Transportation Infrastructure: Benefits of Traffic Control Signal Systems
Are Not Being Fully Realized (Letter Report, 03/30/94, GAO/RCED-94-105).
Traffic congestion, particularly in cities, pollutes the air,
jeopardizes safety, impedes energy conservation, and results in
aggravating delays. Its adverse effects on the local and national
economy are pegged at $40 billion annually. Although adding more road
capacity can reduce traffic congestion, states and localities can also
reduce congestion through transportation control measures, such as
improving public transit, encouraging employers to provide incentives
for carpooling, and making better use of existing roads with effective
traffic control signal systems. This report discusses (1) the benefits
of traffic control signal systems; (2) the problems that state and local
agencies face in implementing, operating, and maintaining effective
signal systems; (3) the relationship of the current signal systems to
emerging technologies like Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems; and (4)
the role of the Federal Highway Administration in assisting state and
local governments with their signal systems through reviews of plans and
other measures. GAO also provides related information on the operation
of traffic control signal systems, such as left and right turns on red
signals and the practice of running red signals.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-94-105
TITLE: Transportation Infrastructure: Benefits of Traffic Control
Signal Systems Are Not Being Fully Realized
DATE: 03/30/94
SUBJECT: Ground transportation operations
Motor vehicles
Motor vehicle pollution control
Traffic regulation
Federal/state relations
State/local relations
Transportation industry
Urban transportation operations
Transportation research
Highway safety
IDENTIFIER: DOT Intelligent Vehicles and Highway System
National Highway System
DOT Surface Transportation Program
FHwA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program
DOT Advanced Traffic Management System
Orlando (FL)
Los Angeles (CA)
Washington
Virginia
IVHS
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives
March 1994
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE -
BENEFITS OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
SYSTEMS ARE NOT BEING FULLY
REALIZED
GAO/RCED-94-105
Traffic Control Signal Systems
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
APTS - Advanced Public Transportation System
ATIS - Advanced Traveler Information System
ATMS - Advanced Traffic Management System
AVCS - Advanced Vehicle Control System
CVO - Commercial Vehicle Operations
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
IVHS - Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems
ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256094
March 30, 1994
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Traffic congestion, particularly in urban areas, degrades air
quality, jeopardizes safety, impedes efforts to conserve energy, and
results in delays that affect the quality of life. Its adverse
effects on the local and national economy are estimated to cost $40
billion annually. While adding more road capacity can reduce traffic
congestion, states and localities can also reduce congestion by
implementing transportation control measures, such as improving
public transit, encouraging employers to provide incentives for
carpooling, and making better use of existing roads with effective
traffic control signal systems.
You asked us to evaluate federal, state, and local efforts to use
traffic control signal systems to reduce congestion. As agreed with
your office, this report discusses (1) the benefits of traffic
control signal systems; (2) the problems that state and local
agencies face in implementing, operating, and maintaining effective
signal systems; (3) the relationship of the current signal systems to
emerging technologies like Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems; and
(4) the role of the Federal Highway Administration in assisting state
and local governments with their signal systems through reviews of
plans and other means. We also agreed to provide information on
related issues that can affect the operation of traffic control
signal systems, such as left and right turns on red signals and the
practice of running red signals. This information is presented in
appendix I.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Studies by states, local governments, and the traffic industry have
consistently reported substantial benefits when localities have
installed new traffic control signal systems and upgraded or changed
the timing of existing systems. These benefits include reducing
accidents, congestion, travel time, fuel consumption, and air
pollutants.
Signal systems can provide optimum benefits only when they are
properly designed, operated, and maintained. However, states and
localities have experienced problems in these areas that have had an
impact on the effectiveness of their systems. In a 1990 review of 24
signal systems, the Federal Highway Administration found that 21
systems did not meet the minimum standards of performance and that
some localities were designing systems that were outdated or did not
meet their needs. In addition, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers estimated in 1989 that 74 percent of the approximately
240,000 signalized intersections in the nation's urban areas needed
upgraded physical equipment or improved signal timing.\1 The state
and local government officials we contacted said that they often do
not have sufficient resources to operate and maintain their systems.
While such problems are preventing the achievement of optimum results
today, the implications for the future may even be greater because of
the limitations these problems place on new technologies. Signal
systems provide data on traffic volume and flow that traffic control
centers need to fully utilize many of the emerging Intelligent
Vehicle/Highway Systems technologies. If states or localities
continue to experience operating and maintenance problems and
resource constraints, the benefits anticipated from these
technologies may not be fully realized.
Federal Highway Administration headquarters and the regions and
divisions we visited are inconsistent in their approach in reviewing
state and local governments' operations plans for signal systems and
otherwise offering assistance. For example, officials from these
offices expressed differing views about whether the plans were
required, what the plans should contain, whether plans existed for
certain projects, and whether staff had reviewed the plans. The
Federal Highway Administration also reported in 1990 that it had
insufficient technical expertise at all levels (headquarters,
regional, and division) to assist state and local governments with
their traffic control signal systems. Our work shows that this
situation has not significantly improved.
--------------------
\1 A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (Washington, D.C.: 1989).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA), increased attention is being paid to congestion management.
Under ISTEA, congestion management planning and the development and
operation of transportation control measures, such as traffic control
signal systems, are eligible for capital funding under the Department
of Transportation's National Highway System, Surface Transportation
Program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program. According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
officials, National Highway System and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program funds can also be used for operating
costs for up to 2 years, while Surface Transportation Program funds
can be used for such costs indefinitely. Maintenance costs are not
eligible for federal funding and must be borne by the state or local
agency. According to FHWA officials, in fiscal years 1991, 1992, and
1993, state and local governments chose to use about $221 million,
$289 million, and $503 million, respectively, in federal
transportation funds for traffic control signal systems.
