south central regionsouth central region regional ... 8 rop version 1 070907.pdf · scott nazar...

SouthSouthSouthSouth Central Region Central Region Central Region Central Region Regional Operations PRegional Operations PRegional Operations PRegional Operations Plan lan lan lan (ROP) (ROP) (ROP) (ROP) 2007200720072007

Draft Version 1 –July 2007 i S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc


Draft Version 1 –July 2007 ii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc

SSoouutthh CCeennttrraall RReeggiioonn RReeggiioonnaall OOppeerraattiioonnss PPllaann ((RROOPP)) 22000077

DDrraafftt VVeerrssiioonn 11

JJuunnee 22000077

PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeppppppppaaaaaaaarrrrrrrreeeeeeeedddddddd ffffffffoooooooorrrrrrrr::::::::

PPPPPPPPeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTT EEEEEEEEnnnnnnnnggggggggiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg DDDDDDDDiiiiiiiissssssssttttttttrrrrrrrriiiiiiiicccccccctttttttt 88888888--------00000000

AAAAAAAAddddddddaaaaaaaammmmmmmmssssssss CCCCCCCCoooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnnttttttttyyyyyyyy OOOOOOOOffffffffffffffffiiiiiiiicccccccceeeeeeee ooooooooffffffff PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg aaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd DDDDDDDDeeeeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeeeellllllllooooooooppppppppmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnntttttttt

FFFFFFFFrrrrrrrraaaaaaaannnnnnnnkkkkkkkklllllllliiiiiiiinnnnnnnn CCCCCCCCoooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnnttttttttyyyyyyyy PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg CCCCCCCCoooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn

LLLLLLLLaaaaaaaannnnnnnnccccccccaaaaaaaasssssssstttttttteeeeeeeerrrrrrrr CCCCCCCCoooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnnttttttttyyyyyyyy PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg CCCCCCCCoooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn

LLLLLLLLeeeeeeeebbbbbbbbaaaaaaaannnnnnnnoooooooonnnnnnnn CCCCCCCCoooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnnttttttttyyyyyyyy PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg DDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeppppppppaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrttttttttmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnntttttttt

TTTTTTTTrrrrrrrriiiiiiii--------CCCCCCCCoooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnnttttttttyyyyyyyy RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg CCCCCCCCoooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn

YYYYYYYYoooooooorrrrrrrrkkkkkkkk CCCCCCCCoooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnnttttttttyyyyyyyy PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg CCCCCCCCoooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn

PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeppppppppaaaaaaaarrrrrrrreeeeeeeedddddddd bbbbbbbbyyyyyyyy::::::::


Draft Version 1 –July 2007 iii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc

AAAAAAAAcccccccckkkkkkkknnnnnnnnoooooooowwwwwwwwlllllllleeeeeeeeddddddddggggggggmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnnttttttttssssssss Major contributions from PennDOT Engineering District 8-0, the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, and the Center for Program Development and Management, as well as the local planning partners made the Regional Operations Plan for the South Central Region possible. The ROP was developed with input from multiple regional stakeholders. Regional Regional Regional Regional Operations ForumOperations ForumOperations ForumOperations Forum The ROP was guided by the Regional Steering Committee consisting of the following individuals:

� Scott Nazar PennDOT District 8-0 � Bob Conrad PennDOT District 8-0 � Charles Goodhart PennDOT District 8-0 � Gary DeBerry PennDOT Program Center � Mike Pack PennDOT BHSTE � Chip Millard Tri-County Regional Planning Commission � Tom Kotay Lebanon County Planning Department � Carol Palmoski Lancaster County Planning Commission � Don Bubb York County Planning Commission � Andrew Merkel Adams County Office of Planning and Development � Phil Tarquino Franklin County Planning Commission � Kay Carman York County EMA � Steve Smith Fairview Township EMA � Lou Cortelazzi Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission � Allen Baldwin Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission � Lieutenant Jacob Crider Pennsylvania State Police � Lieutenant Dennis Wilson Pennsylvania State Police � Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration

Consultant TeamConsultant TeamConsultant TeamConsultant Team Gannett Fleming, Inc. facilitated the ROP process, documented the outcomes, and prepared the plan document.

SouthSouthSouthSouth Central Region Central Region Central Region Central Region Regional Operations Plan Regional Operations Plan Regional Operations Plan Regional Operations Plan (ROP) (ROP) (ROP) (ROP) 2007200720072007

Draft Version 1 –July 2007 ii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc

TTTTABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................2 1 Background .....................................................................................................................................3

1.1 National Perspective ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Statewide TSOP Initiative.................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 ROP Scope and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.3.1 ROP Development Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.2 ROP Timetable and Adoption......................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 ROP Methodology................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.5 ROP Oversight and Management....................................................................................................................... 9

1.5.1 Regional Operations Forum ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.5.2 Stakeholder Outreach .................................................................................................................................. 11

2 Regional Activities and Initiatives ................................................................................................12 2.1 Description of the Region ................................................................................................................................. 12

2.1.1 Regional Demographics ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Regional Transportation System ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.3 Regional Perspective on Congestion........................................................................................................... 16

2.2 ITS and Operations Activities at District Level ................................................................................................ 17 2.2.1 Current and Planned Deployments ............................................................................................................. 17 2.2.2 Current and Planned Operational Infrastructure........................................................................................ 20 2.2.3 Maintenance and Budgeting ....................................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Other Regional Initiatives ................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4 Regional Planning Process............................................................................................................................... 21

2.4.1 Regional Planning Partners ......................................................................................................................... 22 2.5 Integrating the ROP into the Regional Planning Process ............................................................................... 24

3 Regional Operations Framework..................................................................................................27 3.1 Regional Operations Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Incident Management Operations Area .......................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Traveler Information Operations Area ............................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Traffic Signal Operations Area ......................................................................................................................... 31 3.5 Goods Movement Operations Area.................................................................................................................. 32

4 Regional Program..........................................................................................................................33 4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 4.2 Project Priorities ................................................................................................................................................ 33 4.3 Approach to Funding......................................................................................................................................... 34 4.4 Regional Oversight ............................................................................................................................................ 36 4.5 Measuring Success........................................................................................................................................... 36 4.6 Institutional Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 36

5 Summary .......................................................................................................................................38 Appendix A Project Descriptions ..........................................................................................................39 Appendix B Meeting Minutes ...............................................................................................................64


Draft Version 1 –July 2007 iii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc

LIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments ...............................................................................18 Figure 2: Proposed ITS Deployments ..................................................................................................29

LIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLES Table 1: Regional Operations Plan Process ..........................................................................................8 Table 2: Regional Operations Forum Membership.............................................................................10 Table 3: Stakeholder Outreach Activities ............................................................................................11 Table 4: South Central Region Corridors of Significance ...................................................................14 Table 5: Intermodal Facilities, Tourist Attractions, and Transit Providers ........................................16 Table 6: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments ................................................................................17 Table 7: South Central Region Planning Partners ..............................................................................22 Table 8: Transportation Planning Requirements................................................................................23 Table 9: Incident Management Regional Needs and Projects ..........................................................28 Table 10: Traveler Information Regional Needs and Projects ...........................................................31 Table 11: Traffic Signal Regional Needs and Projects .......................................................................32 Table 12: Goods Movement Regional Needs and Projects ...............................................................32 Table 13: Candidate Operations Projects Ranking.............................................................................33


Draft Version 1 –July 2007 - 1 - S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc

EEEEEEEExxxxxxxxeeeeeeeeccccccccuuuuuuuuttttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvveeeeeeee SSSSSSSSuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaarrrrrrrryyyyyyyy The Regional Operations Plan for the South Central region 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 South Central ROP was developed in accordance with the Final Regional Guidance Document, Planning for Transportation Operations in Pennsylvania (RGD) released by PennDOT on May 12, 2006. Following this process, the following prioritized project list was developed by the stakeholders in the South Central Region.

