Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg i October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg i October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

2 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Major contributions from PennDOT District 5-0, the PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE), the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, the Reading Area Transportation Study, and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, made the Regional Operations Plan for the Region 5 possible. The ROP was developed with input from multiple regional stakeholders. Regional Champions / Leaders PennDOT District 5-0 served as ROP champion, with additional leadership provided by the region s three MPO / RPOs. In particular, the staff who contributed toward the development of the ROP included: Dennis Toomey, P.E. PennDOT District 5-0 Tom Walter PennDOT District 5-0 Joe Gurinko Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Alan Piper Reading Area Transportation Study Kurt Bauman Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance Regional Steering Committee The ROP was guided by the Regional Steering Committee which consisted of the Regional Champions / Leaders as well as the following individuals and organizations: Tony Blackwell Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association Jason Davis Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority Mike Donchez Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Gary Hoffman Monroe County 911 Center Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration Oscar Kleinsmith I-78 Coalition Amanda Leindecker PennDOT District 5-0 John Matz Schuylkill County Emergency Management Agency Hugh McGowan PennDOT Program Center Mike Pack PennDOT BHSTE Glenn F. Reibman Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission Cpl. Carol Sherland Pennsylvania State Police John Townsend PennDOT District 5-0 In addition to these individuals, another thirty-one individuals representing regional organizations participated at ROP workshops and task force meetings, or through phone and correspondence. Consultant Team The GeoDecisions division of Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF) facilitated the ROP process, documented the outcomes, and prepared the plan document. Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg ii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

3 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...VIII ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... IX 1. BACKGROUND Statewide TSOP Initiative ROP Scope and Objectives ROP Development Process ROP Oversight and Management OPERATIONS REGION 5 ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES Description of the Region ITS and Operations Activities at the District 5-0 Level Regional Initiatives The Regional Planning Process Integrating the ROP into the Regional Planning Process REGIONAL OPERATIONS FRAMEWORK Regional Operations Strategies Incident Management Processes and Procedures Operations Area Interagency Communications & Coordination Traveler Information Operations Area Traffic Signals Operations Area REGIONAL PROGRAM Overview...30 Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg iii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

4 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region Mainstreaming Operations Project Priorities and Sequences Approach to Funding Regional Oversight Measuring Success Institutional Considerations CONCLUSION...42 APPENDIX A REGIONAL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS...44 APPENDIX B MPO / RPO - SPECIFIC PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONS (LVPC)...61 APPENDIX B MPO / RPO SPECIFIC PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONS...74 APPENDIX B MPO / RPO SPECIFIC PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONS...87 APPENDIX C PRIORITIZED FIELD DEVICES FOR DEPLOYMENT...98 APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION APPENDIX E WORKSHOP & TASK FORCE PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX F STEERING COMMITTEE, WORKSHOP & TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARIES Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting Summary (FINAL) Workshop #1 Operational Needs Identification - Meeting Summary (FINAL) TASK FORCE MEETINGS #1 Operational Projects Definition TASK FORCE MEETING #2 Operational Projects Prioritization WORKSHOP # 2 Field Device Prioritization Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg iv October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

5 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Region 5 ROP Process 3 Figure 2: Region 5 Geographic Boundaries 13 Figure 3: Region 5 ROP Boundaries 105 Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg v October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

6 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: REGION 5 ROP STEERING COMMITTEE...9 TABLE 2: REGION 5 ROP STAKEHOLDERS...10 TABLE 3: REGION 5 ROP MEETING SCHEDULE...11 TABLE 4: INVENTORY OF KEY ITS EQUIPMENT & SERVICES IN REGION TABLE 5: INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES -- REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS...26 TABLE 6: INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION - REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS...27 TABLE 7: TRAVELER INFORMATION - REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS...28 TABLE 8: TRAFFIC SIGNALS - REGIONAL NEEDS AND PROJECTS...29 TABLE 9: CANDIDATE ROP PROJECTS...31 TABLE 10: ROP PROJECT PRIORITY RANKINGS...32 TABLE 11: FINAL LIST - PRIORITIZED ROP PROJECTS...33 TABLE 12: LVPC ROP PROJECT PRIORITIES...34 TABLE 13: RATS ROP PROJECT PRIORITIES...35 TABLE 14: NEPA ROP PROJECT PRIORITIES...36 TABLE 15: OPERATIONS REGION 5 - POPULATION BY COUNTY, TABLE 16: COMPARISON OF KEY POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS REGION 5, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE UNITED STATES, Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg vi October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

7 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 TABLE 17: COMPARISON OF COMMUTING PATTERNS AMONG WORKERS 16 & OVER REGION 5, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE UNITED STATES, TABLE 18: REGION 5 - LINEAR MILES, TABLE 19: REGION 5 - DAILY VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL, TABLE 20: SIGNIFICANT HIGHWAY CORRIDORS Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg vii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

8 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is responsible for operations planning at the statewide level. The statewide plan is spelled out in the Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP). To complement the statewide operations planning effort, each of the nine transportation operations regions across the Commonwealth undertook the preparation of a Regional Operations Plan (ROP). The plans were prepared through joint consultations between PennDOT District offices, transportation planning partners, and other key regional stakeholders. Operations Region 5 is located in the eastern part of Pennsylvania and is comprised of six counties: Berks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill. Operations Region 5 is co-terminus with PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. The region consists of two MPOs; The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC) and the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS). There is one region RPO; the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA). The Regional Operations Plan for Region 5 specifies the intended approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationally-focused projects for the region, consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. The examination of existing conditions and ITS inventory, as well as projects currently programmed as part of the FY TIPs, illuminated potential ITS equipment gaps and shortcomings. The specific ITS needs of the region were further identified by planning partners and regional stakeholders during regional forums. Critical Operational Needs Areas included the following: Incident Management Processes and Procedures (IMP&P), Interagency Communications and Coordination (IC&C), Traveler Information (TI), and Traffic Signals (TS). Candidate projects in the Region 5 ROP were developed based on PennDOT s statewide vision and the assessment of operational needs. These candidate projects lay a foundation for having a significant impact in the Critical Operational Needs Areas listed above. The top three projects are: Project # Final List - Prioritized ROP Projects 1 Identify ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment 2 Develop / Update Incident Management Plans & Procedures 3 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols The regional solutions addressed in the Region 5 ROP tend to be cost effective in supporting (not eliminating) regional congestion issues. As Region 5 considers its transportation options, ITS and operations solutions will be examined, weighed and considered regional funding. This effort will ensure that innovative and cost effective solutions get a fair hearing alongside more costly capacity expansion projects. Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg viii October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

9 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS ATMS ATR ATRWS AVL BARTA BHSTE CCTV CMP CVO DMS DVMT EDP EMA EMS FHWA FSP GPS HAR HOV IEM IEN IM ISP ITS LANTA LRP LVPC LVTS MPO NEPA NJDOT NJT NWS O&M OIP PEMA PennDOT PSP PTC RATS RCRS RIMIS ROP RPO RTMC RTMS RWIS SAFETEA-LU SAMS STMC Advanced Traffic Management System Automatic Traffic Recorder Automatic Truck Rollover Warning System Automatic Vehicle Location Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering Closed-Circuit Television Congestion Management Process Commercial Vehicle Operation Dynamic Message Sign Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Early Deployment Program Emergency Management Agency Emergency Medical Services Federal Highway Administration Freeway Service Patrol Global Positioning System Highway Advisory Radio High Occupancy Vehicle Incident and Emergency Management Information Exchange Network Interstate Maintenance Information Service Providers Intelligent Transportation System Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority Long Range Plan (or Long Range Transportation Plan) Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Lehigh Valley Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance New Jersey Department of Transportation New Jersey Transit National Weather Service Operations and Maintenance Other in-pavement Loop Site Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Pennsylvania State Police Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Reading Area Transportation Study Road Closure Reporting System Regional Integrated Multimodal Information Sharing Regional Operations Plan Rural Planning Organization Regional Transportation Management Center Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Road Weather Information System Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Signals Asset Management System Statewide Transportation Management Center Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg ix October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

10 Regional Operations Plan 2007 Region 5 STS TIP TMA TMC TSAMS TSOP UPWP USDOT Schuylkill Transportation System Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Management Association Transportation Management Center Traffic Signal Asset Management System Transportation Systems Operations Plan Unified Planning Work Program United States Department of Transportation Gannett Fleming, Inc. / GeoDecisions Pg x October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

11 1. BACKGROUND Transportation agencies today seldom have the luxury of undertaking massive new capacity expansion projects. Instead, more innovative approaches are often required to optimize the use of transportation infrastructure and achieve heightened operational efficiencies. Those activities, approaches, and procedures that help to maximize efficiencies are part of the transportation operations program. Operational planning is the process used to define and prepare for operations programming. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is responsible for operations planning at the statewide level. The statewide plan is spelled out in the Transportation Systems Operations Plan (TSOP), which defines PennDOT s operational directions over the next several years. To complement the statewide operations planning effort, each of the nine transportation operations regions across the Commonwealth has undertaken preparation of a Regional Operations Plan (ROP) which documents each region s approach to operational activities. The plans were prepared through joint consultations between PennDOT District offices, transportation planning partners, and other key regional stakeholders. The plans all use TSOP as a starting point, but adapt the statewide directions to each region s transportation conditions, values, and priorities. This document specifies the ROP for Operations Region Statewide TSOP Initiative The Transportation Systems Operations Plan, adopted in September 2005, defines PennDOT s general framework for managing capacity along the Commonwealth s roadways. The development of TSOP was a response to PennDOT Executive Goal No. 6, which was to effectively and efficiently operate the transportation system. Toward this end, TSOP has four overarching goals: 1. Build and maintain a transportation operations foundation, 2. Improve highway operational performance, 3. Improve safety, and 4. Improve security. Associated with these goals are a series of tangible objectives. Key objectives include: Support transportation operations uniformly in all PennDOT engineering districts, Furnish consistent incident response on all segments of the Interstate system, regardless of location, Share timely, reliable information about incidents among federal, state, and regional/local emergency management agencies, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 1 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

12 Improve mobility on arterials through consolidated, inter-municipal management of traffic signals, Provide practical, reliable traveler information to transportation consumers using no-cost or low-cost media, and Define and implement performance metrics for effectively managing operations and guiding planning and funding. An electronic version of the TSOP document is available at TSOP, first and foremost, is an action plan of statewide projects. There are nineteen initiatives that encompass four priority areas: Incident and Emergency Management, Traffic Signals, Traveler Information, and Standardization. Standardization encompasses the uniformity of hardware, software, communications procedures and protocols, etc. TSOP will be updated throughout calendar year ROP Scope and Objectives The Regional Operations Plan for the District 5-0 Region specifies the intended approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationallyfocused projects for the region, consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. (See Appendix D for a description of the region). The ROP sets the stage for regional implementation of pertinent elements of TSOP. It may also identify other initiatives reflective of the specialized needs of the region. Development of the ROP is intended to: Define a strategic transportation operations plan for the region, Extend TSOP to the regional level, Tailor statewide directions to regional needs, Specify and prioritize regional operations projects, Achieve uniformity and compatibility across operations regions, and Expand cooperative relationships between regional transportation operators and planning partners. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 2 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

13 Regarding the last item, the ROP process is intended to link planning and operations. The ROP emphasizes collaboration and coordination among regional planners and operators, and a structured assessment of the planning and operational implications of expanded management procedures, technology systems, and investments. The ROP will feed into the Long-Range Plans (LRP) and the corresponding Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) in each of the state s operational regions. Each ROP will also supply important inputs to future updates of TSOP, Regional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architectures, and PennDOT s Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan (Mobility Plan). ROP stakeholders in every region are presenting the ROP document to their respective metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and rural planning organizations (RPOs), encouraging these planning partners to adopt or endorse the plans. It is expected that all ROPs will be updated at two-year intervals in advance of biannual TIP update cycles. 1.3 ROP Development Process The nine-month Region 5 ROP development process involved conducting outreach workshops and smaller group meetings as well as researching and developing regional operations projects. The ROP involved the following key activities shown in Figure 1 and further described below: Figure 1: Region 5 ROP Development Process Kick- Kick- off off Workshop Forum #1 Needs Identification Task Incident Incident Force #1 Management Management Projects Task Task Force Force Identification Task Institutional Institutional Force #2 Projects Issues Issues Prioritization Task Force Workshop Forum #2 Regional Program Development ROP ROP Adoption Adoption Tasks Tasks 1 1 & 2 2 Task Task 3 3 Tasks Tasks 4 4 & 5 5 Task Task 6 6 Tasks 7 7 Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 3 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

14 Task 1. Establish a Regional Operations Forum (ROF). The ROF, or Steering Committee, is a group of knowledgeable planning and transportation partners who are involved in operations and transportation for the region. The ROF Steering Committee is a decision-making body that covers a diverse range of transportation and emergency management stakeholders from across the region. The Committee can be an extension of the Regional Advisory Panel (RAP) Committees that govern the development of the Regional ITS Architectures or it can be a completely new group of members. The ROF Steering Committee for Region 5 was a new committee with representation from the following: PennDOT District 5-0 PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Lehigh Valley Planning Commission(LVPC) Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (DRJTBC) Schuylkill County Emergency Management Agency Monroe County 911 Center I-78 Coalition Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association PennDOT Program Center Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority A list of the individuals representing each of these stakeholder organizations is provided in Table 1. Task 2. Review / Update Plans and Document Projects. The documents reviewed in preparing this project inventory included the following: i. PennDOT Regional Guidance Document (May 2006) The Regional Guidance Document was prepared in May 2006 to outline an approach for developing the ROPs. This document is guiding the development of each of the Regional ROPs, including the Region 5 ROP. ii. Pennsylvania Mobility Plan (June 2007) Pennsylvania s long-range statewide transportation plan, or Mobility Plan, sets the direction for the Commonwealth s transportation investment through The Mobility Plan, which was developed by PennDOT for the planning horizon, articulates a transportation vision and establishes five major goals for achieving that vision. These goals include: a) moving people and goods safely and securely, b) improving the quality of life by linking transportation, land use, economic development, and environmental stewardship, c) developing and sustaining quality transportation infrastructure, d) providing mobility for people, goods, and commerce, and e) maximizing the benefit of transportation investments. The Mobility Plan seeks to work collaboratively to achieve these goals thereby making transportation more Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 4 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

15 multimodal, entrepreneurial, and collaborative, and to better link investment decisions with goals for Pennsylvania s economy and quality of life. The Region 5 ROP will supply important inputs to future updates of the Mobility Plan. iii Transportation Systems Operations Plan (September 2005) The Transportation Systems Operations Plan, or TSOP, was prepared in September 2005 and defines the statewide plan for operations. The TSOP will be updated on a bi-annual basis and its purpose is to set statewide direction for projects in ITS and to formalize and extend PennDOT s business focus to include operations. TSOP is predicated on four goals: 1) building and maintaining a transportation operations foundation; 2) improving highway operational performance; 3) improving safety; and 4) improving security. In order to achieve these goals, the TSOP outlines nineteen distinct statewide initiatives that include both planning efforts as well as deployments. These projects cover areas of priority such as operations mainstreaming, ITS maintenance, standards and procedures, resource management, information technology, and intermodal support. Coordination of these priorities will be carried out both through statewide initiatives and regional deployments dependent on localized needs. Like the ROP, the TSOP is positioned to be linked to the two-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) updates. In development of the ROP, the TSOP is the primary guideline to follow. The ROP will cover the more specific regional needs of District 5-0. In turn, the Region 5 ROP will provide important inputs to future updates of the TSOP. iv. Early Deployment Plan: Development of Intelligent Transportation Systems for the Lehigh Valley (1999) This document is a comprehensive assessment of all existing and future facets of ITS elements, systems, practices, and strategies within the Lehigh Valley. The document is organized into nine Technical Memorandums, each covering a different aspect of ITS in the Lehigh Valley. The tasks of the study and their corresponding document memorandums are outlined briefly below: 1) Describes the current transportation system as well-identified needs/problems 2) Provides a more detailed inventory of the basic communication and ITS transportation and communication infrastructure elements that are present 3) Identifies stakeholders and the institutional issues they may influence and/or adapt to as they jointly develop and implement a strategic ITS plan for the Lehigh Valley area Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 5 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