Traffic signal technology is evolving rapidly. While some signals
operate independently, many are part of coordinated systems that link
signals at several intersections in order to provide progressive
traffic flow. Some systems have sophisticated control, surveillance,
and communications components. For example, numerous signals can be
connected by one or more master controllers (on-street computers)
that operate the signals either according to pretimed plans or in
response to information about traffic flow detected by devices
embedded in the road. Signal systems can also be controlled by
centrally located computers that send alternative signal timing plans
to the master controllers. Finally, all or a portion of a locality's
signals can be controlled by a central computer that communicates
continuously with the signals and can change each signal's timing
plan periodically or continuously, using information from traffic
detectors and other sources.
Current traffic control signal systems form the foundation for
emerging Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) technologies,
which are aimed at addressing the nation's growing travel and
congestion problems. IVHS technologies integrate advanced computer,
communications, and sensor technologies to improve the flow of
passenger and freight transportation. IVHS projects range from
automated traffic surveillance and control systems to on-board
navigation systems that help drivers plot safe and efficient routes.
To further develop these technologies, ISTEA authorized $659 million
for IVHS research and testing in fiscal years 1992-97.
One important component of IVHS, the Advanced Traffic Management
System (ATMS), integrates a system of traffic signals, traffic
detectors, ramp meters, and a traffic operations center. To minimize
traffic delays, ATMS will collect the basic data on traffic flow and
conditions needed to make real-time changes to traffic signals, ramp
meters, and electronic signs. Figure 1 illustrates ATMS and other
IVHS technologies, and these technologies are further described in
appendix II.
Figure 1: IVHS Technologies
(See figure in printed
edition.)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS CAN
PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Properly designed, operated, and maintained traffic control signal
systems yield significant benefits along the corridors and road
networks on which they are installed. They mitigate congestion and
reduce accidents, fuel consumption, air pollutants, and travel time.
These benefits are documented in numerous evaluations, provided to us
by FHWA, states, cities, and other sources, that compared
before-and-after results when signal systems were installed,
expanded, or retimed. Although the results varied because of
differences in the base conditions, each evaluation identified
positive results and benefits. In fact, an FHWA official told us
that in the late 1980s, FHWA eliminated the requirement that a
cost-benefit evaluation be submitted for signal system projects
receiving federal highway funds because the reported benefits always
exceeded the costs, and the studies were becoming redundant.
Several examples illustrate the benefits of traffic signal systems.
An analysis of a new signal system implemented in 365 intersections
in Orlando, Florida, showed $2.2 million in fuel savings per year, a
56-percent reduction in both vehicle stops and delays, and a 9- to
14-percent reduction in air pollutants. According to recent
congressional testimony by the former general manager of the Los
Angeles Department of Transportation, a new traffic control signal
system in Los Angeles reduced travel time by 18 percent, signal
delays by 44 percent, vehicle stops by 41 percent, fuel consumption
by 13 percent, and air pollutants by 14 percent.
Significant benefits can also be realized from upgrading or retiming
existing traffic control signal systems. For example, the state of
Washington recently completed studies quantifying the benefits of
upgrading and coordinating signal control equipment and retiming
existing signals for six signal systems. These studies showed annual
fuel reductions of 295,500 gallons and annual reductions in vehicle
delays of 145,000 vehicle hours. A recent study showed that retiming
several Virginia signal systems reduced delays by 25.2 percent, stops
by 25.5 percent, travel time by 10.2 percent, fuel consumption by 3.7
percent, and air pollutants by 16 to 19.5 percent.
Improvements to traffic signal systems such as those discussed above
usually address only local problems along the roads or corridors
where the signals are located. However, problems such as air
pollution often extend throughout a region. We reported in August
1993 that all transportation control measures--of which traffic
signal system improvements are just one--are projected to reduce
total regionwide hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by a
maximum of 5 percent,\2 which is considerably lower than the
reductions attributed to improved signal systems on specific roads or
corridors.
We also reported that market-based transportation control
measures--those that impose financial disincentives on automobile
users--may be the most effective means of reducing
emissions-producing travel. However, localities that consider these
measures politically infeasible may have to rely on traditional
measures as they devise strategies to control emissions. We reported
that metropolitan planning organizations frequently identified
improvements to traffic signal systems, from a list of 20 measures,
as having the potential to reduce emissions of ozone and carbon
monoxide from automobiles.
--------------------
\2 Urban Transportation: Reducing Vehicle Emissions With
Transportation Control Measures (GAO/RCED-93-169, Aug. 3, 1993).
SEVERAL PROBLEMS PREVENT STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM
GAINING MAXIMUM BENEFITS FROM
SIGNAL SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Achieving and sustaining the benefits of a traffic control signal
system depends on selecting the appropriate system and making the
necessary commitment of resources to operate and maintain it over its
design life. However, many of these benefits are not being fully
realized because of challenges that states--and local governments, in
particular--face in designing, selecting, operating, and maintaining
their signal systems. For example, some cities do not have the
expertise and information needed to select systems appropriate for
their needs or do not have the resources needed to operate and
maintain the systems for maximum benefit.
FHWA reported in 1990\3 and its expert panel of transportation
officials reported in 1992\4 that several county and city governments
had limited expertise on complex signal systems. As a result, these
counties and cities rely on design consultants for technical
expertise. According to FHWA, the consultants also often lack the
required expertise or have not kept current with new technologies.
To illustrate the need for technical expertise, according to FHWA, 50
percent of the computerized signal systems it reviewed were operating
with obsolete computers. While some of the computers had been in
service for several years, several were obsolete when installed. One
city was replacing its computer after 6 months of service because it
did not have the speed or memory capacity required for the job.
According to FHWA, this lack of technical expertise means that
localities incur unnecessary added costs and risk operations and
maintenance problems in the future.
The FHWA field officials and state and local officials we contacted
corroborated these concerns. Among examples they cited were (1)
cities that purchased more sophisticated systems than they needed,
(2) cities that tried to implement complex systems they did not have
the ability to maintain, and (3) a city that is acquiring a system on
the basis of 10-year-old specifications. According to these
officials, such instances occur at the local level because of a lack
of technical expertise, insufficient staff, budgetary constraints, or
burdensome procurement processes.