RankRankRankRank

ProjectProjectProjectProject

1111 IM 3 IM 3 IM 3 IM 3 –––– Lancaster County ITS Deployment Lancaster County ITS Deployment Lancaster County ITS Deployment Lancaster County ITS Deployment

2222 IM 4 IM 4 IM 4 IM 4 –––– York County ITS Deployment York County ITS Deployment York County ITS Deployment York County ITS Deployment

3333 IM 2 IM 2 IM 2 IM 2 –––– Lebanon County ITS Deployment Lebanon County ITS Deployment Lebanon County ITS Deployment Lebanon County ITS Deployment

4444 IM 5 IM 5 IM 5 IM 5 –––– Dauphin County ITS Deployment Dauphin County ITS Deployment Dauphin County ITS Deployment Dauphin County ITS Deployment

5555 IIIIM 6 M 6 M 6 M 6 –––– Cumberland County ITS Deployment Cumberland County ITS Deployment Cumberland County ITS Deployment Cumberland County ITS Deployment

6666 IM 1 IM 1 IM 1 IM 1 –––– South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update

7777 IM 9 IM 9 IM 9 IM 9 –––– Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process

8888 TS 2 TS 2 TS 2 TS 2 –––– Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors

9999 IM 8 IM 8 IM 8 IM 8 –––– Maintain Regional Oper Maintain Regional Oper Maintain Regional Oper Maintain Regional Operations Forumations Forumations Forumations Forum

10101010 TI 2 TI 2 TI 2 TI 2 –––– Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign

11111111 TS 3 TS 3 TS 3 TS 3 –––– Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project

12121212 IM 10 IM 10 IM 10 IM 10 ---- Expand Unified Incident Command Training Expand Unified Incident Command Training Expand Unified Incident Command Training Expand Unified Incident Command Training

13131313 TS 6 TS 6 TS 6 TS 6 –––– Explore Grant Programs for LED Upgrades Explore Grant Programs for LED Upgrades Explore Grant Programs for LED Upgrades Explore Grant Programs for LED Upgrades

14141414 IM 11 IM 11 IM 11 IM 11 –––– Con Con Con Contract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrolstract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrolstract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrolstract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrols

15151515 TI 1 TI 1 TI 1 TI 1 –––– Upgrade PennDOT District 8 Upgrade PennDOT District 8 Upgrade PennDOT District 8 Upgrade PennDOT District 8----0 Website0 Website0 Website0 Website

16161616 TS 1 TS 1 TS 1 TS 1 –––– Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Planning ProcessPlanning ProcessPlanning ProcessPlanning Process

17171717 IM 7 IM 7 IM 7 IM 7 ---- Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 C Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 C Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 C Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 Centersentersentersenters

18181818 TS 5 TS 5 TS 5 TS 5 –––– Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority

19191919 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 –––– Establish Goods Movement Forum Establish Goods Movement Forum Establish Goods Movement Forum Establish Goods Movement Forum

20202020 TS 4 TS 4 TS 4 TS 4 –––– Use LTAP for Training Assistance Use LTAP for Training Assistance Use LTAP for Training Assistance Use LTAP for Training Assistance

The regional solutions addressed as part of this plan tend to be cost effective in supporting (not eliminating) regional congestion issues. So as the region begins to review transportation options a goal should be to have ITS and operations solutions examined, weighed and equally placed in the public forum for regional consideration and funding. This will ensure that innovative and cost effective solutions get a fair hearing alongside more costly capacity expansion projects.



AAAAAAAACCCCCCCCRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNYYYYYYYYMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSS aaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd AAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNSSSSSSSS AFLADS Automatic Fixed Location Anti/De-Icing System ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder ATRWS Automatic Truck Rollover Warning System AVL Automatic Vehicle Location BHSTE Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering CCTV Closed-Circuit Television CMP Congestion Management Process CVO Commercial Vehicle Operation DMS Dynamic Message Sign DVMT Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel EDP Early Deployment Program EMA Emergency Management Agency EMS Emergency Medical Services FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSP Freeway Service Patrol GPS Global Positioning System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HOV High Occupancy Vehicle IEM Incident and Emergency Management IEN Information Exchange Network IM Interstate Maintenance ISP Information Service Providers ITS Intelligent Transportation System LRP Long Range Plan (or Long Range Transportation Plan) MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NWS National Weather Service O&M Operations and Maintenance OA Office of Administration OIP Other in-Pavement Loop Site PEMA Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PSP Pennsylvania State Police PTC Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission RCRS Road Closure Reporting System RIMIS Regional Integrated Multimodal Information Sharing ROP Regional Operations Plan RPO Regional Planning Organization RTMC Regional Transportation Management Center RTMS Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor RWIS Road Weather Information System SAMS Signals Asset Management System STMC Statewide Transportation Management Center TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Approach TMC Transportation Management Center TSAMS Traffic Signal Asset Management System TSOP Transportation Systems Operations Plan UPWP Unified Planning Work Program USDOT United States Department of Transportation



Traffic Incidents

25%

Bad Weather

15%

Bottlenecks

40%

Poor Signal

Timing

5%

Work Zones

10%

Special Events/

Other

5%

11111111 BBBBBBBBaaaaaaaacccccccckkkkkkkkggggggggrrrrrrrroooooooouuuuuuuunnnnnnnndddddddd Congestion is caused when the demand volume for a transportation facility exceeds the capacity of that facility. Delay results which increases travel time and results in increased costs (driver/passenger time, wasted fuel, environmental costs). Eventually driver frustration occurs, which leads to unsafe maneuvers and the increased potential for crashes. According to the FHWA Report, “Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems”, July 2004, only 45 percent of congestion is recurring, meaning it occurs on a regular basis. This type of congestion generally consists of poor signal timing and bottlenecks. The majority, or 55 percent of congestion, is non-recurring congestion which includes incidents. Building capBuilding capBuilding capBuilding capacityacityacityacity is not the only option to reduce congestion. We must consider strategies to reduce demand as well as strategies to better manage capacity. This is consistent with the newly adopted Statewide Mobility Plan. Reducing demandReducing demandReducing demandReducing demand includes encouraging alternate modes of transportation, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes. Shared access and land uses that minimize vehicular trips are other means of reducing vehicular demand. Managing capacityManaging capacityManaging capacityManaging capacity can often be accomplished through Transportation Operations. Managing capacity means defining and implementing transportation operations that will likely maximize the efficiencies and effectiveness of the existing transportation infrastructure in order to provide a safe, reliable transportation system. Transportation operations includes the use intelligent transportation systems (closed circuit television (CCTV), dynamic message signs (DMS), etc), maximizing signal systems, information management, but also includes inter-agency communication and coordination.

