank, MBurbank@nctcog.org, (817) 695-9251. More information on the Texas Transportation Needs Summary is available at http://texas2030committee.tamu.edu/.
|Toolkit: Sample Operations & Safety Strategies to Consider for Specialized Plans|
|Type of Plan||Sample Strategies|
|Bicycle / Pedestrian Plans||
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 84: Improving Public Transportation Technology Implementation and Anticipating Emerging Technologies, http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/156794.aspx.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations, Freight Management and Operations: Technology and Operations, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/technology/index.htm.
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Safety, http://transit-safety.fta.dot.gov/Safety/Default.aspx.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/.
|Description||Integrating planning and programming is essential to ensuring that the SLRTP and other statewide plans are realistic in their assessments of available resources and that they result in the identification of implemented projects that support goals and objectives. Programming at the statewide level in order to produce the STIP requires the careful balancing of projects identified to meet system needs with the appropriate funding resource. Funding available from both federal and State sources has specific requirements in the ways in which it can be used. Although the federal resources apply across all states, each State will have different restrictions on its transportation funding. This requires action at the statewide level, which has implications for each region and proposed project.
Because the SLRTP is often a policy plan or investment strategy, it relates indirectly to the identified projects by establishing goals and objectives as well as criteria for prioritizing projects. A strong relationship between the SLRTP and STIP will allow available revenue to most effectively meet the goals and objectives. When this relationship is strong, it will also support the "trickle down" effect of regional TIPs supporting statewide goals as well as those specific to the region.
|Who Is Involved||Planning and programming staff, along with technical experts in operations and safety, are central for making the link between planning and programming, but it is also important to bring in operations and safety staff to help identify potential performance measures related to operational and safety goals and objectives as well as the data needed to support these measures.|
|Recommended Implementation Steps||
North Carolina DOT: Program and Resource Plan
The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) is currently finalizing its Program and Resource Plan, which will help it determine the appropriate funding allocation for their programs. The plan includes a strategic planning element as well as a financial element. The strategic planning element includes identified objectives and needs developed from discussions with internal divisions and business units as well as input from MPOs and Rural Planning Organizations. Project prioritization is based on the evaluation of performance measures using planning, operations, and safety related data. The financial element includes a forecast of available funds and expenditures, a trend analysis of previous years" commitments and revenues, as well as a budget that considers constrained funding and fund distribution. The Program and Resource Plan projects funding over a 10-year timeframe and is updated every 2 years.
Funding is assigned by grouping programs together into related categories. The program categories include the following:
In order to determine funding for program groups, each one is associated with specific objectives and goals, as outlined in the SLRTP. The objectives and goals are assigned weights in terms of priority for addressing challenges facing the state's surface transportation system. Performance measures are used to evaluate the expected return on investment of various strategies used by individual programs to help achieve these objectives and goals.
NCDOT's first Program and Resource Plan is anticipated to be approved in June 2010.
The following checklist may be used as a self-assessment to identify statewide opportunities for integrating operations, safety, and multimodal planning. The user should consider the questions, whether or not the State DOT is undertaking the activity, and what can be done to improve integration.
|Checklist: Statewide Level Opportunities|
|Question||Yes||No||If no, what can be added or improved?||Relevant
|Are operations and safety staff involved in the development of the SLRTP?||3.1|
|Does the SLRTP include a vision and goal(s) that address operational and safety considerations?||3.1|
|Is there recognition of the importance of linkages between operations and safety considerations in the SLRTP?||3.1|
|Are there specific objectives in the SLRTP that relate to system operation and safety?||3.1|
|Have system-wide performance measures been developed in the SLRTP, including those focused on operations and safety?||3.2|
|Are performance measures for livability, multimodal choice, and other planning considerations utilized in operations and safety programs?||3.2|
|Are performance measures being tracked?||3.2|
|Are safety and/or operations data being utilized to monitor system performance?||3.3|
|Are operations and safety strategies, policies, and programs highlighted in the SLRTP?||3.4|
|Are the SHSP's goals, objectives, and priorities reflected in the SLRTP?||3.5|
|Has an effort been undertaken to develop statewide operations goals and priorities, such as development of a statewide operations or ITS plan?||3.6|
|Do other plans outside of the SLRTP (e.g., modal plans, freight plans, etc.) relate back to the overarching goals and objectives in the SLRTP? Do these plans include operations and safety considerations?||3.7|
|Are goals and objectives helping to inform projects that are programmed in the STIP?||3.8|
|Are fiscal constraints being considered in the development of the SLRTP and other plans?||3.8|
6 Wilbur Smith Associates. "State Long-Range Transportation Plan 2005-2030: Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Report." Prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation. November 2006. Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_SLRP_rept_Goals_Objectives_Performance_Report_11-17-06l_180916_7.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2009.
8 FHWA. "Model Transportation Plans for Operations and Safety: Preliminary Operations Objectives and Performance Measures." July 2008.
9 New Hampshire Department of Transportation. A Framework for Transforming Transportation in New Hampshire. 2008. http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/lrtbp.htm. Accessed 2/8/09
10 Mn/DOT. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan 2009-2028: Your Destination Our Priority 2009. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/stateplan/index.html. Accessed February 5, 2010.
12 FHWA, "Implementing the Strategic Highway Safety Plan." Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program, Hosted by Institute of Transportation Engineers, March 20, 2006. Available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/transportation_safety_planning/publications/impstrhwsp.cfm.
13 Maryland Department of Transportation. 2009 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance. http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/Plans%20Programs%20Reports/Index.html#Attainment_Report. Accessed 2/6/09.
15 New Jersey Department of Transportation. New Jersey Department of Transportation Long-Range Transportation Plan: Transportation Choices 2030. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/njchoices/. Accessed 2/8/09.
17 Ohio Department of Transportation. "Ohio's Road Map to Fewer Fatalities." Available at: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/ProgramMgt/CapitalPrograms/Documents/Safety/SHSP/SHSP%20january%202008.PDF. Unavailable May 2011.
18 South Carolina Statewide Transit Plan. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Transportation by URS and TranSystems. February 2008. http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StatewideTransitPlanExecutiveSummary.pdf. Accessed 1/29/09.
19 It should be noted that these activities are not part of Texas" SLRTP and were developed outside the long-range transportation planning process.