One way FHWA responded to these issues was to establish, in
partnership with private industry, a mobile exhibit on traffic
control equipment and software, which has been touring the country
for over a year. The exhibit provides information on and
demonstrations of state-of-the-art traffic control technology and
equipment, and attempts to create an awareness of (1) the significant
role signal systems play in traffic management and (2) the need for
adequate resources to operate and maintain these systems. This
exhibit has been in heavy demand by state and local governments.
Even properly designed systems must be well operated and maintained
over their design life if they are to deliver optimum benefits.
FHWA's 1990 report disclosed that of the 24 signal systems it
reviewed, 21 did not meet minimum standards of performance. The
performance deficiencies varied and some systems had multiple
problems: 8 of the 24 systems were understaffed for their size, 6
lacked staff who were knowledgeable about the system, 17 lacked
documentation on how to run the system, and 7 did not have or did not
plan to acquire state-of-the-art equipment. In its 1989 report, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) also said that traffic
signals are often installed with little attention to the cost and
procedures required for maintenance. According to the report, the
problem has become critical as more sophisticated traffic control
devices are installed. ITE estimated that about 74 percent of the
approximately 240,000 signalized intersections in urban areas in the
United States were in need of improvements. About 30,000 needed
improved signal timing, and 148,000 needed both improved signal
timing and upgraded physical equipment.
A significant factor in these performance problems is the difficulty
that localities have in obtaining the resources needed to operate and
maintain their traffic control signal systems. This concern was
expressed in FHWA's 1992 expert panel report and by the majority of
the state and local officials we contacted.
FHWA's expert panel reported in 1992 that without new funding
mechanisms for operations and maintenance, it was highly possible
that the problems being experienced in operating and maintaining the
systems will continue to grow worse and that jurisdictions may choose
not to proceed with the implementation of advanced traffic control
systems. The panel recommended that the provisions in ISTEA making
operating costs eligible for federal funding be liberally interpreted
to include as many maintenance functions as possible. It also
recommended that FHWA work with the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials and others to make maintenance
eligible for funding under ISTEA. An FHWA official stated that FHWA
is, within limits, liberally interpreting the definition of
operations in ISTEA. Another FHWA official stated that FHWA has not
acted to make maintenance eligible for such funding because the
maintenance of transportation projects has generally been the
responsibility of the states and localities. FHWA indicated that it
will try to solicit input from the association on this matter.
Several state and local government officials told us that in their
jurisdictions, traffic control signal systems generally receive low
priority for capital and maintenance costs. According to these
officials, states and localities prefer more visible projects, such
as highways or bridges, and it is easier to get funds for major
capital expenditures than for maintenance. ITE reported in 1992 that
35 percent of the state and local respondents to its survey on
traffic signal systems indicated that they did not have the necessary
manpower to adequately operate and maintain their signal systems.\5
In addition, the Transportation Research Board reported in 1990 and
again in 1992 that state and local governments typically face
budgetary constraints in maintaining their traffic signal systems.\6
The low priority accorded to traffic control signal systems may be
changing. In our August 1993 report, we noted that as a result of
ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, states and
metropolitan planning organizations plan to include more traffic
control measures (which include traffic control signal systems) in
their transportation and clean air plans. Several provisions in
ISTEA are expected to encourage greater use of transportation control
measures. These provisions include (1) the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program, which authorized $6 billion for
fiscal years 1992-97 to fund transportation projects that enhance air
quality, and (2) the possibility for states and localities to use
ISTEA funds flexibly. We reported that while only 8 percent of the
metropolitan planning organizations we surveyed in 1992 said that
they had strongly emphasized transportation control measures in
1987-92, 56 percent intended to emphasize them strongly in their
transportation plans for 1993-98.
--------------------
\3 Operation and Maintenance of Traffic Control Systems, Office of
Program Review, FHWA, Department of Transportation (Sept. 1990).
This report evaluated the effectiveness of states, counties, and
cities in operating and maintaining traffic control systems and the
adequacy of FHWA's monitoring efforts.
\4 Expert Panel Report: Traffic Control Systems, Operations and
Maintenance, FHWA, Department of Transportation (Mar. 10, 1992).
FHWA convened a panel of transportation experts, including
consultants and representatives from state agencies, local agencies,
and universities, to review the Office of Program Review's 1990
report and make recommendations for improving the operations and
maintenance of traffic control systems. The panel made 34
recommendations, 9 of which were designated as priorities.
\5 Results of the 1991 North American Traffic Signal Inventory, ITE
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1992).
\6 Traffic Signal Control Equipment: State of the Art,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 1990) and Signal Timing Improvement Practices,
Transportation Research Board (Feb. 1992).
WELL-OPERATED AND -MAINTAINED
SIGNAL SYSTEMS ARE VITAL TO
IVHS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
IVHS projects are intended to have positive impacts on congestion,
safety, the environment, energy consumption, mobility, and
productivity. However, realizing the benefits of some of these
projects will depend in part on having traffic control signal systems
in place and functioning properly. These systems provide much of the
basic information on traffic conditions that is needed to adjust
traffic signal patterns and inform drivers of changing traffic
conditions. ATMS--the traffic management system envisioned under
IVHS--is more complex than current traffic control signal systems.
However, it will include many of the same components as today's
signal systems. Unless the level of maintenance is adequate, an ATMS
could be rapidly degraded to the operational level of the system it
has replaced. As noted above, states and localities already have
difficulty finding resources to operate and maintain systems that are
less complex.
FHWA's expert panel stated in its 1992 report that deficiencies in
the operation and maintenance of current signal systems present an
untenable situation for the future of IVHS. The expert panel further
cautioned that (1) large investments in new traffic control systems
will not fully yield the expected benefits until the existing
deficiencies are corrected and (2) these problems will continue and
worsen as more complex systems are built. The federal, state, local,
and industry officials we contacted also consistently expressed these
views.
According to a recent estimate by the Center for Transportation
Analysis at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, deployment of ATMS for
fiscal years 1993 through 1997 could cost between $8.5 billion and
$26 billion for systems in the nation's 75 largest metropolitan
areas.\7 The Center further estimated that operating and maintaining
these systems could cost between $640 million and $1.76 billion
annually. Investments in such systems may be necessary, in part
because many existing traffic signal systems were installed in the
late 1970s and early 1980s and some of the systems are now
functionally obsolete.