By definition “Transportation By definition “Transportation By definition “Transportation By definition “Transportation OperationsOperationsOperationsOperations” represents ” represents ” represents ” represents

technologiestechnologiestechnologiestechnologies and and and and institutional institutional institutional institutional arrangementsarrangementsarrangementsarrangements that allow that allow that allow that allow transportation systems to transportation systems to transportation systems to transportation systems to

operate more closely to their operate more closely to their operate more closely to their operate more closely to their maximum design intent.maximum design intent.maximum design intent.maximum design intent.



Ultimately, many of these initiatives are intended to address recurring congestion and safety issues as well as non-recurring incidents including special events and activities, crashes, weather events, and homeland security events. This multi-faceted approach is necessary since transportation agencies today do not always 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. Operations 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 the South Central Region.

11111111........11111111 NNNNNNNNaaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll PPPPPPPPeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrssssssssppppppppeeeeeeeeccccccccttttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvveeeeeeee

SAFETEA-LU requires consideration of transportation systems operations and management from two primary levels in the planning process. First, long range transportation plans shall contain operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities. Second, within transportation management areas, the transportation planning process shall address congestion management through a process that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the transportation system.



FHWA is focusing on a number of high-priority efforts to help reduce congestion on the nation's highways in support of the US DOT Secretary’s Congestion Relief Initiative. Together, these efforts will provide information that allows more informed decisions, better coordination, and quicker action to avoid and reduce traffic congestion. Furthermore, the SAFETEA-LU Real-Time System Management Information Program (Section 1201) is to provide all states with the capability to monitor, in real time, the traffic and travel conditions of the major highways of the United States and to share that information to improve the security of the surface transportation system, to address congestion problems, to support improved response to weather events and surface transportation incidents, and to facilitate national and regional highway traveler information. Finally, the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Final Rule takes effect in October 2007. The Final Rule places increased emphasis on maintaining travel mobility in construction work areas through enhanced operations, traffic management, and public information strategies. The ROP clearly provides a strong link to the operations and management elements of the long range plan and the plan’s constituent projects and strategies support many of the elements related to the Congestion Initiative, Section 1201, and the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Final Rule.

11111111........22222222 SSSSSSSSttttttttaaaaaaaatttttttteeeeeeeewwwwwwwwiiiiiiiiddddddddeeeeeeee TTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPP IIIIIIIInnnnnnnniiiiiiiittttttttiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvveeeeeeee

The Transportation Systems Operations Plan, adopted in September 2005, defines PennDOT’s general framework for managing capacity along the Commonwealth’s roadways. Its development was a response to PennDOT Executive Goal No. 6, 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, � 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.



TSOP is intended to give PennDOT Engineering Districts, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) discretion to custom-tailor statewide priorities to the specialized needs of their region. An electronic version of the TSOP document is available at http://paits.org. TSOP, first and foremost, is an action plan of statewide projects. There are 19 projects 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 is being updated during calendar year 2007.

11111111........33333333 RRRRRRRROOOOOOOOPPPPPPPP SSSSSSSSccccccccooooooooppppppppeeeeeeee aaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd OOOOOOOObbbbbbbbjjjjjjjjeeeeeeeeccccccccttttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvveeeeeeeessssssss

The Regional Operations Plan for the South Central region 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 (see Appendix B 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. Regarding the last item, the ROP process is intended to link planning and operations. It emphasizes:

� Collaboration and coordination among regional planners and operators, and � Structured assessment of the planning and operational implications of expanded

management procedures, technology systems, and investments. While the Regional Architecture established an operational framework for standardization and consistency, the ROP will include more detail on needs and proposed projects and therefore serve as a planning and programming tool.



1.3.11.3.11.3.11.3.1 ROP Development RationaleROP Development RationaleROP Development RationaleROP Development Rationale

The ROP lays out the region’s short-term (two-year) and long-term (four-year) approach to transportation operations. It identifies, defines, and prioritizes operationally-focused projects for the region that are consistent with regional and statewide operations objectives. The ROP sets the stage for regional implementation of pertinent elements of TSOP. It also accommodates other regional initiatives reflective of the specialized needs of the region. The suggested approach for regional operations planning is intended to be flexible and descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That is, a general process for developing a ROP is recommended; regions should adapt this general approach to their specialized conditions and circumstances. Note that some regions have already completed key steps in the ROP process and may need to perform only selected activities. Ultimately, each region will need to document that a program of regional operations projects has been developed and adopted by its regional stakeholders consistent with TSOP. Regardless of whether the final document is called a “Regional Operations Plan,” the ROP process is necessary and must be coordinated with PennDOT’s Central Office.

1.3.21.3.21.3.21.3.2 ROP Timetable and AdoptionROP Timetable and AdoptionROP Timetable and AdoptionROP Timetable and Adoption

The ROP will feed into the Long-Range Plans (LRPs) in each region and the corresponding Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). 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 regional planning organizations (RPOs), encouraging these planning partners to adopt or endorse the plans. In addition, PennDOT Central Office should approve each ROP with concurrence from PennDOT Districts to maintain consistency. Regional plans for operations will be reflected in updates to the 2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and corresponding long range plans. It is expected that all ROPs will be updated at two-year intervals in advance of biannual TIP update cycles.

11111111........44444444 RRRRRRRROOOOOOOOPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMeeeeeeeetttttttthhhhhhhhooooooooddddddddoooooooollllllllooooooooggggggggyyyyyyyy

The South Central ROP was developed in accordance with the Final Regional Guidance Document, Planning for Transportation Operations in Pennsylvania (RGD) released by PennDOT on May 12, 2006. The process for preparing ROPs identified in the RGD is intended to be extremely flexible. It is designed as a seven-step series of structured procedures that can be adapted to the specialized needs of individual regions; however, it is noted that the development of a common document will help to ensure regional consistency with statewide directions and compatibility across regions. The following summarizes the seven-step process as it was applied to the South Central ROP.



Table Table Table Table 1111: Regional Operations Plan Process: Regional Operations Plan Process: Regional Operations Plan Process: Regional Operations Plan Process

Regional Guidance Document Regional Guidance Document Regional Guidance Document Regional Guidance Document StepStepStepStep North Central ROP DevelopmentNorth Central ROP DevelopmentNorth Central ROP DevelopmentNorth Central ROP Development

1. Establish a Regional Operations Forum

� A Regional Operations Forum was established in December 2006 consisting of PennDOT, Adams County Office of Planning and Development, Franklin County Planning Commission, Lancaster County Planning Commission, Lebanon County Planning Department, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, and York County Planning Commission representation, as well as other key stakeholders.

� The forum held coordination meetings on December 12, 2006 and May 29, 2007 to identify DRAFT needs and priorities and to develop an outreach plan.

2. Review/Update Plans & Document Projects

� The South Central ITS Regional Architecture as well as other pertinent documents were reviewed.

� Forum members and outreach participants provided input on operational plans and initiatives.