16 4) Describes the ongoing study of the current and future application of ITS in the area, focusing on user services, performance criteria, and user services plan 5) Focuses on matching the needed user services identified in memorandum 4 with the appropriate functional areas and to further define the technologies available to support the user services plan 6) Describes the results of an effort designed to develop an open system architecture, meeting the needs and ITS services of the region 7) Describes the targeted physical architecture of the ITS. The task concentrated on technologies based on optimization of system availability, supportability, expandability, compatibility with existing infrastructure standards, affordability, and phased implementation potential. 8) Defines operations and maintenance issues; identifying funding options, including public/private partnership opportunities; and develops a phased implementation plan. 9) The last chapter describes the activities and findings of a number of task objectives; including preparation of a business plan and deployment plan for Lehigh Valley ITS elements, project descriptions, estimate for deployment, funding sources, and scheduling, an evaluation plan for determining the effectiveness of the ITS Program. While other input documents mainly provide guidance on the format and other general requirements of Concept of Operations and Requirements documents, the Lehigh Valley ITS document provides content-related guidance with regards to specific systems that exist and are planned in the Lehigh Valley region. v. Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT Region 5 ITS Architecture (February 2005) In order to use USDOT funds for ITS implementation all states in partnership with their planning partners must complete ITS Architectures. In complying with this Federal mandate, Pennsylvania has required PennDOT Districts and regional planning partners to develop Regional ITS Architectures, which serve as a framework for ensuring institutional agreement and technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects. The Regional ITS Architecture covering Region 5 will be relevant and useful to the development of the ROP in two main ways: (1) the Region 5 ROP will need to be consistent with the Regional ITS Architecture and (2) the Regional ITS Architecture document provides a list of Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 6 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

17 stakeholders that will serve as a master list of stakeholders from which the stakeholders for this particular project are developed. The Regional ITS Architecture served as a reference document throughout the completion of the main tasks of this project and was consulted, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Architecture. The Region 5 ROP will likewise supply important inputs to future updates of the Region 5 Regional ITS Architecture. vi. Unified Planning Work Program The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is the annual work plan for regional planning activities and priorities. Mandated by Federal statute, the Work Program is performed by the regional MPO or RPO and provides strategic direction for transportation activities. The UPWPs for Region 5 s two MPOs (the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission and the Reading Area Transportation Study), and the RPO (the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance) were all consulted in the development of regional candidate ITS projects, in particular, those projects involving studies or planning-level activities. vii. Regional Long Range Plan The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP) documents the current conditions of the existing transportation system within the MPO and RPO areas, describes the trends that will impact that system over the next twenty-five years, and develops a schedule of improvements to mitigate the impacts to those trends to keep the system functioning effectively and efficiently. The Region 5 ROP will feed into the LRPs for LVPC, RATS, and NEPA. viii. Transportation Improvement Program The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the regionally agreed-upon, and locally endorsed, list of highest priority transportation projects for the region. The TIP develops a multi-year program of implementation, and identifies available federal and non-federal funding for the identified projects. The TIP covers a four-year period of investment and is updated every two years through a cooperative effort of local, state, and federal agencies, and the general public. The Region 5 ROP will provide input into future TIPs for the region s three planning partners. An inventory of operations projects planned or underway across the region was created and disseminated as guidance material to the Regional Forum / Steering Committee. Task 3. Define Regional Needs and Priorities. A regional forum (Workshop #1) was held with Region 5 transportation and planning stakeholders to define and discuss operational needs for the region. In identifying the critical needs of Region 5, the nineteen TSOP Priority Areas were the starting point for discussion, and were followed by a discussion of region-specific operational requirements. This discussion led to the identification of four operational needs areas (Incident Management Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 7 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

18 Processes and Procedures, Communications, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals), and resulted in the development of a list of regional operational needs associated with each of these needs areas. A summary from Workshop #1 is provided in Appendix F. Task 4. Identify Operations Concepts & Projects. Upon identifying operational needs, a first round of Task Force Meetings was convened in each of the three geographic areas of Region 5. Task Force #1 participants reviewed the previously developed list of needs and began to define the solutions to those needs in the form of potential projects (i.e., policies, planning studies or physical deployments). These candidate projects reflected the specialized conditions and circumstances of the region consistent with statewide guidance. Meeting summaries from this round of regional Task Force #1 meetings are provided in Appendix F. Task 5. Prioritize Operations Projects. Upon defining the operational projects, a second Task Force meeting was convened with Region 5 participants from the three planning areas meeting together to prioritize the candidate list of projects. ROP stakeholders rated each of the candidate projects on a numerical scale based on its perceived need, as well as on other key factors such as implementation agent, level of required effort, estimated cost and implementation timeline. This second Task Force meeting was followed by Workshop #2 with the purpose of validating and prioritizing the candidate ITS projects as well as a proposed list of ITS field devices identified for each of the three planning areas of Region 5. Task 6. Develop a Regional Program. Upon completing the prioritization process, a draft list of candidate projects and proposed ITS field devices was presented to District 5-0 and the regional planning partners for review. This regional program of projects is presented in Appendix A. Task 7. Prepare and Adopt a Regional Operations Plan. The results of the entire ROP planning effort are documented as the ROP Plan. At a minimum, the Plan encompasses the following elements: background to study, short-term and mediumterm projects, and program implementation. At the conclusion of the outreach process, the ROP is to be reviewed and adopted by the three regional planning partners (LVPC, RATS, NEPA). 1.4 ROP Oversight and Management As part of the effort to develop the ROP, a Regional Operations Forum, or ROP Steering Committee, was established. In addition to the Steering Committee, a group of transportation operations stakeholders geographically covering the six counties and representing the region s transportation, operational, and planning agencies, was also identified and established. These Steering Committee members and regional stakeholders formed the basis for participation at the two workshops and two task force meetings convened during the ROP process Regional Operations Forum / ROP Steering Committee The ROP Steering Committee represents a decision-making body of knowledgeable planning partners and practitioners across the six-county region responsible for planning Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 8 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

19 and overseeing transportation operations. The ROP Steering Committee consists of an extended group of stakeholder organizations and individuals from Region 5 as presented in Table 1 below. Table 1: Region 5 ROP Steering Committee Steering Committee Member Organizational Representation Dennis Toomey, P.E. Tom Walter John Townsend PennDOT District 5-0 Amanda Leindecker Mike Pack Joe Gurinko Mike Donchez Hugh McGowan Alan Piper Kurt Bauman Jim Hunt Cpl. Carol Sherland Glenn F. Reibman John Matz Gary Hoffman Jason Davis Tony Blackwell Oscar Kleinsmith PennDOT BHSTE Lehigh Valley Transportation Study PennDOT Program Center Reading Area Transportation Study Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania State Police Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission Schuylkill County EMA Monroe County 911 Center LANTA Schuylkill County Fire Chiefs Association I-78 Coalition ROP Stakeholders / Participants Two workshop meetings and a series of task force meetings were held and attended by a large group of stakeholders from throughout Region 5. The stakeholders involved in the Region 5 ROP process bring a diverse range of knowledge and experience to the operational direction of the region. These stakeholders participated in the core decisions associated with the ROP process, in particular identifying the region s operational needs and defining and prioritizing the operational projects to address these needs. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 9 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

20 Those stakeholders involved in the development of the ROP through workshop and task force meetings, or by way of or phone correspondence, are included in Table 2 below. Table 2: Region 5 ROP Stakeholders Stakeholder Organization Stakeholder / Participant Donald Lerch PennDOT District 5-0 George Tomaszewski Carey Mullins Bill Laubach PennDOT BHSTE Bob Pento, P.E. Doug Tomlinson, P.E. PennDOT Program Center Reading Area Transportation Study Federal Highway Administration Kristin Egresits Matt McGough Michael Golembiewski Kathy Dimpsey Lt. Frank Fetterolf Pennsylvania State Police Joseph Wydock Dirk Yahraes Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Berks County EMA Carbon County Planning Commission Greenwich Township HJG Associates Lehigh County 911 Center Lehigh County EMA Monroe County Planning Commission Monroe County Public Safety Center Lou Cortelazzi Jeffrey Weidner Stephen Simchak Victor Berger Howard Grossman Laurie Bailey Tom Nervine Tanya Light Matt Neeb Bruce Henry Guy M. Miller Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 10 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

21 Pocono Vacation Bureau Schuylkill Transportation System Mathilda Sheptak Dennis Zahora Consultant Team The GeoDecisions division of Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF) facilitated the ROP process, documented the outcomes, and prepared the plan document Workshops and Task Force Meetings The development of the ROP required several workshop forums and task force meetings throughout the process. These forums and meetings provided the venue for identifying the operational needs of Region 5 as well as for defining and prioritizing regional operational concepts and projects. The two Workshop forums were held at strategic phases in the ROP process. The first identified the region s operations needs and the second validated and prioritized candidate projects and proposed ITS field devices. The names and affiliations of Workshop participants are provided in Appendix E. The Task Force initially convened as geographic-based groups in each of the three planning partner areas (Lehigh Valley, Berks County, and Northeastern Pennsylvania) but met as one group for its second meeting round. The names and affiliations of Task Force participants are provided in Appendix F. The schedule of meetings held for the Region 5 ROP is presented in Table 3 below. Table 3: Region 5 ROP Meeting Schedule Meeting Date ROF Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting January 18, 2007 Stakeholder Workshop #1 Operational Needs Identification February 20, 2007 Task Force Meetings #1 Operational Projects Identification March 20, 2007 (LVPC) March 21, 2007 (RATS) March 21, 2007 (NEPA) Task Force Meeting #2 Operational Projects Prioritization May 31, 2007 Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 11 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

22 Stakeholder Workshop #2 Operational Projects and ITS Field Device Prioritization June 11, 2007 MPO / RPO Meetings Field Device Validation, Prioritization & Sequencing June 12, 2007 (LVPC) July 2, 2007 (RATS) July 12, 2007 (NEPA) Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 12 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

23 2. OPERATIONS REGION 5 ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES 2.1 Description of the Region Operations Region 5 is located in the eastern part of Pennsylvania and is comprised of six counties: Berks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill. As shown in Figure 2, Operations Region 5 is co-terminus with PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. The region consists of two MPOs The Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) encompasses Lehigh and Northampton counties, while the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS) consists of Berks County. The region s one RPO the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) encompasses Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe counties. NEPA itself is split between PennDOT District 4-0 and District 5-0, with Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe counties included in District 5-0. The District 5-0 office is located in downtown Allentown in Lehigh County. A more detailed description of the region is provided in Appendix D. 2.2 ITS and Operations Activities at the District 5-0 Level Figure 2: Region 5 Geographic Boundaries Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 13 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

24 ITS Device Deployment District 5-0 has an established ITS program, with most of its ITS field technologies located in the Lehigh Valley along I-78, Route 22, and Route 33. In 1999, an Allentown- Bethlehem-Easton Area Early Deployment Program Study was completed. The Early Deployment Program developed an immediate and long-range action plan for deploying ITS technologies in the Lehigh Valley. This plan is still being used and has led to several deployments across the region. The equipment currently deployed throughout Region 5 includes: Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) 10 th Mile-marker Signing Queue Detectors Ramp Metering System (inactive) Closed Loop Traffic signal Systems Roadway Weather Information Systems (RWIS) Stations Freeway Service Patrols An inventory and understanding of these existing and planned systems is crucial to the needs analysis development of an Operations Plan. These existing systems and deployments were used as the basis for the identification of the regional needs which could be addressed by operational solution or ITS deployment. Table 4 below includes an Inventory of Existing ITS Infrastructure and Services in Region 5. Table 4: Inventory of Key ITS Equipment & Services in Region 5 Region-wide ITS Device and Services (Sources: PennDOT ITS Field Device Inventory) LVPC RATS NEPA Region Totals CCTV Cameras DMS (Permanent) DMS (Portable / Semi-permanent) HAR Queue Detectors Ramp Metering Systems (No. of ramps) Roadway Weather Information Systems Freeway Service Patrols Traffic Management Center (TMC) A TMC is responsible for implementing real-time congestion management and incident management strategies essential to maximizing the operation and safety of the expressway system. A TMC is critical to incident management response as well. By 1 Two vehicles on patrol and one in backup mode Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 14 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

25 collecting, coordinating, and disseminating traffic information to both incident management responders (directly) and to the traveling public (through DMS and traffic information providers), incidents are cleared more efficiently and travelers are provided near real-time information on which to base their travel decisions. District 5-0 s TMC is located in the District 5-0 office in downtown Allentown. The TMC consists of a video wall with several monitors and consoles for device monitoring and control. No single, centralized software is used; rather, vendor-specific hardware and software systems are used for field element control and monitoring. Field elements are controlled utilizing spread spectrum radio and hardwired and wireless (cellular) communications. There is currently no fiber optic cable deployed in District 5-0 for ITS systems. The TMC is staffed with an operator from 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday. From 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, the Traffic Unit Staff monitors and utilizes the TMC as part of their responsibilities while in the office. For all other hours, including overnight, weekends, and holidays, the Traffic Unit staff uses laptops to provide messages on DMS and HAR as needed. District 5-0 has recognized the importance of and need for regional coordination and operations. In response to these challenges, District 5-0 is working with PennDOT s Central Office to become integrated into the Eastern Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC) and expand operations to a 24/7 basis. By the end of 2008, the Eastern RTMC, which will be located in District 6-0, will be able to support the District 5-0 TMC by viewing and controlling CCTV, DMS, and HAR systems throughout District 5-0 when the District 5-0 TMC is not staffed or during periods of multiple major incidents or severe weather events. The TMC is exploring 24/7 operations during winter months by combining the county winter maintenance reporting/24 hour answering service with TMC operations. Functions of the Region 5-0 TMC include: Detecting and verifying incidents using CCTV, Providing traveler Information via DMS and HAR, Coordinating the deployment of the Freeway Service Patrol on I-78 and Route 22 during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Other tools the TMC uses to enhance traffic flow include alerting the Pennsylvania State Police, Emergency Medical Services, or any other services to respond to highway incidents. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 15 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

26 Freeway Service Patrols District 5-0 also employs two Freeway Service Patrol vehicles and one back-up vehicle to perform the expeditious removal of disabled or accident vehicles and small, non-hazardous debris along I-78 from Route 100 to Route 309/Route 145 and Route 22 from I-78 to Route 33. This service helps reduce the total time needed to clear incidents and allows travel times to remain more reliable. The freeway service patrol operates during the hours of 6 am 9 am and 3 pm 7 pm, Monday through Friday. 2.3 Regional Initiatives Traffic Signals All traffic signals in Region 5 are maintained by the individual municipalities in which they are located. In 2005, following the release of the National Traffic Signal Report Card, the State Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) completed a statewide signal study. As part of the study, the TAC concluded the following: a) Traffic signals are an asset that needs to be better managed, b) Signals should be a shared responsibility, and c) Signals should be considered at both the corridor and regional level. The conclusions of this study led to the incorporation of statewide project TSOP-08 Development of a Statewide Traffic Signal Asset Management System (TSAMS). TSAMS is planned as a tool to improve traffic signal planning, design, installation, maintenance, and operation by serving as a repository of traffic signal information. Closed loop traffic signal systems are being pursued on a corridor basis to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion and enhance safety. Transit Operations Transit initiatives in Region 5 focus on the efforts of the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) 2, Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) 3, and the Schuylkill Transportation System (STS) 4. 2 LANTA information from 3 BARTA information from 4 STS information from Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 16 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