With the operation and maintenance of current signal systems already
hampered by funding constraints, state and local officials are
unwilling or unable to take on greater indebtedness to support the
deployment of IVHS technologies, according to a September 1993 report
on impediments to the implementation of these technologies, which was
undertaken for the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.\8
These state and local officials question their ability to support the
operation and maintenance of the systems after they have been
installed. According to the report, these officials want the federal
government to provide both more money and more guidance to ensure
successful deployment of ATMS.
--------------------
\7 Cost Estimates for Near-Term Deployment of Advanced Traffic
Management Systems, Final Report, Center for Transportation Analysis,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Feb. 15,
1993).
\8 Institutional Impediments to Metro Traffic Management
Coordination, Task 5--Final Report, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.,
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, TTD No. RA-2064 (Sept.
13, 1993).
FHWA PLAYS AN IMPORTANT BUT
CHANGING ROLE IN TRAFFIC
CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
In the last few years, FHWA, its expert panel, and our work have
identified a number of the problems that state and local governments
are experiencing with their traffic control signal systems and with
FHWA's role and expertise in this area. FHWA has taken actions to
address some of the problems identified, but we found that a number
of them persist. FHWA headquarters and the regions and divisions we
visited were inconsistent about the appropriate role for FHWA in
reviewing state and local governments' signal systems and assisting
with these systems. In addition, FHWA's field offices often do not
have the technical expertise required to review such systems.
FHWA HAS RESPONDED TO SOME
IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
According to FHWA's expert panel, the 34 recommendations it made in
1992 were aimed at improving the performance of the state and local
transportation agencies that are ultimately responsible for operating
and maintaining the signal systems. The panel noted, however, that
FHWA needs to provide overall leadership in implementing the
recommendations. The nine recommendations that the panel identified
as priorities primarily addressed the need to develop (1) technical
expertise at the state and local levels and (2) standards for the
operation and maintenance of signal systems. FHWA was to accomplish
this by providing technical information and guidance on the operation
and maintenance of traffic control signal systems as well as training
opportunities.
FHWA has developed an action plan for addressing the priority
recommendations, and FHWA officials informed us that actions have
been initiated on at least part of seven of the nine priority
recommendations. For example, FHWA has established traffic system
support teams consisting of FHWA, state, and local officials in two
FHWA regions to assist with traffic control signal systems when
requested to by state and local governments. In addition, FHWA
contracted with ITE to establish a national clearinghouse for the
distribution of current information on traffic control systems. The
clearinghouse, a toll free hotline, and an electronic bulletin board
are operational. Through these services, ITE provides information on
urban traffic engineering technology, traffic control systems,
education and training, operations and maintenance, and innovations
to address traffic congestion.
Some of the other projects that FHWA has undertaken are behind
schedule, and others have not been implemented. FHWA contracted with
ITE to develop standards and guidelines for state and local
governments on (1) the minimum skills and knowledge required for
operations and maintenance functions, (2) the minimum levels of
staffing for operations and maintenance functions, and (3) operations
and maintenance model plans. According to an ITE official, these
projects have been expanded to improve the required products, and, as
a result, some required tasks are currently about a year behind
schedule. Nevertheless, an ITE official said the projects are
expected to be completed by September 1994.
FHWA officials told us that limited resources are hampering their
efforts to fully address the recommendations. For example, FHWA has
not issued new guidance to its field offices on the need for
operations plans, nor has it initiated actions on the nonpriority
recommendations. Appendix III details the expert panel's
recommendations and FHWA's responses.
FHWA'S ROLE IS NOT WELL
DEFINED UNDER ISTEA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
Under ISTEA, FHWA's traditional role of performing detailed project
reviews has changed to one of providing technical assistance and
oversight on certain projects or oversight at the program level.
However, we found that FHWA's role in providing that assistance and
oversight has become more confusing since the passage of ISTEA.
Federal regulations (23 C.F.R. 655, subpart D), issued in 1984, call
for states and local governments that use federal funds for traffic
surveillance and control systems to develop an operations plan that
provides for the needed personnel and budget resources required to
operate and maintain the proposed system. In its 1990 report, FHWA
said that an operations plan is critical to the effective operation
of any traffic control system and that not having a well-defined
operations plan could lead to staffing and budgeting constraints,
resulting in a system that cannot operate as designed. As discussed
earlier, states and localities are experiencing these problems. FHWA
also reported that on many projects, a number of factors were
hindering its input into the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of signal systems. These factors included a lack of
definitive guidance on whether the agency had review and approval
authority for the projects and whether the requirements for
operations plans applied to all of the projects.
FHWA and its expert panel reported that most jurisdictions had not
prepared satisfactory operations plans. Furthermore, FHWA field
offices lacked a general understanding of the contents of an
operations plan and were not strongly enforcing the requirement that
one be prepared.
During our review, we found uncertainty among FHWA officials about
whether operations plans were required, what the plans should
contain, whether plans existed for certain projects, and whether FHWA
staff had reviewed the plans. Some FHWA officials told us that the
requirements for operations plans were still in effect for all
projects receiving federal funds. Others told us that they could no
longer require plans from "certification acceptance" states\9 or
states that have declared themselves exempt from FHWA's oversight,
review, and administration under provisions in ISTEA.\10 Still others
told us that they had been unsure for some time whether operations
plans were required or optional. Nevertheless, some FHWA officials
said they intended to encourage states to prepare the plans by
relying on the good working relationships they had with the states.
During the course of our work, we reviewed information on 43 traffic
control signal systems to determine whether they had operations
plans. We were only able to confirm that 10 jurisdictions had such a
plan or were in the process of developing one. The other 33
jurisdictions either did not have a plan or the respondents could not
confirm that a plan had been prepared.
Many of the FHWA, state, and local officials we contacted agreed that
it made sense to develop operations plans. However, in their view
there is insufficient federal guidance on the conditions under which
plans are required, what the plans should contain, and how much
detail they should include.