� Key statewide TSOP projects were reviewed with outreach participants as they relate to regional need areas.

3. Define Regional Needs & Priorities � Preliminary needs and priorities were developed by forum members. � Outreach participants provided input and resulting revisions to

needs and priorities.

4. Identify Regional Operations Concepts � This step (while planned) did not occur. � Forum and outreach participants preferred to discuss concepts as

they relate to specific projects.

5. Define Operations Projects � Projects were identified base on steps 1-4 and were circulated to

forum and outreach participants for review and comment.

6. Develop the Regional Program � This step documents and prioritizes the projects comprising the

regional program.

7. Prepare & Adopt a ROP � This is the final document summarizing the process and outcomes.

The following provides additional detail regarding each step. 1.1.1.1. EstablishEstablishEstablishEstablish a Regional a Regional a Regional a Regional Operations ForumOperations ForumOperations ForumOperations Forum Opportunities for outreach and stakeholder involvement were established through a Regional Forum—a representative decision-making body of knowledgeable planning partners and practitioners across the region responsible for planning and overseeing transportation operations, specifically development of the ROP. Meeting summaries from each of the Forum meetings are provided in Appendix D. 2.2.2.2. ReReReReviewviewviewview/Update Plans and Document Projects/Update Plans and Document Projects/Update Plans and Document Projects/Update Plans and Document Projects In preparing the ROP, the following items were reviewed:

•••• South Central Regional ITS Architecture (December 2004),

•••• South Central PA Regional Goods Movement Study (July 2006),

•••• Transportation Improvement Programs (June 2004),

•••• County Comprehensive Plans (various dates),

•••• Harrisburg Metro Area ITS Early Deployment Plan (June 1999),

•••• Transportation Systems Operations Plan (September 2005), and

•••• Mobility Plan (September 2006).



An inventory of operations projects—planned or underway—across the region was created and disseminated as guidance material to the Regional Forum. 3.3.3.3. DefinDefinDefinDefine Regional Needs and Prioritiese Regional Needs and Prioritiese Regional Needs and Prioritiese Regional Needs and Priorities The starting point for identifying critical needs was TSOP, followed by region-specific operational requirements addressed at the first forum workshop. Following this discussion, four operational areas were identified that captured these needs into defined groups (i.e., incident management, traveler information, traffic signals, and goods movement). 4.4.4.4. IdentifIdentifIdentifIdentify Regional Oy Regional Oy Regional Oy Regional Operations Conceptsperations Conceptsperations Conceptsperations Concepts 5.5.5.5. Define Operations ProjectsDefine Operations ProjectsDefine Operations ProjectsDefine Operations Projects Each of the operations areas was then assigned a task force that reviewed the list of needs associated with its respective operations area, and identified solutions to those needs in the form of potential “projects” (i.e., policies, planning studies or physical deployments). While the intent was to initially identify operations concepts for the region, stakeholders were more comfortable identifying specific projects that addressed a need area. These projects reflected the specialized conditions and circumstances of the region consistent with statewide guidance. Meeting summaries from each of the task force meetings are provided in Appendix E. 6.6.6.6. DevelopDevelopDevelopDevelop the Regional Program the Regional Program the Regional Program the Regional Program After the task forces completed their efforts, the Forum finalized the project list and prioritized the projects within and between the operations areas. As part of this decision-making process, the Forum considered other key issues including program leads, implementation schedules, and potential sources of funding. 7.7.7.7. Prepare and Adopt a Regional Operations PlanPrepare and Adopt a Regional Operations PlanPrepare and Adopt a Regional Operations PlanPrepare and Adopt a Regional Operations Plan

At the conclusion of the outreach process the ROP is to be documented and adopted by the planning partners in the region.

11111111........55555555 RRRRRRRROOOOOOOOPPPPPPPP OOOOOOOOvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrssssssssiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt aaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd MMMMMMMMaaaaaaaannnnnnnnaaaaaaaaggggggggeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnntttttttt

1.5.11.5.11.5.11.5.1 Regional Operations ForumRegional Operations ForumRegional Operations ForumRegional Operations Forum

The development of the South Central ROP was guided and directed by a Regional Operations Forum consisting of a decision-making body of knowledgeable planning partners and operational practitioners across the region. By including both planning and operations participation in the Regional Operations Forum, transportation systems operations can be better mainstreamed The following individuals were members of the Regional Operations Forum for the South Central ROP:



Table Table Table Table 2222: Regional: Regional: Regional: Regional Operations Forum Membership Operations Forum Membership Operations Forum Membership Operations Forum Membership

NameNameNameName Geographical Geographical Geographical Geographical RepresentationRepresentationRepresentationRepresentation

OrganizationOrganizationOrganizationOrganization AddressAddressAddressAddress Phone, Fax, EmailPhone, Fax, EmailPhone, Fax, EmailPhone, Fax, Email

Mr. Scott Nazar

ROP Project ROP Project ROP Project ROP Project ManagerManagerManagerManager

Region-Wide PennDOT Engineering

District 8-0

2140 Herr Street Harrisburg, PA 17103-1699

Phone: 717-772-1938 Fax: 717-772-0975

Email: [email protected]

Mr. Robert Conrad


District 8-0


Phone: 717-772-1935 Fax: 717-772-0975


Mr. Charles Goodhart


District 8-0


Phone: 717-787-2510 Fax: 717-772-0975


Mr. Gary DeBerry

State-Wide PennDOT Program Center

400 North Street 6th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Phone: 717-783-2434 Fax: 717-787-5247


Mr. Michael Pack

State-Wide PennDOT Bureau of

Highway Safety & Traffic Engineering

400 North Street 6th Floor


Phone: 717-783-4579 Fax: 717-703-0686


Mr. Chip Millard

Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry Counties

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

112 Market Street 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101-2015

Phone: 717-234-2639 Fax: 717-234-4058


Mr. Tom Kotay

Lebanon County Lebanon County Planning

Department

Room 206 Municipal Building 400 South 8th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042-6794

Phone: 717-272-0642 Fax: 717-


Ms. Carol Palmoski

Lancaster County Lancaster County

Planning Commission

50 North Duke Street P.O. Box 83480 Lancaster, PA 17608-3480

Phone: 717-299-8333 Fax: 717-295-3659


Mr. Don Bubb

York County York County Planning

Commission

28 East Market Street 3rd Floor York, PA

17401-1580

Phone: 717-771-9870 Fax: 717-


Mr. Andrew Merkel

Adams County Adams County Office of Planning & Development

19 Baltimore Street Suite 101

Gettysburg, PA 17325

Phone: 717-337-9824 Fax: 717- Email:

[email protected]

Mr. Phil Tarquino

Franklin County Franklin County Planning

Commission

218 North Second Street

Chambersburg, PA 17201

Phone: 717-264-4125 Fax: 717- Email:

[email protected]

Ms. Kay Carman

York County York County EMA

118 Pleasant Acres Road

York, PA 17402

Phone: 717-840-2990 Fax: 717-


Mr. Steve Smith

Fairview Township Fairview Township EMA

Phone: 717- Fax: 717- Email:

[email protected]

Mr. Lou Cortelazzi

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

State-Wide P.O. Box 67676 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7676