27 LANTA is charged with operating a "public transportation system... for public use in the metropolitan area consisting of the Counties of Lehigh and Northampton." A bi-county, municipal authority, LANTA supplements passenger fares and other revenues with county, state and federal funding to support operating and capital expenses. LANTA operates the Metro system, a network of 30 fixed bus routes throughout the Lehigh Valley providing daily, later evening, Saturday, and Sunday services. More than 380,000 people live within walking distance of a Metro route. LANTA's Metro Plus division, a brokerage operation, arranges special door-to-door transportation services for people with disabilities and the elderly who cannot access the regular Metro transit system. The 101 accessible vans and mini-buses available to Metro Plus customers are dispatched daily. LANTA manages the public transportation system for the County of Carbon. CCCT offers services - both shared-ride, door-to-door and fixed route - within Carbon County and to several points outside of the county including the regional Mall area in Whitehall, Lehigh County. It is a service sponsored by Carbon County in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's Shared Ride Lottery Program and Rural Transportation Division and the Federal Transit Administration. Near term plans for LANTA system improvements includes the deployment of an Automated Vehicle Location system (AVL). Implementation is phased over several funding cycles and will ultimately allow for the real-time tracking of transit vehicles throughout the LANTA service area. The availability of AVL data will allow LANTA to institute a variety of operational improvements and traveler information services that will enhance operating efficiency and increase customer satisfaction. Software enhancements to the basic AVL system will improve data management, analysis, and reporting. BARTA is the principal provider of public transportation in Berks County. Operating eighty-eight vehicles over twenty-two fixed routes and demand response service, the BARTA service area contains over 200,000 persons and includes all or a portion of twenty-six municipalities. The BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) opened at 8th and Cherry Streets in downtown Reading in March of It is the central transfer point for most of the bus routes and has a passenger waiting area with an automated bus arrival and departure system, along with many other passenger amenities. Plans for future development of transit capabilities within at BARTA include the adoption of AVL technology to improve performance and increase passenger confidence in the systems reliability. Back in 1982 the Schuylkill County Commissioners created the Schuylkill Transportation System (STS). It is founded upon the belief that a dependable public transit system is a vital component of a community s quality of life. The original fixed bus routes expanded over time from five to fourteen. In the last twenty-five years, STS has transported more than ten million passengers. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 17 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

28 The STS Fixed Route Bus System operates Monday to Friday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM and Saturday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No bus service is provided on Sundays. Nearly 70 years after the last trolley operated in Schuylkill County, another trolley has returned to Saint Clair as an exciting new addition to the STS fleet. The 22 passenger Miss Molly Trolley has become a featured player on the fixed route system Mall Express Shuttle service. 2.4 The Regional Planning Process The primary planning partners for Region 5 are the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC), the Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS), and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA). Region 5 Planning Partners The Lehigh Valley Transportation Study is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Lehigh and Northampton counties. LVTS is composed of two committees the Technical Committee and the Coordinating Committee. The Technical Committee reviews submitted items and recommends actions to the Coordinating Committee. Technical Committee membership consists of representatives from PennDOT Central Office, PennDOT District 5-0, Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, and the Lehigh- Northampton Airport Authority. The Coordinating Committee is the policy body which formally adopts items reviewed by the Technical Committee, and consists of the same members as the Technical Committee, with the addition of Lehigh County and Northampton County. The Reading Area Transportation Study is the MPO for Berks County. RATS is composed of two committees the Technical Committee and the Coordinating Committee. The Technical Committee reviews submitted items and recommends actions to the Coordinating Committee. Technical Committee membership consists of representatives from PennDOT Central Office, PennDOT District 5-0, the City of Reading, the Berks County Planning Commission, the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority, and the Reading Regional Airport Authority. The Coordinating Committee is the policy body that formally adopts items reviewed by the Technical Committee, and consists of the same members as the Technical Committee, with the addition of the Berks County Board of Commissioners, and representatives of Boroughs, 1 st Class Townships, and 2 nd Class Townships. The Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance serves as the coordinating agency for rural transportation planning in the rural region that includes Carbon, Monroe, Pike, Schuylkill, and Wayne counties. (Operations Region 5 encompasses only three of these counties; Carbon, Monroe, and Schuylkill.) Designated by PennDOT as the Rural Planning Organization (RPO) for these counties, NEPA engages in various transportation planning and programming activities, and convenes the Northeastern Pennsylvania Rural Transportation Planning Organization (NPRTO), which assists and advises NEPA in assessing and evaluating the region s transportation needs and priorities. The NPRTPO Committee is comprised of 14 voting members, with representation from each county, PennDOT District 4-0, District 5-0, and Central Office, NEPA, and five at-large members. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 18 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

29 Transportation Planning in Region 5 As the MPOs/RPO for the region, RATS, and NEPA, are required by federal regulations to develop and regularly update transportation planning and programming documents, including a Long Range Plan (LRP) which establishes the long term vision for the region, the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) which identifies the transportation planning activities to be conducted within the state fiscal year, and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which details the transportation priorities of the region over a four-year period. The transportation planning process has been established to promote federal, state, and local transportation objectives. The process provides a forum where decision-makers identify issues and opportunities and make informed decisions regarding the programming and implementation of transportation projects and services. Key issues addressed by this process include: Identifying annual UPWP activities, Updating and implementing LRT plans, Developing and adopting TIP, Undertaking transportation (air quality) conformity analyses and determinations where and when needed, and Continuously integrating the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and the Intermodal Management System into the planning and programming processes. RATS, and NEPA manage these regional planning processes and determine how federal transportation funds are spent within Region 5. Unified Planning Work Program The Unified Planning Work Program identifies Federally-funded transportation studies and planning activities, and significant non-federally-funded state or local planning activities to be conducted during the upcoming fiscal year. The UPWP establishes the priorities to be conducted during the upcoming fiscal year, as well as, the source of funds and responsible agency. The 2007 UPWPs for the three Region 5 planning partners were all consulted in the preparation of the Region 5 ROP. Long Range Plans Long Range Transportation Plans have been developed by the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study, and the Reading Area Transportation Study, and an LRP is currently under development by NEPA. These Plans document the current conditions of the existing multi-modal transportation system within the MPO and RPO areas, describe the trends that will impact that system over the next twenty-plus years, and develop a schedule of improvements to mitigate the impacts to those trends to keep the system functioning effectively and efficiently. LRPs are living documents and under Federal law must be updated every four years. These Plans require flexibility in order to constantly improve and reflect the realities of regional priorities, funding levels, development patterns, as well as key goals and objectives. LRPs also lay the Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 19 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

30 foundation for identifying critical transportation infrastructure deficiencies and for using public policy and investment decisions to spur regional economic growth. Regional LRPs The Lehigh Valley Surface Transportation Plan for (Lehigh Valley Transportation Plan) focuses on investment in future transportation infrastructure that will be implemented by PennDOT, LANTA, and local governments over the next twentyfour years. The Long Range Transportation Plan for the Reading Area Transportation Study lists goals and objectives for Berks County s transportation system and identifies the improvements, studies, and strategies that must be implemented to reach those goals and objectives for years The RATS Long Range Plan specifically identifies and describes ITS and Transportation System Operations Planning, noting that RATS had previously adopted the Region Architecture in 2005, and will work with PennDOT, transportation providers, and system users to develop a specific plan of action for the deployment of ITS technology with the region. NEPA is in the process of initiating a Request for Proposal process for the development of a multi-modal Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP). This plan, to be known as the 2030 Plan, will identify the major transportation projects, programs, and policies needed for the next twenty-five years and will establish the vision and goals that will guide public decisions affecting transportation facilities, infrastructure, and services in the NEPA region. Transportation Improvement Programs Federal regulations require MPOs / RPOs to develop and maintain a Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP identifies the region s highest priority transportation projects, develops a multi-year program of implementation, and identifies available federal and non-federal funding for the identified projects. The TIP covers a four-year period of investment and is updated every two years through a cooperative effort of local, state, and federal agencies, and the general public. Projects are prioritized with help from a technical advisory committee that develops recommendations with the most current data available. The region s transportation partners screen proposed projects to assure consistency with the regional plan, determine whether they satisfy relevant statutes and, where they do, prioritize them into a fiscally-constrained program. Projects included on the TIP are identified by phase: studies, preliminary engineering, final design, utilities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. For each project, the TIP identifies the cost and schedule (by year) for each project phase, as well as the total project cost and funding source. The federal, state, local, and private funds programmed for each project are identified as reported by the project sponsors. Total program costs match anticipated revenues. Regional TIPs Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 20 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

31 The TIP identifies the priority highway, bridge, and transit improvements programmed for advancement from October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2010 (Federal Fiscal Years ) for each of the MPO / RPO in Region 5. The TIPs specify MPO / RPO priorities and include reasonable estimates of both available funds and anticipated project expenditures. Individual improvement projects must be included on the TIP to become eligible for Federal funding. The complete TIP documents are generally divided into three sections: 1) General Overview of the TIP and TIP Development Process, 2) TIP Program Summary, containing detailed project lists and maps relating to the Highway and Bridge Program, the statewide Interstate Management Program, and the Transit Program, and 3) Guidance on the Public Participation Process. Each of the three Region 5 planning partners will soon be initiating the process for developing the TIP. It is expected that the Region 5 ROP will serve as an input into the TIP development. The TIP is expected to be updated by the Region 5 MPO / RPO by July 31, State Transportation Improvement Program The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), requires that TIPs and State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) be updated at least every four years. In Pennsylvania, the STIP is updated every two years to coincide with the regional TIP development and is represented by the first four years of the Twelve-Year Transportation Program. The Twelve-Year Transportation Program, as required by Act 120 of Pennsylvania State Law and its amendments, targets the Commonwealth's improvement efforts in all major transportation modes: highways, bridges, aviation, rail and transit. The Twelve-Year Transportation Program also involves the preparation of comprehensive information packages for key Department staff, the State Transportation Commission (STC), and elected state and federal legislators and officials. These packages facilitate and communicate the development of a transportation system responsive to the needs of the Commonwealth, monitor progress on key programs and projects, and aid in resolving outstanding Transportation Program issues. Staff and support services are also provided to the STC and other Program Center functions to prepare improvement programs that maintain and enhance the existing transportation system. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 21 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

32 2.5 Integrating the ROP into the Regional Planning Process The ROP is intended to be a step toward integrating or mainstreaming operations into planning. It lays out the operations program for the region, including a description of regional projects. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationally-focused projects consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. Ultimately, the ROP will feed into the regional Long-Range Plan and the corresponding TIP. The ROP, like the LRP, represents a long-range vision. The LRP is updated every four years and feeds the TIP that is updated every two years. The ROP is planned to be updated every two years to coincide with the TIP process. The ROP will also serve as input to future TSOP and Regional ITS Architecture updates, as well as PennDOT s Statewide LRP. Operation planning is a joint effort between operations and planning that encompasses the important institutional underpinnings needed for effective regional transportation cooperation, coordination, and consistency. Operations utilizes technology tools and techniques, such as ITS, as well as new institutional arrangements. Operations planning includes three important elements: 1. Regional transportation operations collaboration and coordination activity that facilitates stakeholder input. 2. Management and operations considerations within the context of the ongoing regional transportation operations systems and investments. 3. Linkage between regional operations collaboration and regional planning, programming, and investment process. An effective transportation system requires not only the provision of highway and transit infrastructure for movement of the public and freight, but also the efficient and coordinated operation of the regional transportation network in order to improve system efficiency, reliability, and safety. Linking planning and operations involves actions that build stronger connections between transportation planners and transportation operators. It involves coordination and collaboration that can reveal the role of operational strategies in helping to attain goals and objectives set forth in the planning process, and it integrates operations thinking in the planning of infrastructure projects. Regional transportation planning and investment decision-making require a great deal of inter-jurisdictional coordination. Similarly, effective regional transportation operations require collaboration and coordination among operating agencies across jurisdictions and between transportation and public safety agencies. The focus of linking planning and operations is to provide stronger connections between these two processes and Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 22 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

33 activities. MPOs and RPOs throughout the state are being encouraged to adopt the ROP and incorporate it into the LRP process. Key outcomes of this linkage between ROPs and LRPs are: To instill an operations mindset" and strategizing into the planning process Planners need a greater understanding of the role of operations projects and programs in the context of meeting regional goals and objectives, and a greater understanding of how they can help advance these activities. To ensure collaboration between planners and operators in order to: o provide access to system-wide 24-hour travel data that can be used to better characterize existing system performance and travel conditions, and identify the most critical transportation problems; o provide operations data and expertise to improve forecasts of future conditions, broaden the understanding of existing conditions, and analyze the effectiveness of alternative investments; o foster greater consideration of the day-to-day functioning of the transportation network and the real conditions facing travelers, which can help frame regional transportation goals, objectives, and priorities; and o reveal how transportation plans can address issues such as reliability, security, and safety issues that are generally difficult to address with traditional infrastructure investments alone. To instill "planning thinking" into operations Operators need a greater understanding of how the long-range planning process can support management and operations activities, and how these activities fit into the context of regional goals and objectives in the planning process. To ensure collaboration between operators and planners in order to: o provide regional leadership and greater participation by stakeholders in regional operations efforts, o clarify the role of operations in meeting a region s transportation vision and goals, o direct attention to the value of operations strategies, and o increase resources assigned to operations projects and programs. To ensure benefits to travelers in terms of: o enhanced transportation network reliability, o improved emergency preparedness, o greater access to information, and o consideration of a broader array of potential travel alternatives. The ROP, once adopted by each of the MPOs/RPO in Region 5 in Fall 2007, should serve as input into the LRP. It can be incorporated directly into the plan or as an attachment, section, or appendix. Segments of the ROP may be quoted in the LRP document as warranted. Projects programmed in the ROP may be highlighted in regional policy discussion for consideration and coordination within the LRP process. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 23 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

34 The ROP can also be used as an informational document to help ensure that operational projects receive equal consideration with other pressing regional needs during the project evaluation process for the LRP. Participants in the stakeholder and public involvement process should be educated about the benefits of operations strategies versus their relatively low cost. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 24 of 145 October 1, 2007 FINAL REPORT