--------------------
\9 "Certification acceptance" states are those that can carry out
some of the oversight functions normally performed by FHWA for
certain projects once FHWA has accepted the states' certification
that their regulations meet federal requirements.
\10 All projects except those costing over $1 million and those on
the National Highway System may be exempted from FHWA's oversight,
review, and administration.
FHWA HAS LIMITED TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3
None of the seven division offices that FHWA visited for its 1990
report believed they had adequate technical expertise to review the
design or construction of traffic control signal systems. As a
result, FHWA's Administrator assembled a task force of field
personnel to examine the level of technical expertise in this area
within FHWA. In March 1991, the task force reported serious
shortcomings in staffing and technical expertise on signal systems in
FHWA headquarters, regions, and divisions.\11 According to the
report, the focus of the highway construction program continues to
change from constructing new highways to optimizing the efficiency of
existing systems. The report further said that new programs such as
IVHS will expand the use of sophisticated traffic control systems and
that the staffing of FHWA must be adjusted to provide the expertise
necessary for FHWA to assume a leadership role in traffic operations.
Our visits to FHWA regional and division offices disclosed that some
FHWA field offices had taken actions to strengthen the staff's
technical expertise in this area. Officials at several regional
offices reported that they were using more people with traffic system
experience and/or sending their area engineers to traffic operations
training programs. One region had reorganized to bring together
traffic signal systems and IVHS work, had created traffic engineer
positions in its divisions, and was giving more attention to traffic
operations.
FHWA headquarters officials could not provide us with detailed
information on field office staff members' expertise on signal
systems or the extent to which staff members are being trained as
traffic engineers or urban traffic specialists. However, officials
in 6 of the 10 field offices we visited told us that their offices do
not have sufficient technical expertise to review signal systems.
Signal systems plans are thus often sent from the division to the
regional office for review and then to headquarters if the region
does not have the expertise. However, several division and regional
officials pointed out that headquarters has only one person to help
review systems. In their view, additional staff with the required
technical expertise in this area would benefit the FHWA field offices
as well as the states and localities. Headquarters officials agreed
that they could use more staff but said they had been unsuccessful in
obtaining any. Many of the regional and division office staff we
contacted stated that expertise within FHWA was needed because most
localities lacked this expertise and were in need of information on
the rapidly advancing technologies. However, their views varied on
whether divisions, regions, or headquarters should have this
expertise.
--------------------
\11 Traffic Control Systems, Operations and Maintenance, Internal
FHWA Task Force Report, FHWA, Department of Transportation (Mar.
1991).
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Traffic control signal systems are among the many tools for managing
traffic congestion in urban areas. Systems that are appropriately
designed and properly operated and maintained provide safety
improvements, reduce travel times and vehicle operating costs, and
lower fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. They will also form
one of the essential components of future Intelligent Vehicle/Highway
Systems aimed at addressing growing urban traffic congestion.
However, many state and local governments have experienced problems
in designing, operating, and maintaining their systems. Our work is
consistent with studies by the Federal Highway Administration and its
expert panel showing that the full benefits of the current network of
traffic control signal systems are not being realized.
While state and local jurisdictions have primary responsibility for
their traffic control signal systems, the Federal Highway
Administration also has an important role to play in ensuring that
the federal funds used for these systems are wisely invested and that
the systems deliver the anticipated benefits over their design life.
The agency recognizes that it needs to assist state and local
jurisdictions with their signal systems and has developed an action
plan to improve its efforts in assisting the jurisdictions. However,
a number of the actions are behind schedule or have not been
initiated. In addition, the agency's field offices are inconsistent
about their proper role in providing this assistance, particularly
their role in requiring states and localities to prepare operating
plans that lay out the future resource needs of their signal systems.
The field offices often do not have the technical expertise needed to
assist the states and localities with their signal systems.
Until the Federal Highway Administration clarifies the role of its
field offices, issues guidance on the preparation of operations
plans, and develops the necessary expertise, the current and future
benefits of traffic control signal systems and several emerging
technologies may not be fully realized.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To better assist states and localities in designing, implementing,
operating, and maintaining traffic control signal systems, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to
identify critical activities in relation to signal systems that
require the agency's oversight and assistance;
develop the expertise needed to carry out this role and assist the
states and localities with their traffic control signal systems;
and
develop guidance for its field offices defining the conditions
under which operations plans are required, the content of
operations plans (particularly their provisions for the systems'
long-range resource requirements), and the review that field
offices are to undertake to ensure that the plans are adequately
prepared.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We discussed the information in this report with officials of FHWA's
Office of Traffic Management and Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems,
including the chiefs of the Traffic Management Systems Division and
the Traffic Management Branch, and officials from other FHWA offices.
They generally agreed with the facts presented, and we incorporated
their comments where appropriate. They stated that FHWA was giving
increased attention to traffic management operations and attempting
to improve expertise in this area at FHWA and in states and
localities. They also pointed out that they have prepared draft
guidance for their field offices on operations plans and that this
guidance should be issued shortly. Finally, they told us that FHWA
is now finalizing a follow-up review to its 1990 study on the
operation and maintenance of traffic control signal systems and that
the findings of this review are consistent with the information
presented in this report. As requested, we did not obtain written
agency comments on a draft of this report.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
We conducted our work from November 1992 to February 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. To
determine the benefits of traffic control signal systems, we reviewed
cost-benefit studies prepared for FHWA by cities receiving federal
funds for their signal systems and cost-benefit studies supplied to
us by states, cities, and traffic consultants.
To determine what problems states and localities are encountering
with their traffic control signal systems, the relationship between
the signal systems and IVHS technologies, and FHWA's role, we
reviewed reports by FHWA, its panel of transportation experts, and an
internal FHWA task force. We also reviewed files maintained by FHWA
headquarters and field offices on traffic control signal systems and
interviewed (1) officials from FHWA headquarters and 10 field
offices, (2) transportation officials from 6 states and 10 cities,
and (3) officials from transportation organizations and consulting
companies. We also visited five traffic control centers. (See app.