Phone: 717-939-9551 Fax: 717-986-8706


Mr. Allen Baldwin

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

State-Wide P.O. Box 67676 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7676

Phone: 717-920-7374 Fax: 717-986-8733




NameNameNameName Geographical Geographical Geographical Geographical RepresentationRepresentationRepresentationRepresentation

OrganizationOrganizationOrganizationOrganization AddressAddressAddressAddress Phone, Fax, EmailPhone, Fax, EmailPhone, Fax, EmailPhone, Fax, Email

Lieutenant Jacob Crider

Pennsylvania State Police State-Wide Phone: 717-671-7526

Fax: 717- Email: [email protected]

Lieutenant Dennis Wilson

Pennsylvania State Police State-Wide Phone: 717-671-7572

Fax: 717- Email: [email protected]

Mr. Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration

State-Wide

228 Walnut Street Room 508


Phone: 717-221-4422 Fax: 717-


1.5.21.5.21.5.21.5.2 Stakeholder OutreachStakeholder OutreachStakeholder OutreachStakeholder Outreach

Throughout the development of the South Central ROP, Regional Operations Forum members and other stakeholders participated in various outreach activities. A summary of each outreach activity is included as Appendix B. The table below summarizes key meetings and discussion topics. Table Table Table Table 3333: Stakeholder Outreach Activities: Stakeholder Outreach Activities: Stakeholder Outreach Activities: Stakeholder Outreach Activities

Meeting/ Activity Meeting/ Activity Meeting/ Activity Meeting/ Activity DateDateDateDate

ParticipationParticipationParticipationParticipation Discussion TopicDiscussion TopicDiscussion TopicDiscussion Topicssss

DecemberDecemberDecemberDecember 12121212, 2006, 2006, 2006, 2006 Introduction & Need Areas Identification Meeting

Regional Operations Forum

� Introductions � Update on regional operations projects � ROP overview � Possible operational needs areas � Needs identification � Summary � Discussion

February 13, 2007February 13, 2007February 13, 2007February 13, 2007 Introduction & Needs/Initial Project identification

Task Forces

� Introductions � Purpose of ROP � Current statewide initiatives � Operational need areas � Operational concepts and projects � Discussion

April 4, 2007April 4, 2007April 4, 2007April 4, 2007 Refine Project List

Task Forces � Review/refine operational projects for each need area � Discussion

May 29, 2007May 29, 2007May 29, 2007May 29, 2007 Finalize Project List


� Review Unified Incident Command Training program � Review and discuss candidate operational projects � Prioritize candidate operational projects � Discussion

August August August August 1, 20071, 20071, 20071, 2007 Draft ROP Report Review


� Review and discuss comments on draft ROP Report



22222222 RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll AAAAAAAAccccccccttttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvviiiiiiiittttttttiiiiiiiieeeeeeeessssssss aaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd IIIIIIIInnnnnnnniiiiiiiittttttttiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvveeeeeeeessssssss

22222222........11111111 DDDDDDDDeeeeeeeessssssssccccccccrrrrrrrriiiiiiiippppppppttttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn ooooooooffffffff tttttttthhhhhhhheeeeeeee RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn

The South Central Region is located in south-central Pennsylvania and consists of eight counties: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, and York. PennDOT Engineering District 8-0 encompasses the South Central Region. The capital of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, is located in this Region, and contains the headquarters for PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), the PSP, and the PTC.1

2.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.1 RegionRegionRegionRegionalalalal Demographics Demographics Demographics Demographics

Over 1.7 million people — or nearlynearlynearlynearly four four four fourteenteenteenteen percent of statewide residents of the Commonwealth percent of statewide residents of the Commonwealth percent of statewide residents of the Commonwealth percent of statewide residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of Pennsylvania of Pennsylvania of Pennsylvania ———— live in the live in the live in the live in the SoSoSoSouthuthuthuth Central Region Central Region Central Region Central Region. Nearly one-half of the Region’s population resides in Lancaster and York Counties, with the remainder scattered among the other six counties of the Region. The population of the city of Harrisburg is 48,950. The table to the right compares specific population traits in the South Central Region to those across Pennsylvania and the U.S. generally. For instance, the Region is nominally more homogeneous than either the statewide or national populations — only 9.2 percent of the South Central residents are classified as minorities. The Region’s population skews younger than the statewide median, but older than the nation. Also, mean family size and per capita income are similar to the corresponding state and national populations.2 The table to the right examines commuting patterns in the Region to the state and national commuting conditions. Nearly fourNearly fourNearly fourNearly four----outoutoutout----ofofofof----five five five five SouthSouthSouthSouth Central workers drive to Central workers drive to Central workers drive to Central workers drive to work alone, higher than the work alone, higher than the work alone, higher than the work alone, higher than the state and national “drivestate and national “drivestate and national “drivestate and national “drive----alone” ratesalone” ratesalone” ratesalone” rates. Ten percent of workers in the Region carpool to work, which is comparable to the statewide average. Only Only Only Only 0.90.90.90.9 percent of workers use public transportation; considerably less than percent of workers use public transportation; considerably less than percent of workers use public transportation; considerably less than percent of workers use public transportation; considerably less than state and national transit usage trendsstate and national transit usage trendsstate and national transit usage trendsstate and national transit usage trends. The average one-way commute time for South Central

1 Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT South Central ITS Architecture Region, March 2005 2 Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT South Central ITS Architecture Region, March 2005



Region workers is 22 minutes, which compares favorably to the 25-26 minutes for Pennsylvania and U.S. workers generally.3

2.1.22.1.22.1.22.1.2 Regional Transportation SystemRegional Transportation SystemRegional Transportation SystemRegional Transportation System

The South Central Region encompasses a substantial network of roadways. As reported in PennDOT’s 2002 Highway Statistics, the Region contains 16,660.2the Region contains 16,660.2the Region contains 16,660.2the Region contains 16,660.2 linea linea linea linear miles of roadway, r miles of roadway, r miles of roadway, r miles of roadway, signifying 13signifying 13signifying 13signifying 13.8 percent of the Commonwealth’s total linear mileage.8 percent of the Commonwealth’s total linear mileage.8 percent of the Commonwealth’s total linear mileage.8 percent of the Commonwealth’s total linear mileage. This includes 5,266.4 linear miles of roadway maintained by PennDOT, with the remaining road miles maintained by the PTC, municipalities, etc. Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) across the Region is substantial. Total DVMT on all roadways in the Region, as reported in the 2002 Highway Statistics was approximately 45.8 million miles. The DVMT on PennDOT roadways was approximately 35.7 million miles.4

Corridors of significance were considered by the Regional Operations Forum during the ROP process. The following corridors of significance were identified in the Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT South Central ITS Architecture Region.