35 3. REGIONAL OPERATIONS FRAMEWORK 3.1 Regional Operations Strategies Regional operational planning is intended to be a flexible rather than prescriptive approach. A general process for developing the Regional Operations Plans is therefore recommended, allowing the Region 5 ROP to be adapted to its specialized conditions and circumstances. Operations Needs Areas A major step in any study or planning process is to identify, discuss and prioritize a list of needs and strategies. The examination of existing conditions and ITS inventory, as well as projects currently programmed as part of the FY TIPs, illuminated potential ITS equipment gaps and shortcomings throughout Region 5. The specific ITS needs of the region were further identified by planning partners and regional stakeholders during the first regional forum, Workshop #1 held in February The recommended projects set forth in this plan are designed specifically to address these important needs areas. The objective is not to simply implement ITS projects due to the availability of technologies, but rather to match the region s transportation and operational needs with existing ITS technologies. This section documents those critical Operational Needs Areas developed in Workshop #1 that provided the context for defining Operations projects for future deployment programming. These Operational Needs Areas included the following: Incident Management Processes and Procedures (IMP&P), Interagency Communications and Coordination (IC&C), Traveler Information (TI), and Traffic Signals (TS). The Needs discussion at Workshop #1 took place in the immediate aftermath of the widely reported series of traffic incidents along I-78 on Valentine s Day In the course of the Needs discussion, participants therefore concluded that the overall focus at the subsequent Task Force meetings should be Incident Management Processes and Procedures, while also addressing Interagency Communications and Coordination, Traveler Information, and Traffic Signals. Operations Projects Identification / Definition Upon defining the Needs Areas, the first round of Task Force meetings in March 2007 focused on identifying the operational projects required for addressing the operational needs. The discussions that took place at these initial Task Force meetings produced a total of forty-seven (47) candidate projects throughout the three MPO/RPO areas. The number of projects was eventually pared down through the elimination of duplicate projects and the consolidation of other similar project descriptions. The resulting list of Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 25 of 145 September 19, 2007

36 candidate ROP projects consisted of three basic categories, including plans and studies, policy development and implementation, and ITS infrastructure deployments. The four major Operations areas of need defined in Workshop #1 and the individual candidate ROP projects identified at Task Force Meeting #1 are illustrated on the following pages. Additional ROP project information is provided in the one-page project summaries located in Appendix A. 3.2 Incident Management Processes and Procedures Operations Area The Incident Management Processes and Procedures Operations Area defines the processes, procedures, and relationships needed to effectively manage roadway incidents and emergencies. The central objective of the effort is to improve the time required to respond to and clear incidents, and to manage the processes safely and efficiently. Improved management of incidents can significantly reduce congestion and enhance safety and mobility. Toward this end, this Operations Area focuses on: Comprehensive policies and procedures that are needed for managing and responding to incidents, special events, emergencies, and evacuations. Consistency of incident management policies and procedures so that communications, responses, and protocols are uniform and seamless. Defining and implementing a statewide infrastructure for managing incidents. Strengthening relationships among incident management partners and developing regional IM Response Teams. The Incident Management operational needs and candidate projects identified at Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 5 below. Table 5: Incident Management Processes and Procedures -- Regional Needs and Projects Operational Needs Improve communication between PennDOT, PSP, Emergency responders, 911 Centers, EMAs Fill in ITS infrastructure gaps for CCTV, DMS, and HAR throughout Region 5 Maximize existing ITS infrastructure (such as ramp meters, CCTV cameras) throughout Lehigh Valley Expand Freeway Service Patrols Develop IM plans in order to coordinate the responses of emergency managers Candidate Projects #1 Identify Existing ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment #2 Develop / Update IM Plans and Procedures #3 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols #7 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans #8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation #9 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff #10 Provide Field Personnel with PDAs See Appendix A for complete project descriptions. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 26 of 145 September 19, 2007

37 3.3 Interagency Communications & Coordination The Interagency Communications and Coordination Operations Area defines the processes, procedures, and relationships required to improve communications and coordination between agencies for the notification and reporting of roadway incidents. In particular, this initiative includes the following: Developing a communications protocol between the Pennsylvania State Police and the county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Co-locating the local PSP traffic operations with the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Management Center, and consider locating the District 5-0 TMC staff to the PSP Traffic Center. Providing PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel with Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) to communicate with the District 5-0 TMC and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The Interagency Communications and Coordination operational needs and candidate projects identified at Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 6 below. Table 6: Interagency Communications & Coordination - Regional Needs and Projects Operational Needs Establish or significantly improve overall communications systems and protocols between agencies Communications systems to facilitate accelerated clearance of secondary incidents Install or upgrade communications technologies, such as Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVL), on transit vehicles Improve communications links with the freight community, who are often a good first source of information related to roadway conditions and incidents. Candidate Projects #6 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance Traveler Information Services #7 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans #8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation #9 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff #10 Provide Field Personnel with PDAs #11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing with Public and Private Entities #13 Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming with Traffic- Related Information See Appendix A for complete project descriptions. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 27 of 145 September 19, 2007

38 3.4 Traveler Information Operations Area The Traveler Information Operations Area builds on the statewide incident management traveler information priority by incorporating regional needs to develop and deploy a regional traveler information program. In particular, this program will: Expand partnerships for traveler information dissemination. Examine best practices for using third-party vendor and infrastructure to deliver traveler information. Define means, media, and methods for delivering reliable traveler information, especially so motorists can make informed pre-trip and en-route decisions. The Traveler Information operational needs and candidate projects identified at Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 7 below. Table 7: Traveler Information - Regional Needs and Projects Operational Needs Getting information to users in a timely manner (i.e., in advance and while enroute) Customizing information for users Providing timely information on travel times for better reliability Providing information to users before getting on or off expressways Candidate Projects #1 Identify Existing ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment #5 Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS #6 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance Traveler Information Services #8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation #11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing with Public and Private Entities #12 Institute Real-Time Transit Information Systems #13 Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming with Traffic- Related Information See Appendix A for complete project descriptions. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 28 of 145 September 19, 2007

39 3.5 Traffic Signals Operations Area The Traffic Signals (TS) Operations Area incorporates the way for a more centralized traffic signal program that holistically plans and coordinates activities, as well as operates and maintains signals at the corridor and regional levels. In particular this program will: Implement an asset management system for signals. Pilot corridor-wide integrated freeway/arterial signal management, and multi-jurisdictional traffic signal operations and maintenance (O&M) programs. Define new or expanded mechanisms needed for funding signal systems operations and maintenance. The Traffic Signals operational needs and candidate projects identified in Workshop #1 and subsequent Task Force meetings are listed in Table 8 below. Table 8: Traffic Signals - Regional Needs and Projects Operational Needs Coordinate signals along designated CMS corridors Integrate signals across municipal borders Upgrade existing signals into a integrated controllable system Candidate Projects #4 Implement Limited ICM Pilot Project #8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation #11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing with Public and Private Entities See Appendix A for complete project descriptions. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 29 of 145 September 19, 2007

40 4. REGIONAL PROGRAM 4.1 Overview Candidate projects identified as part of the Region 5 ROP process were developed based on PennDOT s statewide vision and address one or more of PennDOT s operational needs. The Region 5 candidate projects also can be included under most of the 19 statewide initiatives proposed under TSOP. The Region 5 candidate projects were identified due to their overall ability in establishing an operations framework for PennDOT and contributing towards achieving PennDOT s operational goals. These candidate projects lay a foundation for having a significant impact in such operational areas as incident management, interagency coordination, traveler information, and traffic signal integration. The following is the list of TSOP Statewide Initiatives relevant to ROP efforts in Region 5 that were programmed in the TSOP: TSOP 01: Inter-Agency Incident Reporting System TSOP 02: Road Closure Reporting System TSOP 03: Interstate Incident Management Program TSOP 04: IM Traveler Information TSOP 05: Incident Management Processes and Procedures TSOP 06: Roadway Weather Management TSOP 08: TAC Signal Study Implementation TSOP 09: STMC and TMCs TSOP 10: ITS Equipment Maintenance TSOP 11: Technology-Assisted Enforcement TSOP 12: Mobility in Work Zones TSOP 13: ITS and IT TSOP 14: Operations Mainstreaming TSOP 15: Advanced Planning and Strategy TSOP 16: Data Acquisition and Archive TSOP 17: Statewide Transit Operations TSOP 18: Freight Movements Acquisition The candidate projects were identified based on regional impact and are the building blocks of the Region 5 ROP. As the region s major transportation stakeholders will share responsibility for the successful implementation of ROP projects, interagency coordination and cooperation becomes increasingly important. 4.2 Mainstreaming Operations Pennsylvania s Regional ITS Architecture established the plan for mainstreaming ITS throughout Pennsylvania. Mainstreaming basically involves getting technology issues in the transportation environment in front of the representative regional bodies for discussion, analysis, and decision-making in the same way that traditional transportation improvements are processed. ITS and Operations can no longer be considered merely a PennDOT initiative, but must now be viewed as requiring regional input. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 30 of 145 September 19, 2007

41 The ROP lays out the region s short-term and long-term approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operational-focused projects for the region that are consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. Mainstreaming the ROP ensures that projects are incorporated into the existing planning and programming functions of LVPC, RATS, and NEPA, including the TIP and Long-Range Plan updates. ROP mainstreaming also ensures that the regional planning partners utilize and build on existing programs in their respective regions to implement the initiatives defined in the plan. 4.3 Project Priorities and Sequences The recommended ROP project deployments were developed based on group discussions held at the first round of regionally-based Task Force meetings. Each was defined based on overall need, required funding, and project complexity. The candidate ROP Projects are presented in Table 9 below: Table 9: Candidate ROP Projects ROP A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q Candidate ROP Project Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Plans Develop / Update Incident Management Plans Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies Identify ITS Technology Gaps / Deploy New Equipment Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services Investigate Co-Location of Operations Investigate Preemption of Media Programming Consolidate TI into One Web Site Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS Institute Real-Time Transit Information Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 31 of 145 September 19, 2007

42 Once candidate projects were formulated, regional stakeholders at Task Force Meeting #2 ranked each operational project on a scale of 1 (low priority) to 5 (high priority) based on a number of factors, including the following: Perceived Need Implementation Status Lead Implementation Agents Level of Effort Order of Magnitude Cost Implementation Timeline Table 10 below highlights the candidate projects ranked according to priority as determined by their score. Table 10: ROP Project Priority Rankings ROP ROP Project Priority Rankings Priority Ranking G Identify ITS Technology Gaps / Deploy New Equipment 66 C Develop / Update Incident Management Plans 61 A Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 59 Q Coordinate Signals along Adjacent Corridors 58 N Implement Real-Time Travel Postings to DMS 54 J Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 53 B Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Plans 53 E Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes 52 M Consolidate TI into One Web Site 51 F Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff 46 K Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 46 H Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 45 D Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region 44 O Institute Real-Time Transit Information 44 P Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI 41 I Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System 39 L Investigate Preemption of Media Programming 32 Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 32 of 145 September 19, 2007

43 Statewide Initiatives At Workshop #2, Region 5 stakeholders were provided the opportunity to review their priority rankings and to validate the results. Stakeholders noted that three of these projects were more suited for implementation at a statewide level: (M) Consolidate IT into One Web Site (D) Implement Interstate Road Closure System in Region (I) Implement a Statewide 800 MHz Radio System These projects were subsequently extracted from the regional priorities list and identified separately as Statewide Initiatives (see Appendix A). Additionally, two projects (from Table 10) (B) Encourage Major Trip Generators to Prepare Traffic Plans and (P) Encourage Trip Generators to Disseminate Pre-Trip TI were so similar in their descriptions and proposed actions that a decision was made to consolidate both and create Project #7 below Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans. This revised list of prioritized projects is presented below. (See Appendix A for a detailed project description.) Table 11: Final List - Prioritized ROP Projects Project # Final List - Prioritized ROP Projects 1 Identify ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment 2 Develop / Update Incident Management Plans & Procedures 3 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 4 Implement Integrated Corridor Management 5 Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS 6 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 7 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans 8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation 9 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff 10 Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 12 Institute Real-Time Transit Information Systems 13 Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 33 of 145 September 19, 2007

44 MPO / RPO Specific Project Priorities Subsequent to the prioritization of projects in Workshop #2, representatives from the three planning partners determined that specific priority needs existed for their planning areas. LVPC, for instance, determined that the top operational priorities for the Lehigh Valley involved (in order of preference): Exploring the Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols, Identifying ITS Technology Gaps and Deploying New Equipment, and Developing / Updating Incident Management Plans and Procedures (see Table 12 below). Table 12: LVPC ROP Project Priorities Project # LVPC Prioritized ROP Projects 1 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 2 Identify ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment 3 Develop / Update Incident Management Plans & Procedures 4 Implement Integrated Corridor Management 5 Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS 6 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 7 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans 8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation 9 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff 10 Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 12 Institute Real-Time Transit Information Systems 13 Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 34 of 145 September 19, 2007

45 Representatives from RATS identified that their top operational priorities include identifying ITS technology gaps and deploying new equipment. RATS also determined that the staffing of one full-time person at the District 5-0 Traffic Management Center should be a high priority, and is included as Priority Project #3 below in Table 13 (see detailed Project Description for Project #4 in Appendix A.) Table 13: RATS ROP Project Priorities Project # RATS Prioritized ROP Projects 1 Identify ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment 2 Develop / Update Incident Management Plans & Procedures 3 Provide Staff Person at District 5-0 TMC for Berks Cty Operations 4 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 5 Implement Integrated Corridor Management 6 Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS 7 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 8 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans 9 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation 10 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff 11 Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 12 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 13 Investigate Potential to Preempt Media Programming Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 35 of 145 September 19, 2007

46 In discussions with representatives from NEPA, it was determined that the priority listing of projects from Workshop #2 met their particular needs. For the NEPA Area, the only modification to the Final List of Prioritized Projects (from Table 11) involved excluding Project #5 (Implement Real time Travel Postings on DMS) due to the project s focus on the I-78 corridor which does not extend into the three counties included within the NEPA region. The Prioritized List of ROP Projects for NEPA is included in Table 14, below. Table 14: NEPA ROP Project Priorities Project # NEPA Prioritized ROP Projects 1 Identify ITS Technology Gaps; Deploy New Equipment 2 Develop / Update Incident Management Plans & Procedures 3 Explore Expanded Use of Freeway Service Patrols 4 Implement Integrated Corridor Management 5 Implement Real-Time Travel Postings on DMS 6 Improve Interagency Coordination to Enhance TI Services 7 Encourage Development of Traffic Management Plans 8 Improve Pre-Planned Detour Routes for Emergency Evacuation 9 Investigate Co-Location of Operations Staff 10 Provide Field Personnel with PDA Technologies 11 Explore Opportunities for Data Sharing 12 Investigate Preemption of Media Programming Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment During Workshop #2, representatives from LVPC, RATS, and NEPA, and staff from PennDOT District 5-0 jointly decided to coordinate with one another in identifying ITS technology gaps, as presented in Priority ROP Project #1 (see Table 11). Subsequent to Workshop #2, PennDOT District 5-0 representatives presented a list of proposed ITS field devices to the three MPO / RPO representatives in separate meetings for review and discussion. Once the MPO/RPO and District 5-0 representatives came to consensus on which ITS field devices to include in the ROP, this equipment was then prioritized and is included in Appendix C. 4.4 Approach to Funding Linking planning and operations is important to improving transportation decision-making and the overall effectiveness of the system. Coordination between planners and operators helps ensure that regional transportation investment decisions reflect full Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 36 of 145 September 19, 2007