IV for a list of the organizations we contacted.) Finally, we
reviewed reports and other documents prepared by FHWA and other
organizations on the design, operation, and maintenance of traffic
control signal systems and the development and deployment of IVHS
technologies.
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of
Transportation, and the Administrator of FHWA. We will also make
copies available to others on request.
This work was performed under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead,
Director, Transportation Issues, who can be reached at (202) 512-2834
if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Keith O. Fultz
Assistant Comptroller General
EXTERNAL ISSUES AND PRACTICES
AFFECTING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
SYSTEMS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Traffic signal systems have become a critical element in the safe and
efficient control of traffic flow on the nation's streets and
highways. The primary objective of improving traffic flow is to
enhance the efficiency of the existing roadway system and to
alleviate traffic congestion and related problems, such as air
pollution. However, traffic control signal systems are affected by a
number of factors external to their operation and maintenance, such
as jurisdictional issues, right and left turns on red signals, and
traffic violations such as running red signals. All of these factors
can hamper the effective coordination of a signal system.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1
Treating the transportation network as a single system in a
metropolitan area requires the cooperation of federal, state,
regional, and local agencies as well as numerous other groups. Many
transportation officials insist that new partnerships and coalitions
will be needed to ensure the future success of traffic control signal
systems, particularly those that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
FHWA officials in one area cited an example of an arterial system
that should handle more traffic coming off a saturated interstate
highway. However, the arterial system is not operating optimally
because of resistance from the local jurisdictions that control the
operation and maintenance of their own signals. According to these
officials, the jurisdictions design and operate the traffic control
systems for their own constituents rather than taking a regional view
of traffic management.
Sometimes the potential threat of legal liability prevents
jurisdictions from cooperating in installing, connecting, or
adjusting the timing of traffic signals. FHWA cited an example of
one local agency that was unwilling to connect a local signal to the
adjacent state system for fear of potential lawsuits that might
result from malfunction of the state's master control equipment.
FHWA pointed out that while it recognized the local agency's concern,
this kind of resistance makes congestion problems more difficult to
resolve.
FHWA's expert panel has pointed out that artificial boundaries often
impede coordinated traffic management at the interfaces between state
and local systems and between local systems. Urban and local
organizations responsible for the management of traffic control
signal systems need to know who is in charge and whether the
responsible entity has (1) the ability to monitor local traffic and
(2) the human and financial resources needed to operate and maintain
the system. FHWA's expert panel stated that the implementation of
more complex Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems traffic management
strategies, such as route diversion, may not be feasible until the
fragmentation of jurisdictional authority is corrected.
PERMITTING RIGHT AND LEFT
TURNS ON RED SIGNALS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2
Permitting right turns on red signals after a stop was adopted as an
energy conservation measure during the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163), enacted in
1975, directed the states to adopt right turns on red and provided
for the loss of energy funds as a penalty for states that did not do
so. Before that date, some western states had already adopted right
turns on red. To avoid confusion and ensure uniformity, in 1976 the
Department of Transportation ruled that states were required to
follow the "generally permissive" form of right turns on red,
permitting the practice at all intersections unless there are signs
forbidding it.
Implementation of left turns on red is much more diverse among the
states. According to an FHWA official, at least 41 states allow left
turns on red onto one-way streets in some form, such as allowing such
turns from either one- or two-way streets, allowing them from either
one- or two-way highways, or various combinations of the above.
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS RELATED
TO SIGNALS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.3
Red signal violations can have far-reaching effects beyond the
obvious ones of being dangerous and against the law. Violations of
left- and right-turn-on-red rules and the practice of running red
signals defeat the purpose of well-timed and coordinated traffic
signals. The problem of running red signals has become so serious
that in some areas the local jurisdiction has resorted to all-red
sequences (changing all the signals at an intersection to red for a
few seconds before returning one direction to green) to avoid
accidents. At least one jurisdiction has decided to replace several
hundred signals with stop signs.
According to some transportation officials, violations of left- and
right-turn-on-red rules, like the practice of running red signals,
have become detrimental to the safe and efficient operation of their
signal systems. Most state officials we talked to believe that both
problems are the responsibility of local law enforcement agencies.
Officials recognize, however, that police forces are shorthanded or
have more pressing duties.
It is difficult to obtain statistical data, especially data on deaths
and injuries related to such violations, on a national basis.
However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a study
of police reports for 4,526 crashes in Akron, Ohio; New Orleans,
Louisiana; Yonkers, New York; and Arlington County, Virginia in
1990-91. They reported that running red signals and other traffic
controls (stop-and-yield signs, for example) was the cause of the
most frequent type of crash in an urban area, amounting to 22
percent. Also, data collected for 1992 by the National Center for
Statistics and Analysis indicated that there were 1,076,000 accidents
at junctions with traffic signals. Of those accidents, 149,000, or
about 13.8 percent, involved drivers' being charged with running a
traffic signal. In addition, the 1991 report for the Department of
Transportation's Fatal Accident Reporting System indicated there were
2,218 fatal crashes at intersections with traffic signals, amounting
to about 25.4 percent of all fatal crashes at intersections. Of
these, 2,031 fatal crashes occurred at intersections in urban areas,
representing about 37.4 percent of all fatal crashes at urban
intersections. As previously mentioned, these figures do not reflect
associated deaths or injuries or reveal the detrimental impact of
accidents on existing traffic conditions.
States and localities are not ignoring the problem of running red
signals. Among other things, they have tried or considered the
following techniques in an attempt to reduce violations: (1)
lengthening clearance intervals between red and green signals, (2)
increasing fines for violations, (3) using cameras to detect
violators, (4) implementing all-red intervals, (5) increasing public
awareness campaigns, and (6) increasing spot enforcement.
For some time, other countries have used cameras at intersections to
photograph violators. This technique has been used in England and
Israel but does encounter some resistance in the United States
because of privacy issues.