3 Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT South Central ITS Architecture Region, March 2005 4 Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT South Central ITS Architecture Region, March 2005



Table Table Table Table 4444: South Central Region Corridors of Significance: South Central Region Corridors of Significance: South Central Region Corridors of Significance: South Central Region Corridors of Significance

ClassClassClassClass RouteRouteRouteRoute CountyCountyCountyCounty Average Average Average Average

Daily TrafficDaily TrafficDaily TrafficDaily Traffic Notes and ConsiderationsNotes and ConsiderationsNotes and ConsiderationsNotes and Considerations

Interstate 76 (I-76)

Cumberland Dauphin Franklin Lancaster Lebanon York

22-28K 27-32K 22-23K 28-38K 27K

28-32K

� East-west interstate toll facility connecting Philadelphia to Ohio

� Significant commerce activity

Interstate 78 (I-78) Lebanon 35-42K

� East-west interstate connecting Harrisburg area to New York/New Jersey

� Significant commerce activity and high truck percentages

Interstate 81 (I-81)

Cumberland Dauphin Franklin Lebanon

40-79K 55-92K 43-53K 30-55K

� Key north-south interstate corridor extending from Tennessee to Canada

� Significant commerce activity and very high truck percentages

Interstate 83 (I-83) Cumberland Dauphin York

62-116K 70-116K 42-68K

� North-south interstate connecting Harrisburg area to Baltimore, MD

� Provides connection from Interstate 81 to Interstate 695

InterstatesInterstatesInterstatesInterstates

Interstate 283 (I-283) Dauphin 58-64K

� East-west interstate connecting Interstate 83 to PA 283 and Pennsylvania Turnpike

� Only approximately five miles long

US Route 11 (US 11) Cumberland Franklin

2.7-35K 7.5-15K

� North-south route connecting south central and northeast part of state

� More localized traffic

US Route 15 (US 15) Adams

Cumberland York

14-20K 33-48K 20-38K

� North-south route connecting south central and north central parts of state

� More localized traffic in south central PA

� Used as a primary route to New York and Canada

US Route 22 (US 22) Dauphin Lebanon

8.3-39K 7.7-9.9K

� East-west route connecting Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Allentown

� Mostly localized traffic � Parallels Interstate 78 from

Harrisburg to Allentown

US Route 30 (US 30)

Adams Franklin Lancaster

York

6.4-18K 4.1-26K 19-76K 13-56K

� East-west route connecting Pittsburgh and Philadelphia

� Traverses Chambersburg, Gettysburg, York, and Lancaster in the south central region

� Mostly localized traffic and significant tourist traffic

U.S. RoutesU.S. RoutesU.S. RoutesU.S. Routes

US Route 209 (US 209) Dauphin 4.9-8.6K

� East-west route that begins in Millersburg and extends into New York

� Provides connection from the northern part of the region to Interstate 81





US Route 222 (US 222) Lancaster 1.4-50K

� East-west route extending from Bethlehem to Maryland through Lancaster

� Carries tourist traffic to Lancaster from northeast PA

US Route 322 (US 322) Dauphin Lancaster Lebanon

15-51K 8.1-21K 8.5-16K

� East-west route extending from Ohio through Philadelphia to Atlantic City, NJ

� Provides connection to Interstate 80 � Primary route between Harrisburg and

State College

US Route 422 (US 422) Dauphin Lebanon

19-21K 7.1-18K

� East-west route that begins in Hershey and terminates at Valley Forge

� Mostly localized traffic

US Route 11/15 (US 11/15)

Cumberland Perry

10-37K 12-24K

� North-south route originating in Harrisburg and terminating in Shamokin Dam

� Carries traffic between south central and north central PA

� Localized and long haul traffic

US Route 22/322 (US 22/322)

Dauphin Perry

21-57K 14-33

� East-west route originating in Harrisburg and terminating in Lewistown

� Part of Harrisburg-State College corridor

PA Route 34 (PA 34) Adams

Cumberland Perry

2.5-9.2K 4.2-18K 1.7-16K

� North-south route originating in Gettysburg and terminating near Liverpool

� Provides connection between Gettysburg and Carlisle

PA Route 72 (PA 72) Lancaster Lebanon

13-19K 3.4-19K

� North-south route originating at Interstate 81 near Lickdale and terminating in Lancaster

� Provides connection between Lancaster and Lebanon, and Lebanon to Interstate 81

PA Route 74 (PA 74) Cumberland

Perry York

2.1-15K 11-23K 1.9-28K

� North-south route that extends from Maryland to Port Royal

� Provides connection between York and Carlisle

PA Route 94 (PA 94) Adams

Cumberland York

2.9-23K 3.9K

13-23K

� North-south route that extends from Maryland to Mount Holly Springs

� Provides connection from Hanover to Carlisle area

PA Route 97 (PA 97) Adams 7.5-9.3K � North-south route that extends from

Maryland and terminates in Gettysburg

PA RoutesPA RoutesPA RoutesPA Routes

PA Route 147 (PA 147) Dauphin 3.0-17K

� North-south route that extends from US 22/322 north of Harrisburg to Interstate 80/Interstate 81 in Northumberland County

� Provides access to northern Dauphin County from Harrisburg



Traffic Incidents

25%

Bad Weather

15%

Bottlenecks

40%

Poor Signal

Timing

5%

Work Zones

10%

Special Events/

Other

5%



PA Route 283 (PA 283) Dauphin Lancaster

44-56K 39-51K

� East-west route extending from Harrisburg to Lancaster

� Carries both commuter and tourist traffic

PA Route 501 (PA 501) Lancaster Lebanon

8.2-22K 6.3-8.2K

� North-south route originating in Lancaster and terminating in Pine Grove

� Provides access to Interstate 78 from Lancaster

PA Route 581 (PA 581) Cumberland 37-71K

� East-west route connecting Interstates 81 and 83

� Serves commuter and regional traffic � Forms part of the Capital Beltway

Source: PennDOT Statewide Traffic Volume MapSource: PennDOT Statewide Traffic Volume MapSource: PennDOT Statewide Traffic Volume MapSource: PennDOT Statewide Traffic Volume Map

The Region also contains a number of intermodal facilities and service providers supporting passenger and freight traffic, major tourist attractions, and transit providers as detailed in the following table. Table Table Table Table 5555: Intermodal Facilities, Tourist Attractions, and Transit Providers: Intermodal Facilities, Tourist Attractions, and Transit Providers: Intermodal Facilities, Tourist Attractions, and Transit Providers: Intermodal Facilities, Tourist Attractions, and Transit Providers

Intermodal FacilitiesIntermodal FacilitiesIntermodal FacilitiesIntermodal Facilities Tourist AttraTourist AttraTourist AttraTourist Attractionsctionsctionsctions Transit ProvidersTransit ProvidersTransit ProvidersTransit Providers

Amtrak Rail/Intermodal Passenger Amtrak Passenger Rail Service Enola Rail Yard Harrisburg Transportation Center Lancaster Train Station Lucknow Intermodal Yard Rutherford Intermodal Yard Harrisburg International Airport (HIA)

Hershey Attractions Lancaster County Attractions Historic Gettysburg Capital City Attractions

Capitol Area Transit (CAT) Chambersburg Transit Authority (CTA) County of Lebanon Transit Authority (COLT) Rabbit Transit Red Rose Transit Authority (RRTA) Various on-demand paratransit services Various on-demand senior transit services

2.1.32.1.32.1.32.1.3 Regional Regional Regional Regional Perspective on CongestionPerspective on CongestionPerspective on CongestionPerspective on Congestion

The South Central ROP was developed within the context of regional and national congestion. Throughout the development process regional congestion was compared with national trends. There are two basic types of congestion to be considered – recurring and nonrecurring and nonrecurring and nonrecurring and non----recurringrecurringrecurringrecurring. Recurring congestion takes place virtually every day when and where traffic demand exceeds the existing roadway capacity. This is sometimes called peak period or “drive time” congestion. Non-recurring congestion is caused by random events like accidents, roadway hazards, highway construction, adverse weather and/or special events. Both need to be addressed in different ways to effectively deal with the full spectrum of congestion.