47 consideration of all available strategies and approaches to meet regional goals and objectives. Funding is a powerful tool for promoting participation. Agencies may be unaccustomed to coordinating with other agencies for operations, or perceive that coordination provides more hardship than benefit. When this is the case, providing additional resources in exchange for participation may overcome this issue. Planning partners can champion operations through training and other forums to promote regional operations strategies. Linking participation to funding access is the key. For example, an agency may become eligible for matching funds only by participating in a regional operations training program or an established regional operations group. Almost every transportation agency identifies inadequate funding as a major concern. At the same time, virtually every agency acknowledges that funding constraints are a major impetus for advancing operations strategies. In many cases planners often become champions for relatively low-cost operations strategies after recognizing that the discrepancy between available funds and the cost of new capital investments to maintain regional mobility is excessively high. Funding Sources There are a number of funding sources that can support operations activities and equipment. Funding for system operations traditionally has relied on the discretionary budgets of individual agencies. However, due to the mainstreaming of operations through TSOP and ROP activities, statewide policies now allow several funding sources to be used for regional operations programs. Federal programs are also in place to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management and operation of integrated, intermodal surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight and to foster economic growth and development. Regional Funding Depending on the project type, various funding approaches may be available for consideration. In the ROP, for priority projects, a project description and high-level scope of the project has been developed. Projects have been defined in terms of planning-type projects or deployment-type projects. Planning-type projects are programmatic and policy-oriented in nature. If the project is a planning project, it may be considered in the Unified Planning Work Program of the MPOs or RPO. The process for planning partners to consider (including operations planning-type projects in the next Work Program) will begin in October 2007 and end with the delivery of a program to the PennDOT Program Center by February Projects that define and lead to specific ITS deployment can proceed into the TIP process for funding. These types of projects can either become stand-alone capital deployment or can be packaged as part of a wide-area deployment or construction project. These deployment projects will be required to follow the USDOT-defined systems engineering process. Using this process will ensure consistency with project definition, integration, and consideration of ongoing operations and maintenance requirements. The 2009 TIP update process for each MPO/RPO has already begun and will be completed by each planning partner by summer Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 37 of 145 September 19, 2007

48 At the discretion of each planning partner and PennDOT District, projects may arrange pooled funding to achieve multi-jurisdictional benefit. PennDOT s Central Office may also decide to fund multiple cross-jurisdictional efforts using A-576 funds or other mechanisms to ensure coordinated statewide benefit. These types of pooled funding arrangements are project-specific and can be achieved when coordination and cooperation exists and the benefits of pooled or Central Office funding outweigh the administrative cost. Federal Funding There is flexibility in the use of federal funds for operations projects championed by planning partners and PennDOT. FHWA can fund traffic monitoring, management, and control for continued operations of the system, freeway surveillance, incident management efforts, travel information systems, and traffic signal control. Federal funds are eligible for operating costs in labor, administrative, utilities, rent, and system maintenance associated with hardware and software maintenance (preventive and corrective). For the use of interstate maintenance (IM) funds, eligibility is based on how "maintenance" and the Interstate Maintenance program are defined in Title 23 (USC 119, 116). If the project is a capital improvement to the interstate highway (such as deploying field devices to improve the highway) or involves preventive maintenance on the devices themselves, it would be eligible for IM funds. Some of the eligible IM costs include: Infrastructure-based improvements, such as new DMS, CCTV, detectors, and communication systems, Replacement or rehabilitation of infrastructure, such as replacing components of DMS or CCTVs, Preventative maintenance on the roadway traffic management infrastructure, and Preliminary engineering directly related to infrastructure improvements. If the project involves operations costs involving communications maintenance (routine or corrective) it would not be eligible. 4.5 Regional Oversight ROP implementation will require the collaboration of many stakeholders to ultimately be successful. In advancing the implementation process, it is expected that the PennDOT District 5-0, with support from the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study, Reading Area Transportation Study, and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, will provide oversight and eventually be responsible for championing this Plan. This leadership group, or Region 5 ROP Steering Committee, will further track progress on implementation, oversee the development of regionally-based projects, track performance measures, and lead the update of any future ROPs. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 38 of 145 September 19, 2007

49 4.6 Measuring Success To better ensure that operations-related efforts are producing meaningful results, projects that lend themselves to measurement should in turn be measured. For most of the projects identified as part of this Region 5 ROP process, there are one or more key measures capable of monitoring their effectiveness. The goal of performance measurement is to attempt to quantify and understand the impacts of projects to assist in future decision-making. What worked? What did not work? And why? This is critical in assessing the benefits of policies or projects and will be useful in making the case for future operations projects. Some caveats should be provided. Isolating and measuring the true impacts of operations policies, programs, and projects is challenging. Determining and quantifying cause and effect can be extremely difficult in a dynamic environment such as a transportation system. Care needs to be exercised so that any such analysis is technically grounded and defensible. In developing each project, the Region 5 ROP Steering Committee should make a determination as to whether impacts of projects can be analyzed at a reasonable cost. Suggested performance measures for each project are listed in the project descriptions in Appendix A. 4.7 Institutional Considerations Throughout the ROP process, the Workshop and Task Force attendees raised numerous institutional issues and proposed various remedies. Many of the identified issues fell outside of the purview of Region 5. While this type of feedback did not neatly fit into the ROP, it was important to capture. Participants believed that to be appropriately addressed many of these suggestions and recommendations needed to be raised at a level higher than the PennDOT District or the region either by PennDOT Central Office or the state government. This section identifies and discusses those institutional concerns that were identified as most critical in the opinion of ROP participants. These institutional recommendations, identified by importance according to Region 5 ROP participants, can be categorized into four basic categories: Elevate operations within PennDOT Establish dedicated funding for operations Strengthen a work force for operations Permit the use of wireless communication systems Elevate Operations within PennDOT One item of great interest within the Workshop and Task Forces was the perceived limited visibility and importance of ITS and operations within PennDOT. Participants felt that for operations to receive the attention necessary to do it right, it needs to be elevated. One step is to ensure that PennDOT is institutionally organized to address operations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has supported this concept Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 39 of 145 September 19, 2007

50 and recently issued guidance calling on DOTs around the U.S. to prepare to better operate the transportation system 5. Recognizing that PennDOT s mandate to design, build, and maintain is evolving to possibly include operating the transportation system, PennDOT should ensure that it has the organization, skills and expertise to be able to adequately meet this challenge. Recommendations to consider include the following: Create an ADE of Operations in Districts with considerable operations-related duties, Elevate a District ITS Coordinator to a full time position, Create a full-time regional or Statewide Signals Manager position to coordinate and advance traffic signal needs, and Create ITS Operator positions for TMCs. Establish dedicated funding for operations Unless there are dedicated funds for operations, participants believe that other competing transportation infrastructure needs will continue to be deemed more important. Limited resources tend to be used for familiar capacity expansion and rehabilitation projects. Too often when difficult decisions are being made about which projects to program, operations projects are pushed by the wayside as non-critical. Without a plan or systematic approach, the current approach of addressing operations and ITS deployment will continue to be performed haphazardly, often based more on opportunity than need. Better education and outreach to elected officials about the costbenefit of ITS and operations is also needed. To ensure that operations is treated on equal footing as other needs within the Department, PennDOT should dedicate funds toward the operations program. A majority of the Region 5 participants believed that the only real way that this will occur is through the creation of separate funding for an operations program, similar to other statewide programs such as Smooth Operator, Click It or Ticket, etc. Recommendations to consider: Work to create dedicated funding for operations, and Seek dedicated funding for a signal program. Strengthen a work force for operations Historically, PennDOT s mission has been to be the designer, builder and maintainer of the state roadway system. Due to the recognition of increasing congestion, the advent of new technologies, and fiscal constraints, it is now being asked to also better operate the transportation system. Unfortunately this requires some skill sets that have not historically been available in the marketplace or contained within DOTs. In most cases, the traffic engineering staff has taken on these responsibilities, requiring them to become experts on a wide range of skills, from systems engineering to communications equipment to hardware to software. 5 Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination. FHWA, publication FHWA-OP , Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 40 of 145 September 19, 2007

51 While DOT engineers, who traditionally come from civil or traffic backgrounds have risen to the challenge, it has required a major shift in Departmental thinking. Many future transportation professionals might instead come from a host of technical specialties that will greatly enhance the Department s ability to better function as an organization that is prepared for operations. In addition to considering new hires, there is a recognition that PennDOT also needs to better capture and share the knowledge that currently exists within the organization, especially with a recent rash of retirements. Recommendations to consider: Establish a mentoring program for operations, Expand information sharing among District Operations and ITS staff, Consider succession planning and knowledge transfer practices, Consider recruiting new types of staff with IT backgrounds and knowledge of software, hardware and communication platforms, Increase supplemental technical training for operations staff, and Work with Pennsylvania universities and institutions to better support the education and training of ITS and operations professionals. Permit the use of wireless communication systems Under current Office of Administration policies, PennDOT is prohibited from using wireless communications. The current explanation is that there are concerns about the security of information transmitted through wireless communications. Although this concern may be valid and justified, the wireless communications community continues to develop enhanced products that address or mitigate these concerns. The current restriction implicitly requires that any permanent ITS devices connected to the PennDOT system be hardwired through telephone or fiber communications. The cost of making these communication connections can greatly increase the cost of deploying ITS devices. This situation is especially challenging in more rural locations where lines may need to be run for literally miles to deployment locations. This restriction results in PennDOT having in essence a redundant communications network or forces them to pay monthly service fees to third party telecommunications providers. In most cases, this is not the most cost effective approach. Other governmental entities are using wireless communication to cost effectively provide communication coverage. Agencies such as PEMA have offered to share their wireless communication systems at little or no cost to PennDOT. Revising these restrictions can make deployments significantly more cost-effective. Recommendations to consider: Change Office of Administration regulations to permit PennDOT to use wireless communication systems, and Seek opportunities for piggy-backing on communication infrastructure of other state agencies, such as PEMA. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 41 of 145 September 19, 2007

52 5. CONCLUSION Transportation agencies today do not have the luxury of undertaking massive new capacity expansion projects, yet are challenged to improve mobility and reduce congestion for travelers, visitors and businesses on its transportation system. In response to these requirements, new approaches and innovative techniques are being explored to improve the system s operational performance, as well as keep the network safe and secure. Better management of existing facilities is simply the new way of doing business. Through the guidance of the statewide Transportation Systems Operations Plan and the implementation of region-specific projects documented in this report, these needs are being addressed. The regional solutions addressed in the Region 5 ROP tend to be cost effective in supporting (not eliminating) regional congestion issues. So as Region 5 begins the process of reviewing its transportation options, ITS and operations solutions should be examined, weighed and equally placed in the public forum for regional consideration and funding. This effort will ensure that innovative and cost effective solutions get a fair hearing alongside more costly capacity expansion projects. Continued success relies on integration and coordination between PennDOT District 5-0, the regional MPOs / RPO, and other regional transportation stakeholders who together will systematically build operations programs based on policies, studies and physical deployments. These improvements will ultimately help improve mobility, better manage incidents and emergencies, and provide for real-time traveler information. With the long-range scope of these efforts it will take hard work from PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC, RATS, and NEPA, and other regional stakeholders to fully realize the goals set out in the ROP. In return the Operations Region 5 will have a safer and more reliable transportation system for its future. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 42 of 145 September 19, 2007

53 APPENDICES A Regional Project Descriptions B MPO / RPO - Specific Project Prioritizations C Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment D Description of the Region E - Forum Participants F - Forum Workshop & Task Force Meeting Summaries Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 43 of 145 September 19, 2007

54 APPENDIX A Regional Project Descriptions REGIONAL PROJECT #1: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: CCTV Cameras HAR Flashing Beacons Dynamic Message Signs Queue Detectors Highway Advisory Radio Ramp Metering Systems STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, LVPC, RATS, NEPA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 1 2 years Construction: 3 5 years PROJECT TYPE: Plan Study and Deployment ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): LVPC - $753,000 (Design) $2,667,000 (Construction) RATS - $1,270,000 (Design) $4,250,000 (Construction) NEPA - $1,880,000 (Design) $8,550,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): LVPC - $190,000 RATS - $300,000 NEPA - $600,000 *See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0. LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): See Appendix C: Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of lane-miles of facilities (by classification) covered by CCTV, detection devices; reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay. BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region s highways with corresponding reduction in delay and queue due to improved response times. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 44 of 145 September 19, 2007

55 REGIONAL PROJECT #2: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND PROCEDURES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. The Berks County IM Plan should be updated through a collaborative and inclusive approach, involving the Planning Commission, PennDOT District 5-0, and County EMA. This effort should include updating the I-78 IM Plan, as well as developing IM Plans for Route 222 South, Route 422, I-176, and Route 61. Involvement of the various counties and their agencies is an important of the planning process. Protocols also need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume three (3) plans (one for each MPO / RPO) at $50,000 each. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, LVPC, RATS, NEPA, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $150,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in time to respond to an incident; % change in time to clear an incident; % change in number of accidents (or secondary incidents) along corridor BENEFITS: Improves emergency response times to clear incidents, thereby minimizing travel delay. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 45 of 145 September 19, 2007

56 REGIONAL PROJECT #3: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles in addition to assisting PSP and emergency responders at incidents. Elements of this expanded program in the Lehigh Valley includes extending operating hours of the existing system from seven hours/day to ten hours/day (6 10 am, 2 8pm), five days/week (Monday-Friday), 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. Three patrol vehicles and one back-up vehicles would be used. Costs also include one consultant staff in the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center, ten hours/day, five days/week, 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. The geographic coverage would remain as it is presently. Evaluate the need for service patrols along limited-access freeways in Berks County (I-78, Route 422) and in the NEPA Region (I-80 in the Stroudsburg-NJ area), and if warranted, implement limited-term pilot programs. Projected operating program would include two active vehicles + one back-up vehicle, seven hours/day x five days/week x 52 weeks/year for one year (in Berks County and NEPA separately). The estimated cost does not include the cost of consultant staff in the TOC. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC, RATS, NEPA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 (RATS) $50,000 (NEPA) Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $405,000 (LVPC) $265,000 (RATS Pilot) $265,000 (NEPA Pilot) PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service; number of motorists served and change in incident time clearance. BENEFITS: Keeps corridors safe and helps reduce travel time and delay. The current program in Lehigh Valley is well received by the region s motorists. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 46 of 145 September 19, 2007

57 REGIONAL PROJECT #4: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical corridors that could benefit from an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) signal system. The first step in this process would be to use the Signal Asset Management System and screening criteria (e.g., receptive municipalities, require little infrastructure, few jurisdictions) to identify corridors that would be good candidates. The strategy would culminate with the development of a pilot project (I-78 / Route 309 / Route 22) that can be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. This pilot project involves the coordination of fifty (50) programmable signals throughout the identified corridor (and assumes that signals do not require upgrades). According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, maintenance costs approximately $1,800 per signal annually. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, PennDOT CO, Local Municipalities, RATS, LVPC PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 3 5 years Construction: 5 + years PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $150,000 Capital (2011): $24,000 (Design) $155,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $90,000 LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would be developed in conjunction with Statewide ICM efforts and TSOP 8. It is anticipated that the Signal Management System (SMS) data will be useful in developing this project. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in peak travel times; delay reduction. BENEFITS: Integrated signals can reduce delay, travel times, emissions, and fuel consumption. TMCcontrol of traffic signals has the capability to adjust signal timings along adjacent corridors when needed for incident management. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 47 of 145 September 19, 2007

58 REGIONAL PROJECT #5: IMPLEMENT REAL-TIME TRAVEL POSTINGS ON DMS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project s intent is to use data from PennDOT or collected from partners to provide real-time travel times and to inform travelers of the causes of congestion via DMS. This pilot project would be implemented along the interstate. There is potential for eventual implementation along I-80, I-81, I-476 (PA Turnpike), I-176, Route 422, Route 222, Route 61, Route 33, and Route 22. The pilot project involves twenty-five (25) interchanges along I-78. Each interchange would require four (4) sensors, for a total of 100 sensors, providing end-to-end coverage. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office ITS Cost Estimates, solar powered sensors are estimated to cost approximately $7,000 each, with poles and installation estimated at $4,000 each. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 14, 15 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: 3 5 years Deployment: 3 5 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): $121,000 (Design) $1,100,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $30,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): This pilot project assumes existing DMS and camera deployments are adequate for verification and notification. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of regional DMS signs that can post travel time information BENEFITS: Real-time dissemination of travel times allows motorists and businesses to make better route decisions thereby saving time and money. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 48 of 145 September 19, 2007