For the past several years, the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments has sponsored an annual 3-week "Respect Red" campaign to
increase public awareness and step up law enforcement efforts against
signal violations. In 1993, 20 participating law enforcement
agencies issued a total of 6,389 citations during that 3-week period,
707 of which were for violations of right-turn-on-red rules.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), requires the
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
to conduct a study on the safety impact of permitting left and right
turns on red signals. The report is due in October of 1994.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE/HIGHWAY
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES
========================================================== Appendix II
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
established the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) program
under the Secretary of Transportation. IVHS has evolved to include
five major system areas, each focusing on one application of IVHS
technology to the needs and opportunities of highway systems. While
the five are developing along different time lines, each offers early
opportunities for deployment of individual elements. Over time, the
five will become more interdependent and evolve into a fully
integrated system. These five areas are described below.
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS (ATMS)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1
ATMS permits real-time adjustment of traffic control systems and
variable message signs to advise drivers of road conditions. Its
application in selected corridors has reduced delay, travel time, and
accidents. ATMS components include coordinated signaling systems,
video surveillance of corridors, ramp metering, automated toll
collection, and variable message signs.
ADVANCED TRAVELER
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (ATIS)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2
ATIS involves the acquisition, analysis, communication, presentation,
and use of information to assist the surface transportation traveler
in moving from origin to destination in the way that best satisfies
the traveler's needs for safety, efficiency, and comfort. Travel may
involve a single mode of transportation or linked, multiple modes.
ATIS lets travelers know their location and the location of the
nearest services. ATIS permits communication between travelers and
ATMS for continuous advice on traffic conditions and alternate
routes. Additionally, ATIS provides the driver with safety warnings.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE
OPERATIONS (CVO)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.3
CVO makes use of those features of ATIS that are critical to
commercial and emergency vehicles. CVO expedites deliveries,
improves operational efficiency, improves response to incidents, and
increases safety. Many of the technologies used in CVO are already
available in the marketplace. Automatic vehicle identification
devices are available to allow the electronic transfer of funds so
travelers can pay tolls without stopping. Satellite technologies are
available to track the location of individual vehicles as an aid to
fleet management. Weigh-in-motion technology, combined with
automatic vehicle classification, is available to sort vehicles for
weight inspections. On-board computers are available to monitor
truck performance.
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL
SYSTEMS (AVCS)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.4
AVCS includes vehicle- and/or roadway-based electromechanical and
communications devices that enhance the control of vehicles by
facilitating and augmenting driver performance. Examples are speed
control systems, which are currently available, and radar braking, a
future technology under consideration.
ADVANCED PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
(APTS)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.5
APTS works in conjunction with ATMS to provide mass transportation
users and operators (e.g., buses, van pools, high-occupancy
vehicle--HOV--lanes, car pools, taxi cabs) with up-to-date
information on the status, schedules, and availability of public
transit systems. Automatic vehicle location and monitoring systems
provide information to improve fleet management and better inform
riders of their connections. New HOV priority schemes using IVHS
technologies will be devised and monitored automatically to enforce
rules on the use of HOV facilities.
FHWA'S PROGRESS IN RESPONDING TO
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE EXPERT
PANEL'S REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
In 1991 FHWA convened an expert panel of state and local traffic
engineering experts to review and analyze problems with traffic
control systems that FHWA had identified in a September 1990 report.
FHWA's expert panel issued its report on March 10, 1992 and
recommended a comprehensive package of 34 recommendations. If
implemented, these recommendations should correct the problems noted
in the 1990 report and provide the basic level of traffic control
system operations and maintenance that will be required for the more
demanding IVHS environment. Nine recommendations were considered
pivotal to the success of the entire IVHS program. The nine priority
recommendations (2 of the 34 recommendations were combined into one
priority recommendation) are described below, along with the current
status of FHWA's response. In addition, the remaining
recommendations awaiting FHWA's action are listed.
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1
1. "Establishment of the necessary rules and procedures under the
ISTEA as may be necessary to allow the use of Federal gas tax funds
for operations and maintenance work on state/local traffic control
systems."
Status: FHWA worked with the Congress during the development of
ISTEA so that federal funds could be used more flexibly for
operational improvements. According to FHWA officials, federal funds
can be used for operating costs for up to 2 years for National
Highway System and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program projects; funds can be used for such costs for an unlimited
time under the Surface Transportation Program. An FHWA official
stated that FHWA is, within limits, liberally interpreting the
definition of operations in ISTEA to include as many maintenance
functions as possible. He added that FHWA has not acted to make
maintenance eligible under ISTEA because maintenance of
transportation projects has generally been the responsibility of the
states and localities.
2. "Development of minimum standards for the skills and knowledge
required for operations and maintenance functions."
3. "Development of guidelines for minimum levels of staffing and
appropriate job classifications for the operations and maintenance
functions."
4. "Development of operations and maintenance guidelines and model
plans."
Status: FHWA took action on these three recommendations by
contracting with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to
develop (1) minimum standards for the skills and knowledge required
for operations and maintenance functions, (2) guidelines for minimum
levels of staffing for operations and maintenance functions, (3)
operations and maintenance guidelines and model operations plans.
However, according to ITE, these projects have been expanded to
improve the desired products and as a result, some required tasks are
currently about a year behind schedule. ITE officials said the
projects are expected to be completed by September 1994. FHWA also
plans to issue guidance to its field offices on the need for
operations plans for traffic control signal systems. In February
1994, FHWA officials told us that draft guidance had been prepared
and final guidance should be issued shortly.
5. "Development of design guidelines for traffic control systems
that consider operations and maintenance requirements and related
long term costs."
Status: During 1995, FHWA plans to reissue a previous publication
that contains design guidelines for traffic control systems that
consider operations and maintenance requirements and long-range
costs.
6. "Establishment of a national clearinghouse for distribution of
current information on traffic control systems."
Status: FHWA also contracted with ITE to establish a national
clearinghouse for the distribution of current information on traffic
control systems. This clearinghouse data base is to include
information on operations and maintenance problems and solutions
based on user experience. The clearinghouse, a toll free hotline,
and an electronic bulletin board have been established and are
operational. An ITE official told us that these services are being
used extensively and that ITE is obtaining information from
clearinghouse users and FHWA to improve the data base and its
usefulness.