According to the FHWA Report, “Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems”, July 2004, only 45 percent of congestion is recurring, meaning it occurs on a regular basis. This type of congestion generally consists of poor signal timing and bottlenecks. The majority, or 55 percent of congestion, is non-recurring congestion. In general, stakeholders believed that most congestion in the region fell in line with the national norms.

22222222........22222222 IIIIIIIITTTTTTTTSSSSSSSS aaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss AAAAAAAAccccccccttttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvviiiiiiiittttttttiiiiiiiieeeeeeeessssssss aaaaaaaatttttttt DDDDDDDDiiiiiiiissssssssttttttttrrrrrrrriiiiiiiicccccccctttttttt LLLLLLLLeeeeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeeeellllllll

PennDOT District 8-0 is in the middle of a substantial ITS deployment for the Harrisburg Metro Area. This is an indication of the region’s recognition of the importance of transportation operations. They face similar issues that have challenged other regions including resources (especially manpower), inter-agency coordination, and operations infrastructure (communications, etc.).

2.2.12.2.12.2.12.2.1 Current and Planned DeploymentsCurrent and Planned DeploymentsCurrent and Planned DeploymentsCurrent and Planned Deployments

District 8-0 has recently embarked on an aggressive ITS deployment strategy that includes supplementing existing devices with additional DMS, CCTV, HAR, and an upgrade to the Traffic Management Center (TMC) located in the District headquarters. Primarily focused on Cumberland, Dauphin, and Franklin Counties, the plan involves Interstates 81, 83, and 283, US Routes 322, 22/322, 15, and 11/15, and PA Routes 283 and 581. The following table outlines the current number of devices compared to the number to be operational by 2009 as a result of the Harrisburg Area ITS Project, and Figure 1 illustrates the approximate location of existing and planned devices. Table Table Table Table 6666: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments

Type of DeviceType of DeviceType of DeviceType of Device No. of Existing DeploymentsNo. of Existing DeploymentsNo. of Existing DeploymentsNo. of Existing Deployments No. of Deployments by 2009No. of Deployments by 2009No. of Deployments by 2009No. of Deployments by 2009

Permanent DMS 13 35

Semi-Portable Message Boards 18 24

CCTV 2 46

HAR 3 14

The existing deployment includes an Automated Real-Time Message System (ARMS) on Interstate 83 which consists of a combination of CCTV, DMS, and detection devices for the purpose of identifying congestion and relaying information to the motorist regarding travel conditions. Upgrades to the TMC include the installation of a video display wall, operator work stations, and associated equipment to monitor and control all devices. The functions of the TMC include:

� Detecting and verifying incidents using CCTV � Providing traveler information via DMS and HAR � Coordinating deployment of freeway service patrols � Coordinating incident response with other agencies.

The District also plans an expansion to the existing Capital Beltway Patrol. Established in 2000, the program currently consists of two service patrol vehicles covering Interstates 81, 83, and 283 of the Capital Beltway (35 miles). The expansion would include an additional service patrol



FigFigFigFigure ure ure ure 1111: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments: Existing and Planned ITS Deployments

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1 Existing and Planned ITS Existing and Planned ITS Existing and Planned ITS Existing and Planned ITS

DeploymentsDeploymentsDeploymentsDeployments



Figure 1 (cont.)Figure 1 (cont.)Figure 1 (cont.)Figure 1 (cont.) Existing and Planned Existing and Planned Existing and Planned Existing and Planned ITS ITS ITS ITS

DeploymentsDeploymentsDeploymentsDeployments



vehicle to cover the SR 15 and PA 581 portions of the Capital Beltway, for a total of 45 miles. The patrols provide the following services:

� Assist with disabled motorists � Provide simple mechanical repairs � Provide cell phone to call for help � Provide tow to safe pull-off area � Provide traffic control at crash sites � Provide real-time traffic information to TMC staff � Provide directions and maps to lost motorists � Provide safety and security to stranded motorists.

2.2.22.2.22.2.22.2.2 Current and Planned Operational InfrastructureCurrent and Planned Operational InfrastructureCurrent and Planned Operational InfrastructureCurrent and Planned Operational Infrastructure

Traffic Management Center The District has recently relocated and upgraded the Traffic Management Center (TMC) within the existing building. A video-wall display matrix has been installed that receives streaming video data over Internet Protocol (IP) and displays the selected images on the display cubes. One row of operator consoles has been placed in front of the video wall, which consists of two operator stations, each with two video monitors. Each operator station has control software used for managing DMSs and viewing incident data from traffic flow detectors. The ITS team currently is comprised of four members to cover TMC tasks. TMC coverage is 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM for normal workdays. Coverage for other hours and for emergencies is arranged on an as-needed basis. It is anticipated that four additional permanent or contract staff will be needed when longer coverage is required and when the District assumes the role as the Regional Traffic Management Center (RTMC). Communications Communication to existing and planned field devices is accomplished through a combination of dial-up telephone, cellular telephone, WiFi, Fractional T1 and T1 lines. There is no deployment of fiber optic cable, although it is suggested that this option be considered in the future along the Capital Beltway. A DS3 connection with the PennDOT Server Farm is the primary electronic data connection with other PennDOT locations and outside locations. The ITS computer network is not connected to the PennDOT intranet. Dial-up telephone modems, integrated into computers, or as stand-alone units, have been used to communicate with field devices such as DMS, HAR, and RWIS. The use of these dial-up modems, when the related computer is connected to the PennDOT intranet, is not in compliance with the security measures stipulated in the Office of Administration (OA) Information Technology Bulletins (ITBs). A procedure is put in place to replace these modems, where relevant, with “Call Back” modems. “Call Back” modems are equipped with the functionality of blocking incoming calls, verifying the caller ID against a pre-configured authorization list when called, and subsequently initiating a “call back” connection process if the caller is authenticated. By virtue of this security feature, “Call Back” modems are considered to be in compliance with the related ITBs.



Coordination There is currently no arrangement for electronic sharing of information with any entity outside the District, although there is interest in this area. The District coordinates operations with other agencies by voice phone and radio as needed, including:

� Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) � District County Maintenance Offices � Districts 2-0, 3-0, and 9-0 � Maryland DOT � Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) � Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) � County Emergency Management Coordinators � Local 911 Centers.

2.2.32.2.32.2.32.2.3 Maintenance and BudgetingMaintenance and BudgetingMaintenance and BudgetingMaintenance and Budgeting

Maintenance on equipment is mainly provided as the warranty part of the related installation contracts, which typically last two years. A District-wide maintenance contract is in place for equipment outside of the warranty arrangements.