59 REGIONAL PROJECT #6: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER INFORMATION SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project seeks to enhance the delivery of Traveler Information services through enhanced interagency cooperation and partnerships: Improve coordination between PennDOT, DRJTBC, and New Jersey Transit in alerting NJT I-80 patrons (bus commuter operators and motorists) of roadway and bridge conditions via TI Systems. Improve coordination between PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in the management and operations of DMS at strategic intersecting locations. Build on existing partnerships between traffic and emergency management agencies and local TV and radio stations to better inform travelers of major incidents and traffic delays. This project builds on the PennDOT CO initiative to develop a statewide 511 Traveler Information system. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, NJT, PSP, County EMAs, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio) PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 14, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $60,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; traveler satisfaction. BENEFITS: Low-cost effort for effectively disseminating traveler information to motorists throughout the region. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 49 of 145 September 19, 2007

60 REGIONAL PROJECT #7: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the coordination of PennDOT with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Venue Operators, Residential Associations, Industrial Park Operators, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $225,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2011): $45,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Levels of congestion in vicinity of major trip generators BENEFITS: Enhanced traffic management, freight movement, and incident response. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 50 of 145 September 19, 2007

61 REGIONAL PROJECT #8: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [EDRS]) now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, Emergency Responders, County EMAs, PSP PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 3 5 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $120,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Need to develop GIS and database to detour routing information. Need to develop access privileges. Develop link to Road Closure Reporting System. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project is anticipated to be implemented in conjunction with PennDOT CO s RCRS. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of roadways (by classification) with pre-planned detour routes; time to institute detour routing. BENEFITS: To develop clearly defined guidance for detour routings along major facilities. To reduce delays to the traveling public caused by incidents and emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 51 of 145 September 19, 2007

62 REGIONAL PROJECT #9: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored. The ongoing efforts between the Berks County EMA and the Berks County 911 Center to share staffing, data feeds, incident response, information gathering, and web-based portal applications, should be encouraged. STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, Berks County EMA, Berks County 911 Center PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 9, 13, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $60,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would likely require additional guidance from TSOP 9. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Unified incident command and response. Additional benefits include data-sharing and communications streamlining. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 52 of 145 September 19, 2007

63 REGIONAL PROJECT #10: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel should be provided with mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), to communicate effectively and immediately with the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The recommended PDAs would provide required services including voice (cell phone), , Internet, camera, video, and text messaging. The associated operating costs would include monthly plans for phone, data, and text messaging. Assume $2,000 for each field person at 9 personnel total for capital costs. Annual operating & maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,500 for each PDA device. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 5, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2009): $18,000 Annual O&M (2009): $13,500 PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in response time to incidents. BENEFITS: Improved response times to incidents; enhanced communications between field staff, the Traffic Operations Center, and the Pennsylvania State Police. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 53 of 145 September 19, 2007

64 REGIONAL PROJECT #11: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for datasharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, efforts between DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data collected along I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap crossing could be explored. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio), County EMAs, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $60,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): PennDOT IES software application PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Greater information coverage area for travelers. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 54 of 145 September 19, 2007

65 REGIONAL PROJECT #12: INSTITUTE REAL-TIME TRANSIT INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: There are commercial providers who can provide real-time information to travelers using vehicle GPS systems through kiosks, pole mounted devices, the Internet, , and telephone. This project would pilot one of these services for a trial period and assess the use/benefit to transit riders. A series of 5 kiosks will be deployed at key locations within the LANTA service area for the purpose of providing transit riders with static information about routes/schedules and real-time information regarding schedule adherence and ETA of transit vehicles at specific designated stops. There is potential to build this enhanced capability off of the BARTA AVL system. STAKEHOLDERS: Commercial Providers, BARTA, LANTA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16, 17 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: 1 2 years Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $20,000 $35,000 (Design) $135,000 (Construction) PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): AVL; Wireless Communications PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; customer satisfaction; transit vehicle on-time performance. BENEFITS: This type of information would likely benefit users who make daily trips on long-distance, low-frequency routes that are often most susceptible to delays. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 55 of 145 September 19, 2007

66 REGIONAL PROJECT #13: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The capability and authority of EMAs to preempt or override commercial radio or television programming with urgent traffic-related messaging should be investigated. STAKEHOLDERS: County EMAs, Local Media PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 6 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $30,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): TBD PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: More immediate information from local media (TV and radio) related to emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 56 of 145 September 19, 2007

67 STATEWIDE INITIATIVES Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 57 of 145 September 19, 2007

68 STATEWIDE INITIATIVE: CONSOLIDATE TRAVELER INFORMATION INTO ONE WEB SITE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Traveler Information should be consolidated and located on one web site with comprehensive info in one user-friendly site. PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for a Statewide 511 System. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: N/A Study: Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: N/A Capital: Annual O&M: PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Consolidated traveler information may increase the number of users accessing the web for information. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 58 of 145 September 19, 2007

69 STATEWIDE INITIATIVE: IMPLEMENT AN INTERSTATE ROAD CLOSURE SYSTEM WITHIN THE REGION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project refines and deploys a system for the dissemination of timely and accurate information on road closures across the Commonwealth. A Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS), identified under TSOP-2, is currently deployed as a statewide initiative and will be PennDOT s standard incident reporting tool. This system will provide information on routing patterns for vehicular traffic and for getting emergency responders to incidents. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: N/A Study Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: N/A Capital: Annual O&M: PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project is anticipated to be implemented in conjunction with PennDOT CO s RCRS. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of motorists diverted; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay. BENEFITS: Improved information flow to motorists regarding road closure; reduction in traffic delay. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 59 of 145 September 19, 2007

70 STATEWIDE INITIATIVE: IMPLEMENT A STATEWIDE 800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expand the use of 800 Megahertz (MHz) radio systems to improve communications and information flow among traffic managers, EMAs, and emergency responders across the state. Secure the required funding for smaller agencies to obtain the 800 MHz radio technology. PennDOT C.O. s statewide telecommunications master plan which is now under development will assess the implementation of this type of system. An 800 MHz system has been partially implemented within the Pennsylvania State Police. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PSP, County EMAs, County 911 Centers, Emergency Responders, PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: N/A Study: Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: Annual O&M: N/A PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of Emergency Responders utilizing the 800 MHz Radio System BENEFITS: Enhanced communications between emergency responders. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 60 of 145 September 19, 2007

71 APPENDIX B MPO / RPO - Specific Project Prioritizations (LVTS) LVTS PROJECT #1: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles. Elements of this expanded program in the Lehigh Valley includes extending operating hours of the existing system from seven hours/day to ten hours/day (6 10 am, 2 8pm), five days/week (Monday-Friday), 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. Two patrol vehicles and two back-up vehicles would be used. Costs also include one consultant staff in the PennDOT District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center, ten hours/day, five days/week, 52 weeks/year, plus 100 contingency hours for hold-overs. The geographic coverage would remain as it is presently. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $405,000 PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service. Number of motorists served. Change in time to clear an incident. BENEFITS: Keeps corridors safe and helps reduce travel time and delay. The current program in Lehigh Valley is well received by the region s motorists. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 61 of 145 September 19, 2007

72 LVTS PROJECT #2: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: CCTV Cameras Dynamic Message Signs Highway Advisory Radio HAR Flashing Beacons Queue Detectors Ramp Metering Systems STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, LVPC PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 1 2 years Construction: 3 5 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $190,000 $753,000 (Design) $2,667,000 (Construction) *See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0. PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): See Appendix C: Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of lane-miles of facilities (by classification) covered by CCTV, detection devices; reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay. BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region s highways. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 62 of 145 September 19, 2007

73 LVTS PROJECT #3: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND PROCEDURES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. Protocols need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume one (1) plan at $50,000. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, LVPC, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in time to respond to an incident; % change in time to clear an incident; % change in number of accidents (or secondary incidents) along corridor BENEFITS: Improves emergency response times to clear incidents, thereby minimizing travel delay and reducing the occurrence of secondary incidents. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 63 of 145 September 19, 2007

74 LVTS PROJECT #4: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical corridors that could benefit from an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) signal system. The first step in this process would be to use the Signal Asset Management System and screening criteria (e.g., receptive municipalities, require little infrastructure, few jurisdictions) to identify corridors that would be good candidates. The strategy would culminate with the development of a pilot project that can be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. This pilot project involves the coordination of fifty (50) programmable signals throughout the identified corridor (and assumes that signals do not require upgrades). According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, maintenance costs approximately $1,800 per signal annually. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, PennDOT CO, Local Municipalities, RATS, LVPC PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 3 5 years Construction: 3 5 years PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $150,000 Capital (2011): $8,000 (Design) $55,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $30,000 LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would be developed in conjunction with Statewide ICM efforts and TSOP 8. It is anticipated that the Signal Management System (SMS) data will be useful in developing this project. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in peak travel times; delay reduction. BENEFITS: Integrated signals can reduce delay, travel times, emissions, and fuel consumption. TMCcontrol of traffic signals has the capability to adjust signal timings along adjacent corridors when needed for incident management. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 64 of 145 September 19, 2007

75 LVTS PROJECT #5: IMPLEMENT REAL-TIME TRAVEL POSTINGS ON DMS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project s intent is to use data from PennDOT or collected from partners to provide real-time travel times and to inform travelers of the causes of congestion via DMS. This pilot project would be implemented along the interstate. There is potential for eventual implementation along I-80, I-81, I-476 (PA Turnpike), I-176, Route 422, Route 222, Route 61, Route 33, and Route 22. The pilot project involves twenty-five (25) interchanges along I-78. Each interchange would require four (4) sensors, for a total of 100 sensors, providing end-to-end coverage. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office ITS Cost Estimates, solar powered sensors are estimated to cost approximately $7,000 each, with poles and installation estimated at $4,000 each. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 14, 15 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: 1 2 years Deployment: 3 5 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $15,000 $60,500 (Design) $550,000 (Construction) PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): This pilot project assumes existing DMS and camera deployments are adequate for verification and notification. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of regional DMS signs that can post travel time information BENEFITS: Real-time dissemination of travel times allows motorists and businesses to make better route decisions resulting in more efficient use of travel time and reducing travel costs. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 65 of 145 September 19, 2007

76 LVTS PROJECT #6: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER INFORMATION SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project seeks to enhance the delivery of Traveler Information services through enhanced interagency cooperation and partnerships: Improve coordination between PennDOT, DRJTBC, and New Jersey Transit in alerting NJT I-80 patrons (bus commuter operators and motorists) of roadway and bridge conditions via TI Systems. Improve coordination between PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in the management and operations of DMS at strategic intersecting locations. Build on existing partnerships between traffic and emergency management agencies and local TV and radio stations to better inform travelers of major incidents and traffic delays. This project builds on the PennDOT CO initiative to develop a statewide 511 Traveler Information system. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, NJT, PSP, County EMAs, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio) PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 14, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; traveler satisfaction. BENEFITS: Low-cost effort for effectively disseminating traveler information to motorists throughout the region. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 66 of 145 September 19, 2007

77 LVTS PROJECT #7: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the coordination of PennDOT with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Venue Operators, Residential Associations, Industrial Park Operators, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $75,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2011): $15,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Levels of congestion in vicinity of major trip generators BENEFITS: Enhanced traffic management, freight movement, and incident response. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 67 of 145 September 19, 2007

78 LVTS PROJECT #8: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. currently has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [(EDRS]) now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, Emergency Responders, County EMAs, PSP PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 3 5 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009) $40,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Need to develop GIS and database to detour routing information. Need to develop access privileges. Develop link to Road Closure Reporting System. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project is anticipated to be implemented in conjunction with PennDOT CO s RCRS. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of roadways (by classification) with pre-planned detour routes; time to institute detour routing. BENEFITS: To develop clearly defined guidance for detour routings along major facilities. To reduce delays to the traveling public caused by incidents and emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 68 of 145 September 19, 2007

79 LVTS PROJECT #9: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored. STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, LVPC PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 9, 13, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would likely require additional guidance from TSOP 9. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Unified incident command and response. Additional benefits include data-sharing and communications streamlining. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 69 of 145 September 19, 2007

80 LVTS PROJECT #10: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel should be provided with mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), to communicate effectively and immediately with the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The recommended PDAs would provide required services including voice (cell phone), , Internet, camera, video, and text messaging. The associated operating costs would include monthly plans for phone, data, and text messaging. Assume $2,000 for each field person at 3 personnel total for capital costs. Annual operating & maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,500 for each PDA at 3 devices. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 5, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2009): $6,000 Annual O&M (2009): $4,500 PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in response time to incidents. BENEFITS: Improved response times to incidents; enhanced communications between field staff, the Traffic Operations Center, and the Pennsylvania State Police. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 70 of 145 September 19, 2007

81 LVTS PROJECT #11: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for datasharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, efforts between DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data collected along I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap crossing could be explored. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio), County EMAs, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): PennDOT IES software application PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Greater information coverage area for travelers. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 71 of 145 September 19, 2007

82 LVTS PROJECT #12: INSTITUTE REAL-TIME TRANSIT INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: There are commercial providers who can provide real-time information to travelers using vehicle GPS systems through kiosks, pole mounted devices, the Internet, , and telephone. This project would pilot one of these services for a trial period and assess the use/benefit to transit riders. A series of 5 kiosks will be deployed at key locations within the LANTA service area for the purpose of providing transit riders with static information about routes/schedules and real-time information regarding schedule adherence and ETA of transit vehicles at specific designated stops. STAKEHOLDERS: Commercial Providers, LANTA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16, 17 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: 1 2 years Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $20,000 $35,000 (Design) $135,000 (Construction) PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): AVL; Wireless Communications PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; customer satisfaction; transit vehicle on-time performance. BENEFITS: This type of information would likely benefit users who make daily trips on long-distance, low-frequency routes that are often most susceptible to delays. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 72 of 145 September 19, 2007

83 LVTS PROJECT #13: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The capability and authority of EMAs to preempt or override commercial radio or television programming with urgent traffic-related messaging should be investigated. STAKEHOLDERS: County EMAs, Local Media PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 6 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $10,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): TBD PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: More immediate information from local media (TV and radio) related to emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 73 of 145 September 19, 2007

84 APPENDIX B MPO / RPO Specific Project Prioritizations (RATS) RATS PROJECT #1: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: CCTV Cameras Dynamic Message Signs Highway Advisory Radio HAR Flashing Beacons STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, RATS PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 1 2 years Construction: 3 5 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $300,000 $1,270,000 (Design) $4,250,000 (Construction) *See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0. PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): See Appendix C: Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of lane-miles of facilities (by classification) covered by CCTV, detection devices; reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay. BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region s highways. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 74 of 145 September 19, 2007

85 RATS PROJECT #2: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND PROCEDURES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. The Berks County IM Plan should be updated through a collaborative and inclusive approach, involving the Planning Commission, PennDOT District 5-0, and County EMA. This effort should include updating the I-78 IM Plan, as well as developing IM Plans for Route 222 South, Route 422, I-176, and Route 61. Protocols also need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume one (1) plan at $50,000. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, RATS, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in time to respond to an incident; % change in time to clear an incident; % change in number of accidents (or secondary incidents) along corridor BENEFITS: Improves emergency response times to clear incidents, thereby minimizing travel delay. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 75 of 145 September 19, 2007