7. "Development of new and/or revised National Highway Institute
courses covering operations and maintenance of traffic control
systems." [The National Highway Institute is an FHWA organization
that administers scholarship and fellowship grant programs to assist
state and local agencies and the FHWA in developing transportation
expertise and programs.]
Status: During fiscal year 1994, three new courses covering the
operation and maintenance of traffic control systems are to be
available to FHWA, state, and local officials. In addition, in order
to inform state and local governments of the best current traffic
control technologies and their applications, FHWA established a
mobile exhibit on traffic control equipment and software that has
been touring the country since 1992. The exhibit covers
state-of-the-art traffic control technology and equipment used at
signalized intersections. A 2-day workshop and demonstration is
given to interested parties.
8. "Establishment of a Task Force to develop updated FHWA
procurement regulations."
Status: FHWA has not established the recommended task force to
review and update FHWA's procurement regulations for traffic control
systems because of staff limitations and time constraints.
9. "Facilitate the formation of Regional Traffic Management
Committees to provide for improved inter-jurisdictional coordination
and technology transfer."
Status: Traffic system support teams consisting of FHWA, state, and
local officials were established in two FHWA regions. These teams
will assist state and local governments with their traffic control
signal systems on request. FHWA's goal is to have teams in all the
regions by fiscal year 1995.
REMAINING RECOMMENDATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.2
10. "As a supplement to the National Highway Institute, University
Extension type short courses related to traffic control systems
should be developed at the Regional University Transportation Centers
and other interested universities. National Highway Institute course
material should continue to be made readily available to universities
for this purpose."
11. "The FHWA should consider the development of selected
self-instruction courses in videotape and/or CD/ROM format."
12. "Establishment of a certificate program [for traffic control
systems] administered by the FHWA for completion of a specified
series of courses would be desirable."
13. "Establishment of a training program in which selected staff are
temporarily assigned to established Control Centers would provide
`hands-on' experience under actual operating conditions."
14. "Establishment of one or more simulated traffic Control Centers
would provide for training under semi-realistic conditions as well as
[a] lower cost means of testing new operational concepts prior to
actual implementation."
15. "The FHWA in conjunction with state and local agencies should
encourage Universities, especially the University Transportation
Centers, to establish within their transportation engineering
curriculums credited courses which will provide basic and advanced
information about the operations and maintenance of state-of-the-art
traffic control systems."
16. "New budgetary procedures which will provide a more assured flow
of funding for training purposes need to be developed at the state
and local levels."
17. "With the advent of IVHS and more technically complex traffic
control systems, it is essential that the FHWA reassert its
leadership role in the area of technology transfer through the
distribution of useful current information to operating agencies."
18. "The FHWA should give a high priority to establishing new
routing procedures for distribution of technical information on
traffic control systems."
19. "New modes of information distribution such as computer bulletin
boards and E-mail should be considered."
20. "The FHWA should organize a pool of experts that could be drawn
on to assist state and local agencies with specific operations or
maintenance questions."
21. "The FHWA should take the lead in organizing workshops and user
groups on traffic control systems."
22. "The FHWA should increase the size of its Equipment Quality
Assurance Program in order to enable more frequent [site] visits."
23. "The FHWA should consider using its Rural Technical Assistance
Program as a model for technology transfer of information on traffic
control systems."
24. "The FHWA should establish close liaison and coordination with
the professional organizations that have direct ongoing contacts with
the end users of traffic control systems."
25. "State and local agencies should be required to develop
operations and maintenance staffing plans for new traffic control
systems projects in order to qualify for federal funding."
26. "State and local agencies should take the leadership role in the
Regional Traffic Management Committees."
27. "To facilitate regional coordination among multiple
jurisdictions, one or more traffic control centers should be
identified in each metropolitan area. These centers will be operated
by the larger more capable transportation agencies. The FHWA should
develop model interagency agreements for this purpose."
28. "The FHWA should take the lead in developing presentations and
workshops for those professional groups that should have some
knowledge of current and future developments in traffic control
systems, but are not within the community of direct users."
29. "To the extent possible, responsibility and accountability for
the operation and maintenance of traffic control systems should be
placed in an unitary organizational structure under one manager."
30. "The FHWA should allow operational test systems to be deployed
using innovative procurement techniques such as design/build in order
to assess their effectiveness."
31. "The FHWA should take the necessary steps to insure that there
is consistency in the administration of system procurement among the
regional and division offices."
32. "The FHWA should take the lead in developing generic standards,
protocols, and interface requirements for various elements of
advanced traffic control systems with a view to reducing design,
implementation, operations and maintenance costs."
33. "In order to better monitor the funding support for the
operations and maintenance of traffic control systems, these
functions should become line items in state/local budgets."
ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
========================================================== Appendix IV
FEDERAL AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.1
Federal Highway Administration headquarters and Regions 3, 4, 5,
and 10
Federal Highway Administration Divisions in Maryland, Georgia,
Virginia, Florida, Illinois, and Washington
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
STATE TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.2
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Maryland
Virginia
Washington
CITIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.3
Atlanta, Georgia
Bellevue, Washington
Chicago, Illinois
Orlando, Florida
Peoria, Illinois
Portland, Oregon
Renton, Washington
Richmond, Virginia
Seattle, Washington
Washington, D.C.
TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.4
Orlando, Florida
Richmond, Virginia
State of Maryland Department of Transportation
State of Washington Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.5
Concurrent Computer Corporation
Farradyne Systems, Inc.
Frederic R. Harris, Inc.
Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Ron Goodin & Associates, Inc.
Sonex Corporation
Science Applications International Corporation
TRW Transportation and Support Systems
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Allen Li, Associate Director
Charles F. Barchok, Jr., Assistant Director
Barry R. Kime, Assignment Manager
Paul D. Lacey, Evaluator-in-Charge
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE
Catherine A. Colwell, Site Senior
David G. Ehrlich, Staff Evaluator
Laura Jacobs, Intern
SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Matthew W. Byer, Staff Evaluator