86 RATS PROJECT #3: HIRE ONE FULL-TIME STAFF FOR REGION 5-0 TMC PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Project would involve hiring one full-time staff person to be located at the District 5-0 Traffic Management Center to monitor CCTV images produced from cameras located throughout Berks County, to post HAR messages and notifications regarding incidents and other traveler information on DMS, and to coordinate with 911 Centers, police, and other TMCs. Operational costs for the full-time staff person are calculated accordingly: 7 hours / day x 5 days / 52 weeks / year (1,820 hours) contingency hours = 2,080 total $17.50 / hour = $36,400 annual O&M cost. STAKEHOLDERS: RATS, PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: None Annual O&M: $36,400 PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Traffic Management Center PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peakhour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay; % change in time to respond to an incident. BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region s highways. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 76 of 145 September 19, 2007

87 RATS PROJECT #4: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles. Elements of this program include evaluating the need for service patrols along limited-access freeways in Berks County (I-78, Route 422) and if warranted, implement limited-term pilot programs. Projected operating program would include two active vehicles + one back-up vehicle, seven hours/day x five days/week x 52 weeks/year for one year (in Berks County). The estimated cost does not include the cost of consultant staff in the TOC. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, RATS PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $265,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service. Number of motorists served. Change in time to clear an incident. BENEFITS: Keeps corridors safe and helps reduce travel time and delay. The current program in Lehigh Valley is well received by the region s motorists. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 77 of 145 September 19, 2007

88 RATS PROJECT #5: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical corridors that could benefit from the integration of signal timing along adjacent corridors. Phase 1 of this process involves using the Signal Asset Management System and developing screening criteria to identify candidate corridors. Phase 2 of this project would involve implementing a limited Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) pilot project that could be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of ICM. This pilot project involves the coordination of up to fifty (50) programmable signals throughout the identified corridor (and assumes that signals do not require upgrades). According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, maintenance costs approximately $1,800 per signal annually. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, PennDOT CO, Local Municipalities, RATS, LVPC PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 3 5 years Construction: 3 5 years PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 Capital (2011): $8,000 (Design) $55,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $30,000 LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would be developed in conjunction with Statewide ICM efforts and TSOP 8. It is anticipated that the Signal Management System (SMS) data will be useful developing this project. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in peak travel times; delay reduction. BENEFITS: Integrated signals can reduce delay, travel times, emissions, and fuel consumption. TMCcontrol of traffic signals has the capability to adjust signal timings along adjacent corridors when needed for incident management. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 78 of 145 September 19, 2007

89 RATS PROJECT #6: IMPLEMENT REAL-TIME TRAVEL POSTINGS ON DMS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project s intent is to use data from PennDOT or collected from partners to provide real-time travel times and to inform travelers of the causes of congestion via DMS. This pilot project would be implemented along I-78. There is potential for eventual implementation along I-80, I-81, I-476 (PA Turnpike), I-176, Route 422, Route 222, Route 61, Route 33, and Route 22. The pilot project involves twenty-five (25) interchanges along I-78. Each interchange would require four (4) sensors, for a total of 100 sensors, providing end-to-end coverage. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office ITS Cost Estimates, solar powered sensors are estimated to cost approximately $7,000 each, with poles and installation estimated at $4,000 each. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 14, 15 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 3 5 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $15,000 $60,500 (Design) $550,000 (Construction) PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): This pilot project assumes existing DMS and camera deployments are adequate for verification and notification. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of regional DMS signs that can post travel time information BENEFITS: Real-time dissemination of travel times allows motorists and businesses to make better route decisions resulting in savings of time and money. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 79 of 145 September 19, 2007

90 RATS PROJECT #7: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER INFORMATION SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project seeks to enhance the delivery of Traveler Information services through enhanced interagency cooperation and partnerships: Improve coordination between PennDOT, DRJTBC, and New Jersey Transit in alerting NJT I-80 patrons (bus commuter operators and motorists) of roadway and bridge conditions via TI Systems. Improve coordination between PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in the management and operations of DMS at strategic intersecting locations. Build on existing partnerships between traffic and emergency management agencies and local TV and radio stations to better inform travelers of major incidents and traffic delays. This project builds on the PennDOT CO initiative to develop a statewide 511 Traveler Information system. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, NJT, PSP, County EMAs, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio) PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 14, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; traveler satisfaction. BENEFITS: Low-cost effort for effectively disseminating traveler information to motorists throughout the region. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 80 of 145 September 19, 2007

91 RATS PROJECT #8: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves PennDOT coordinating with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Venue Operators, Residential Associations, Industrial Park Operators, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $75,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2011): $15,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Levels of congestion in vicinity of major trip generators BENEFITS: Enhanced traffic management, freight movement, and incident response. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 81 of 145 September 19, 2007

92 RATS PROJECT #9: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. currently has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [EDRS]), now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, Emergency Responders, County EMAs, PSP PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 3 5 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $40,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Need to develop GIS and database to detour routing information. Need to develop access privileges. Develop link to Road Closure Reporting System. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project is anticipated to be implemented in conjunction with PennDOT CO s RCRS. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of roadways (by classification) with pre-planned detour routes; time to institute detour routing. BENEFITS: To develop clearly defined guidance for detour routings along major facilities. To reduce delays to the traveling public caused by incidents and emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 82 of 145 September 19, 2007

93 RATS PROJECT #10: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored. The ongoing efforts between the Berks County EMA and the Berks County 911 Center to share staffing, data feeds, incident response, information gathering, and web-based portal applications, should be encouraged. STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, Berks County EMA, Berks County 911 Center PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 9, 13, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would likely require additional guidance from TSOP 9. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Unified incident command and response. Additional benefits include data-sharing and communications streamlining. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 83 of 145 September 19, 2007

94 RATS PROJECT #11: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel should be provided with mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), to communicate effectively and immediately with the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The recommended PDAs would provide required services including voice (cell phone), , Internet, camera, video, and text messaging. The associated operating costs would include monthly plans for phone, data, and text messaging. Assume $2,000 for each field person at 3 personnel total for capital costs. Annual operating & maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,500 for each PDA at 3 devices. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 5, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2009): $6,000 Annual O&M (2009): $4,500 PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in response time to incidents. BENEFITS: Improved response times to incidents; enhanced communications between field staff, the Traffic Operations Center, and the Pennsylvania State Police. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 84 of 145 September 19, 2007

95 RATS PROJECT #12: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for datasharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, in Berks County, efforts between the Berks County EMA, Berks County Planning Commission, PennDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data from cameras and CCTV along I-78, I-176, Route 422, and Route 222 could be explored. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio), County EMAs, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): PennDOT IES software application PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Greater information coverage area for travelers. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 85 of 145 September 19, 2007

96 RATS PROJECT #13: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The capability and authority of EMAs to preempt or override commercial radio or television programming with urgent traffic-related messaging should be investigated. STAKEHOLDERS: County EMAs, Local Media PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 6 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $10,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): TBD PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: More immediate information from local media (TV and radio) related to emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 86 of 145 September 19, 2007

97 APPENDIX B MPO / RPO Specific Project Prioritizations (NEPA) NEPA PROJECT #1: IDENTIFY ITS TECHNOLOGY GAPS; DEPLOY NEW EQUIPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Existing gaps for regional ITS equipment need to be identified. The following field device types then need to be coordinated, programmed, and deployed: CCTV Cameras Dynamic Message Signs Highway Advisory Radio HAR Flashing Beacons Queue Detectors Ramp Metering Systems STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Local Municipalities, NEPA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 1 2 years Construction: 3 5 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital* (2011): Annual O&M (2013): $600,000 $1,880,000 (Design) $8,550,000 (Construction) *See Appendix C for detailed break-out of elements and costs provided by District 5-0. PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): See Appendix C: Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of lane-miles of facilities (by classification) covered by CCTV, detection devices; reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT; average peak-hour travel speeds; average peak-hour delay. BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region s highways. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 87 of 145 September 19, 2007

98 NEPA PROJECT #2: DEVELOP / UPDATE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND PROCEDURES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project is intended to support regional and state transportation and emergency management agencies in developing and updating IM plans and procedures for the region. This project would entail establishing a command structure and response procedures for various types of incidents and emergencies. PennDOT C.O. is working to develop IM plans on a statewide basis. Protocols also need to be established between the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and county 911 Centers regarding the immediate notification of incidents. Assume one (1) plan at $50,000 each. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT 5-0, PennDOT CO, NEPA, PSP, County EMAs, Emergency Responders PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in time to respond to an incident; % change in time to clear an incident; % change in number of accidents (or secondary incidents) along corridor BENEFITS: Improves emergency response times to clear incidents, thereby minimizing travel delay. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 88 of 145 September 19, 2007

99 NEPA PROJECT #3: EXPLORE EXPANDED USE OF FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Roving along major corridors, Freeway Service Patrol vehicles remove debris from travel lanes and assist motorists with disabled vehicles. Elements of this program include evaluating the need for service patrols along limited-access freeways in the NEPA Region (I- 80 in the Stroudsburg-NJ area), and if warranted, implement limited-term pilot programs. Projected operating program would include two active vehicles + one back-up vehicle, seven hours/day x five days/week x 52 weeks/year for one year (in the NEPA region). The estimated cost does not include the cost of consultant staff in the TOC. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, NEPA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 3 5 years Construction: ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2010): $265,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study and Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of service patrol vehicles in service; number of motorists served, and change in clearance time BENEFITS: Keeps corridors safe and helps reduce travel time and delay. The current program in Lehigh Valley is well received by the region s motorists. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 89 of 145 September 19, 2007

100 NEPA PROJECT #4: IMPLEMENT LIMITED ICM PILOT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project identifies critical limited-access corridors that could benefit from the integration of signal timings along adjacent corridors. Phase 1 of this process involves using the Signal Asset Management System and developing screening criteria to identify candidate corridors. The screening criteria might include the receptiveness of municipalities, scope of required infrastructure needs, and the number of jurisdictions involved. Phase 2 of this project would involve implementing a limited Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) pilot project that could be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. In particular, this pilot project would involve the multi-municipal coordination and cooperation required to integrate fifty (50) programmable signals throughout one of the identified corridors. According to the USDOT Joint Program Office estimates, signal re-timing costs approximately $3,100 per signal. According to the National Traffic Signal Report Card, annual maintenance costs are approximately $1,800 per signal. (In developing cost estimates, it is assumed that traffic signals will not require upgrades). This pilot project could then serve as the basis for the future development of this ICM project involving the implementation of field hardware, communications equipment, and software and integration. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, PennDOT CO, Local Municipalities, RATS, LVTS PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: 3 5 years Construction: 3 5 years PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study and Deployment ESTIMATED COSTS: Study (2009): $50,000 Capital (2011): $8,000 (Design) $55,000 (Construction) Annual O&M (2013): $30,000 LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would be developed in conjunction with Statewide ICM efforts and TSOP 8. It is anticipated that the Signal Management System (SMS) data will be useful in developing this project. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in peak travel times; delay reduction. BENEFITS: Integrated signals can reduce delay, travel times, emissions, and fuel consumption. TMCcontrol of traffic signals has the capability to adjust signal timings along adjacent corridors when needed for incident management. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 90 of 145 September 19, 2007

101 NEPA PROJECT #5: IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION TO ENHANCE TRAVELER INFORMATION SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project seeks to enhance the delivery of Traveler Information services through enhanced interagency cooperation and partnerships: Improve coordination between PennDOT, DRJTBC, and New Jersey Transit in alerting NJT I-80 patrons (bus commuter operators and motorists) of roadway and bridge conditions via TI Systems. Improve coordination between PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in the management and operations of DMS at strategic intersecting locations. Build on existing partnerships between traffic and emergency management agencies and local TV and radio stations to better inform travelers of major incidents and traffic delays. This project builds on the PennDOT CO initiative to develop a statewide 511 Traveler Information system. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, NJT, PSP, County EMAs, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio) PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 14, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of users of real-time information; traveler satisfaction. BENEFITS: Low-cost effort for effectively disseminating traveler information to motorists throughout the region. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 91 of 145 September 19, 2007

102 NEPA PROJECT #6: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves PennDOT coordinating with regional entertainment, special events, and recreational venues, large residential developments, and major office and industrial parks, to prepare Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). These plans would identify existing traffic volumes, patterns, and impacts for individual or collective major traffic generators, and recommend strategies for mitigating their traffic impacts, which would include the development of transportation operational plans. In addition to encouraging trip generators to prepare TMPs, venues should be encouraged to disseminate traveler information prior to trip-making. Major entertainment venues and recreational destinations should develop and distribute traveler information to patrons / users. If distributed prior to trip-making, TI would inform travelers of parking facility availability and location, shuttle bus opportunities, and roadway routing patterns, potentially mitigating roadway congestion. Assume the development of TMPs for nine trip generators at a cost of $25,000 each. Annual operating and maintenance costs for updating the TMPs and for implementing these recommendations are estimated at $5,000 each for nine TMPs. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0, Venue Operators, Residential Associations, Industrial Park Operators, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $75,000 Capital: None Annual O&M (2011): $15,000 PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Levels of congestion in vicinity of major trip generators BENEFITS: Enhanced traffic management, freight movement, and incident response. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 92 of 145 September 19, 2007

103 NEPA PROJECT #7: IMPROVE PRE-PLANNED DETOUR ROUTES FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Well planned and widely available information on detour routes can mitigate the impacts of incidents. PennDOT C.O. currently has software (Emergency Detour Routing System [EDRS]), now in the planning stages, which will be deployed as part of TSOP-02: Road Closure Reporting System (RCRS). RCRS will include a web-based detour routing program accessible to the general public and emergency responders. As part of this initiative, emphasis should also be placed on improving public understanding of existing emergency evacuation systems (i.e. the Blue Detour system) through education and public information. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, Emergency Responders, County EMAs, PSP PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 3 5 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $40,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Need to develop GIS and database to detour routing information. Need to develop access privileges. Develop link to Road Closure Reporting System. PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project is anticipated to be implemented in conjunction with PennDOT CO s RCRS. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of roadways (by classification) with pre-planned detour routes; time to institute detour routing. BENEFITS: To develop clearly defined guidance for detour routings along major facilities. To reduce delays to the traveling public caused by incidents and emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 93 of 145 September 19, 2007

104 NEPA PROJECT #8: INVESTIGATE CO-LOCATION OF OPERATIONS STAFF PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The traffic operations centers for PennDOT District 5-0 and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) are presently located in separate facilities. To effectively manage and respond to incidents, as well as to disseminate timely information amongst regional / state emergency responders, other government agencies and the traveling public, the integration of staff should be considered. The stationing of PennDOT District 5-0 staff at the PSP Traffic Center should be explored. STAKEHOLDERS: PSP, PennDOT District 5-0, NEPA PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 9, 13, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): N/A PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: This project would likely require additional guidance from TSOP 9. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Unified incident command and response. Additional benefits include data-sharing and communications streamlining. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 94 of 145 September 19, 2007

105 NEPA PROJECT #9: PROVIDE FIELD PERSONNEL WITH PDAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: PennDOT District 5-0 field personnel should be provided with mobile resources, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), to communicate effectively and immediately with the District 5-0 Traffic Operations Center and other traffic and emergency management agencies. The recommended PDAs would provide required services including voice (cell phone), , Internet, camera, video, and text messaging. The associated operating costs would include monthly plans for phone, data, and text messaging. Assume $2,000 for each field person at 3 personnel total for capital costs. Annual operating & maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,500 for each PDA at 3 devices. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 5-0 PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 5, 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1 2 years ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital (2009): $6,000 Annual O&M (2009): $4,500 PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in response time to incidents. BENEFITS: Improved response times to incidents; enhanced communications between field staff, the Traffic Operations Center, and the Pennsylvania State Police. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 95 of 145 September 19, 2007

106 NEPA PROJECT #10: EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA SHARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Expanding the use of agreements among agencies for datasharing opportunities can broaden the coverage area, reduce equipment redundancies, and provide the region s transportation system users with better information. While PennDOT C.O. has programmed and funded an initiative for an Information Exchange System (IES) involving a software application that allows for the sharing of a wide range of data and video images amongst a number of stakeholders, this project specifically involves exploring interagency coordination on an institutional level. For instance, efforts between DRJTBC, PennDOT, NJDOT, and local television and radio stations for sharing data collected at Delaware River water crossings could be explored. STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 5-0, DRJTBC, NJDOT, PTC, Local Media (TV + radio), County EMAs, Local Municipalities PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 4, 16 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $20,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): PennDOT IES software application PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: Greater information coverage area for travelers. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 96 of 145 September 19, 2007

107 NEPA PROJECT #11: INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL TO PREEMPT MEDIA PROGRAMMING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The capability and authority of EMAs to preempt or override commercial radio or television programming with urgent traffic-related messaging should be investigated. STAKEHOLDERS: County EMAs, Local Media PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 4, 6 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1 2 years Design: Deployment: ESTIMATED COSTS: Planning (2009): $10,000 Capital: None Annual O&M: None PROJECT TYPE: Plan / Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): TBD PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None BENEFITS: More immediate information from local media (TV and radio) related to emergencies. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: None Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 97 of 145 September 19, 2007

108 APPENDIX C Prioritized Field Devices for Deployment LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES PRIORITY FUNDING FIELD DESIGN CAPITAL CYCLE DEVICE LOCATION COST COST 1* CCTV I-78 / Route 863 Interchange (MM 45) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 at Route 378 (MM 63) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 at Island Park Rd Bridge (MM 69) $25K $125K 1 CCTV Route 33 / Route 512 Interchange (MM 15.5) $25K $125K 1 CCTV Route 33 / Route 191 Interchange (MM 9.5) $25K $125K Subtotal: $125K $625K 2 HAR B I-78 WB at MM 75 $15K $25K 2 HAR B I-78 EB at MM 44 $15K $25K 2 HAR B Route 22 WB at MM 334 $15K $25K 2 HAR B Route 22 EB at MM $15K $25K 2 HAR B Route 33 SB at MM 16 $15K $25K Subtotal: $75K $125K 3* DMS I-78 EB at Lehigh/Northampton Cty Line (MM 63) $50K $325K 3 DMS I-78 WB at Lehigh/Northampton Cty Line (MM 63) $50K $325K 3 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Lehigh Street (MM 55) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 EB Just West of Route 412 (MM 67.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 WB Just East of Route 412 (MM 67.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Route 191 (MM 8.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 SB Prior to Route 191 (MM 11) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Route 512 (MM 14) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 100 (MM 50) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 22 EB Prior to Route 191 (MM 328.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 22 WB Prior to Route 512 (MM 328.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Rt 33 SB prior to Wind Gap (Monroe Co., MM 19) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Route 248 (MM 5.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 33 NB Prior to Freemansburg Ave (MM 1.5) $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 22 EB Prior to Cedar Crest Blvd (MM 318) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Route 22 (MM 50) $25K $50K 3 DMS Rte 22 WB Prior to Lehigh Rvr Br. (MM 324) $25K $50K Subtotal: $475K $1,400K 4 QD Route 22 Replace 27 Existing Queue Detectors $45K $297K with Passive Acoustic Sensors (solar-powered sensor and pole $11,000 / each) that are able to cover up to five lanes providing vehicular counts per lane and speeds to provide real-time traffic / travel information 4 QD I-78 / Route 22 / Route 33 Queue Detection to do $33K $220K vehicular counts per lanes / speeds to provide real-real-time traffic / travel information (20 $11,000 / each) Subtotal: $78K $517K Total: $753K $2,667K *For Lehigh and Northampton Counties, the projects themselves included under Priority Funding Cycles #1 and #1 are listed in order of priority. Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 98 of 145 September 19, 2007

109 Legend DMS = CCTV = HAR = HAR B = QD = DMS (Dynamic Message Sign), VMS (Variable Message Sign), CMS (Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) Closed Circuit Television Camera Highway Advisory Radio Highway Advisory Radio Beacons Queue Detectors Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 99 of 145 September 19, 2007

110 PRIORITY FUNDING BERKS COUNTY DESIGN CAPITAL CYCLE FIELD DEVICE LOCATION COST COST 1 DMS I-78 EB Pr to Rte 625 on Distr 8 Structure $25K $125K (MM 9) 1 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Route 61 (MM 27) $25K $50K 1 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 183 (MM 21) $25K $50K 1 DMS I-78 Install Concrete Pads / Elec Phone $30K $75K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 143 Interchange (MM 35) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 61 Interchange (MM 29) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 183 Interchange (MM 19) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-78 / Route 645 Interchange (MM 10) $25K $125K 1 HAR B I-78 EB at Lebanon / Berks County Line $15K $25K 1 HAR B I-78 EB West of Route 61 $15K $25K 1 HAR B I-78 WB East of Route 61 $15K $25K 1 HAR B Upgrade HAR to Permanent Sites 4 $75K $225K Locations on I-78 1 HAR B Route 61 NB Prior to I-78 $15K $25K 1 HAR B Route 61 SB Prior to I-78 $15K $25K Subtotals: $355K $1,150K 2 DMS I-78 EB Prior to Route 737 (MM 38) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 737 (MM 42.5) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-78 WB Prior to Route 143 (MM 34) $25K $50K 2 CCTV I-78 / Route 737 Interchange (MM 40) $25K $125K 2 HAR B I-78 WB East of Route 737 $15K $25K Subtotals: $115K $300K 3 DMS Route 222 SB Prior to Route 222 Bus. $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 222 SB Prior to Route 12 $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 222 Bus $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 662 $25K $50K 3 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 422 Bus $25K $50K 3 DMS I-176 NB Prior to Route 10 (MM 5) $25K $50K 3 CCTV Route 222 / Route 422/Route 12 I change $25K $125K 3 CCTV Route 222 / Route 183 Interchange* $25K $125K 3 CCTV Route 422 / Route 222 Bus / Route 10 $25K $125K I change (Lancaster Ave.) 3 CCTV Route 422/ Route 422 Bus Interchange $25K $125K 3 CCTV Route 422 / Penn St. / Penn Ave $25K $125K 3 CCTV I-176 / Route 422 Interchange (MM 11) $25K $125K Subtotals: $300K $1,050K 4 DMS I-176 NB Prior to Route 10 (MM 0.5) $25K $50K 4 DMS I-176 NB Prior to Route 724 (MM 8) $25K $50K 4 DMS I-176 SB Prior to Route 10 (MM 5) $25K $50K 4 CCTV I-176 / Route 10 Interchange (MM 7) $25K $125K 4 CCTV I-176 / Route 10 Interchange (MM 1) $25K $125K Subtotals: $125K $400K 5 DMS Route 222 SB Prior to Route 724 $25K $50K 5 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 568** $50K $325K 5 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 12 $25K $50K 5 DMS Route 222 NB Prior to Route 61 $25K $50K 5 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 222 Bus $25K $50K Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 100 of 145 September 19, 2007

111 5 DMS Route 422 WB Prior to Route 12 $25K $50K 5 DMS Route 422 EB Prior to Route 222 Bus $25K $50K 5 DMS Route 422 EB Prior to I-176 $25K $50K 5 DMS Route 422 EB Prior to Route 82 $25K $50K Subtotals: $250K $725K 6 CCTV Rte 222 / Rte 222 Bus / Park RD I change $25K $125K 6 CCTV Route 222 / Route 61 Interchange $25K $125K 6 CCTV Route 222 / Route 724 Interchange $25K $125K 6 CCTV Route 222 / Route 222 Bus Interchange $25K $125K 6 CCTV Route 222 / Route 568 Interchange $25K $125K Subtotals: $125K $625K Totals: $1,270K $4,250K Comments: The priority funding cycles are associated with the following projects and/or locations: Cycle 1: I-78 & Route 61 Cycle 2: I-78 12M Project Cycle 3: Route 222 / 422 Urban Area Cycle 4: I-176 Completion Cycle 5: Route 222 / 422 Non-Urban Area DMS Signs Cycle 6: Route 222 Non-Urban Area CCTV * Integrate into Interchange reconstruction project ** Joint effort with Lancaster County (Route 568 & Pennsylvania Turnpike) Legend DMS = CCTV = HAR = HAR B = QD = DMS (Dynamic Message Sign), VMS (Variable Message Sign), CMS (Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) Closed Circuit Television Camera Highway Advisory Radio Highway Advisory Radio Beacons Queue Detectors Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 101 of 145 September 19, 2007

112 PRIORITY FUNDING SCHUYLKILL COUNTY DESIGN CAPITAL CYCLE FIELD DEVICE LOCATION COST COST 1 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 443 (MM 98) $25K $50K 1 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 61 (MM 122) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-81 SB Prior to Route 61 (MM122) $50K $325K 1 CCTV I-81 / Rte 443 Interchange (MM 100) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-81 / Route 61 Interchange (MM 124) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-81 / Route 54 Interchange (MM 131) $25K $125K Subtotals: $200K $1,075K 2 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 25 (MM 112) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-81 NB Prior to Route 309 (MM 136) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-81 SB S. of Luzerne/Schuylkill Cty Line $50K $325K (MM 139) 2 DMS I-81 SB Prior to Route 54 (MM 133) $25K $50K 2 DMS I-81 SB Prior to Route 25 (MM 114) $25K $50K 2 CCTV I-81 / Route 25 Interchange (MM 112) $25K $125K 2 CCTV I-81 / Rte 309 Interchange (MM 138) $25K $125K 2 HAR I-81 (3 Sites) $50K $200K 2 HAR B I-81 (8 Sites) $75K $225K Subtotals: $325K $1,200 1,200K Totals: $525K $2,275K Legend DMS = CCTV = HAR = HAR B = QD = DMS (Dynamic Message Sign), VMS (Variable Message Sign), CMS (Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) Closed Circuit Television Camera Highway Advisory Radio Highway Advisory Radio Beacons Queue Detectors Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 102 of 145 September 19, 2007

113 PRIORITY FUNDING CARBON COUNTY DESIGN CAPITAL CYCLE FIELD DEVICE LOCATION COST COST 1 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 940 (MM 277) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 115 (MM 282) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 940 (MM 281) $50K $325K 1 CCTV I-80 / Rte 940 Interchange (MM 279) $50K $125K Subtotals: $200K $1,100K 0K 2 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 534 (MM 273) $50K $325K 2 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 534 (MM 276) $50K $325K 2 CCTV I-80 / Rte 534 Interchange (MM 274) $50K $125K 2 HAR I-80 $25K $100K 2 HAR B I-80 (2 Sites) $30K $50K Subtotals: $205K $925K Totals: $405K $2,025K Legend DMS = CCTV = HAR = HAR B = QD = DMS (Dynamic Message Sign), VMS (Variable Message Sign), CMS (Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) Closed Circuit Television Camera Highway Advisory Radio Highway Advisory Radio Beacons Queue Detectors Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 103 of 145 September 19, 2007

114 PRIORITY FUNDING MONROE COUNTY DESIGN CAPITAL CYCLE FIELD DEVICE LOCATION COST COST 1 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Rte 715 (MM 297) $50K $325K 1 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 715 (MM 301) $25K $50K 1 CCTV I-80/ I-380 Interchange (MM 293) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-80/ Route 33 Interchange (MM 302) $25K $125K 1 CCTV I-80/ Route 209 Interchange (MM 309) $25K $125K Subtotals: $150K $750K 2 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 33 (MM 300) $50K $325K 2 DMS I-80 WB Prior to I-380 (MM 296) $50K $325K 2 CCTV I-80/ Route 191 Interchange (MM 307) $25K $125K 2 CCTV I-80/ Route 611 Interchange (MM 310) $25K $125K Subtotals: $150K $900K 3 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 209 Bus (MM 304) $50K $325K 3 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 115 (MM 286) $25K $50K 3 DMS I-380 SB Prior to Route 611 (MM 9) $25K $50K 3 CCTV I-80/ Route 115 Interchange (MM 284) $25K $125K 3 CCTV I-80/ Route 715 Interchange (MM 299) $25K $125K 3 CCTV I-380/ Route 940 Interchange (MM 3) $25K $125K 3 CCTV I-380/ Route 611 Interchange (MM 8) $25K $125K 3 HAR I-80 (4 Sites) $50K $300K 3 HAR B I-80 (4 Sites) $75K $125K Subtotals: $325K $1,350K 4 DMS I-80 EB Prior to Route 611 (MM 308) $25K $50K 4 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 191 (MM 308) $25K $50K 4 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 33 (MM 303) $50K $325K 4 DMS I-380 NB Prior to Route 940 (MM 2) $25K $50K 4 CCTV I-80/ Route 209 Interchange (MM 304) $25K $125K 4 CCTV I-380/ Route 423 Interchange (MM 7) $25K $125K Subtotals: $175K $725K 5 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 209 (MM 305) $25K $50K 5 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Route 715 (MM 300) $25K $50K 5 DMS I-80 WB Prior to Scotrun Exit (MM 298.5) $25K $50K 5 DMS I-380 NB Prior to Route 423 (MM 7) $25K $50K 5 DMS I-380 SB Prior to Route 940 (MM 5) $50K $325K Subtotals: $150K $525K Totals: $950K $4,250K Legend DMS = CCTV = HAR = HAR B = QD = DMS (Dynamic Message Sign), VMS (Variable Message Sign), CMS (Changeable Message Sign) - (Structure-Mounted or Trailer-Mounted) Closed Circuit Television Camera Highway Advisory Radio Highway Advisory Radio Beacons Queue Detector Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 104 of 145 September 19, 2007

115 APPENDIX D Description of the Region Operations Region 5, in eastern Pennsylvania, is comprised of six counties: Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe. District 5-0 is one of the fastest growing districts in Pennsylvania. The influx of population is presumably a consequence of suburban growth extending out from New York and Philadelphia. The district consists of an unusual blend of urban and rural areas. The urbanized areas of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, located in the Lehigh Valley, along with the City of Reading in Berks County, are the economic hubs of the region. A large proportion of the region s population lives in or near these two metropolitan areas and this has resulted in serious congestion issues, particularly in and around Allentown. Though the core of the region has a predominantly urban character, the outlying parts of the region, especially Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe Counties, are decidedly rural in nature. As shown in the map below, Operations Region 5 encompasses all of PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. Three of the region s counties are included in two distinct MPOs (Lehigh and Northampton counties are located within the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study, and Berks County is located within the Reading Area Transportation Study), while the remaining three counties (Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe) are located within the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance, a Rural Planning Organization. The Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) RPO itself is split between PennDOT District 4-0 and District 5-0, with Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe counties included in District 5-0. Figure 3: Region 5 Geographic Boundaries Gannett Fleming, Inc. Pg 105 of 145 September 19, 2007