22222222........33333333 OOOOOOOOtttttttthhhhhhhheeeeeeeerrrrrrrr RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll IIIIIIIInnnnnnnniiiiiiiittttttttiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiivvvvvvvveeeeeeeessssssss

As District 8-0 entirely encompasses the South Central Region, the District initiatives are by default regional in nature. However, beyond the District plans discussed earlier, there is an effort underway to better plan for the future of goods movement in the South Central Region by developing a profile of current and future freight movement, identifying critical issues and possible strategies, solicit feedback and educate concerned stakeholders, and create multi-jurisdictional, public private partnerships. Forecasts of goods movement through the year 2030 project an increase of nearly 80 percent for truck traffic, which would have obvious operational impacts to the region. The South Central Pennsylvania Regional Goods Movement Study completed in July 2006 identifies several strategies that have operational components including truck driver traveler information, the establishment of a goods movement forum, and hazmat training for incident responders.

22222222........44444444 RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrroooooooocccccccceeeeeeeessssssssssssssss

The transportation planning process 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 that address them. Key issues addressed by this process include:

� Identifying Unified Planning Work Program (where required) activities to be conducted yearly,

� Updating and implementing long range transportation plans, � Developing and adopting Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). � Undertaking transportation (air quality) conformity analyses and determinations (where

required), and � The continued integration of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and the

Intermodal Management System into the planning and programming processes (where required).



Statewide planning and programming guidance is accessible at: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/CPDM.nsf/CPMDHomepage?openframeset&Frame=main&src=HomePagePrgDevManagement?ReadForm The site provides planning partner, PennDOT, FHWA and FTA contacts for each region as well as the TIP for each planning partner. Specific guidance related to the 2007 Transportation Program is accessible at: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/Cpdm/STC/TransProgramLists/2007TYPNarrative.pdf The 2007 Transportation Program provides an overview of the program development process and federal requirements and includes a detailed description of each planning partner.

2.4.12.4.12.4.12.4.1 Regional Planning PartnersRegional Planning PartnersRegional Planning PartnersRegional Planning Partners

The South Central region includes six planning partners comprised of three MPOs, two RPOs, and one independent county, all falling within one PennDOT Engineering District. Table Table Table Table 7777: South Central Region Planning Partners: South Central Region Planning Partners: South Central Region Planning Partners: South Central Region Planning Partners

PartnerPartnerPartnerPartner

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription

Transportation Operations Planning and Transportation Operations Planning and Transportation Operations Planning and Transportation Operations Planning and ProgramProgramProgramProgramming Considerationsming Considerationsming Considerationsming Considerations

PennDOT Engineering PennDOT Engineering PennDOT Engineering PennDOT Engineering District 8District 8District 8District 8----0000

PennDOT Engineering District 8-0 is situated in south central Pennsylvania and covers eight counties including: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, and York.

The District is the largest in Pennsylvania in terms of state road mileage (5,331 miles) and the number of state bridges (3,483). The majority of projects are related to bridge or highway construction, and the District coordinates with the planning partners to identify transportation needs.

Adams County Adams County Adams County Adams County Transportation Planning Transportation Planning Transportation Planning Transportation Planning Organization (ACTPO)Organization (ACTPO)Organization (ACTPO)Organization (ACTPO)

The Adams County Transportation Planning Organization (ACTPO) is one of seven Regional Planning Organizations within the state. ACTPO represents all of the municipalities within Adams County.

Key transportation projects on the ACTPO TIP include the US 15 and US 30 Interchange Improvement, the US 30 Passing Lanes, the US 15 Blue Gray Highway Resurfacing, the PA 94 North Widening, and several bridge projects. The 2007 TIP and Twelve Year Program can be accessed at http;//www.adamscounty.us

Franklin CountyFranklin CountyFranklin CountyFranklin County Franklin County is the only independent county within the state. The Franklin County transportation program includes all of the municipalities in the county except for a portion which is within the boundary of the Hagerstown MPO.

Key transportation projects on the Franklin County TIP include the Restoration of I-81 from the Maryland State Line to MP 6, the Replacement and Rehabilitation of Bridges on I-81 from MP 6 to MP 20, and the PA 997 Bridge over I-81. The Franklin County Planning Commission website is located at http://www.planning/co.franklin/pa.us

Harrisburg Area Harrisburg Area Harrisburg Area Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS)Transportation Study (HATS)Transportation Study (HATS)Transportation Study (HATS)

The Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) is one of fifteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the state. HATS covers all of the municipalities in Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry

Key transportation projects on the HATS TIP include the completion of the New Kingston Bypass, the Reconstruction of the US 15/PA 581 Interchange, Walnut Bottom Road Improvements, and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation projects.



PartnerPartnerPartnerPartner

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription

Transportation Operations Planning and Transportation Operations Planning and Transportation Operations Planning and Transportation Operations Planning and ProgramProgramProgramProgramming Considerationsming Considerationsming Considerationsming Considerations

Counties, plus Palmyra Borough and North and South Londonderry Townships in Lebanon County.

The 2007 TIP and Twelve Year Program can be accessed at http://www.tcrpc-pa.org

Lancaster CountyLancaster CountyLancaster CountyLancaster County Lancaster County is one of fifteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the state. The Lancaster County transportation program covers all of the municipalities within the county.

Key transportation projects on the Lancaster County TIP include the US 30 and 222 Preventive Maintenance Projects, the Lancaster City Amtrak Station Rehabilitation, US 30 East of PA 896, the PA 23 Corridor, and several bridge replacements/rehabilitations. The 2007 TIP and Twelve Year Program can be accessed at http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us

Lebanon CountyLebanon CountyLebanon CountyLebanon County Lebanon County is one of fifteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the state. The Lancaster County transportation program covers all of the municipalities in the county, except for Palmyra Borough and North and South Londonderry Townships which are included in HATS.

Key transportation projects on the Lebanon County TIP include the I-78 Overhead and Mainline Bridges, the Schaefferstown Bypass, the Allentown Boulevard Restoration, and several bridge replacements/rehabilitations. The 2007 TIP and Twelve Year Program can be accessed at http//dsf.pacounties.org/lebanon/

York Area Metropolitan York Area Metropolitan York Area Metropolitan York Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Planning Organization Planning Organization Planning Organization

(YAMPO)(YAMPO)(YAMPO)(YAMPO)

The York Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (YAMPO) is one of fifteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the state. YAMPO covers all of the municipalities within York County.

Key transportation projects on the York County TIP include I-83 Exit 4, I-83 Exits 18 and 19, the US 15/PA 74 Interchange, the PA 94 Widening, the Mount Rose/East Prospect Road Project, the Loganville Bypass, and several bridge projects. The 2007 TIP and Twelve Year Program can be accessed at http://www.ycpc.org

MPOs are required to develop and maintain a Long Range Transportation Plan of at least 20 years and a Transportation Improvement Program that covers four years. MPOs are supported by Federal and State Planning Funds. While Federal Law does not require a rural transportation planning and programming process, RPOs and independent counties serve a similar function as MPOs in Pennsylvania. The only Federal requirement is that the state consult and coordinate with local officials in the non-metropolitan areas of the state. The following identifies the requirements of the planning partners: Table Table Table Table 8888: Transportation Planning Requirements: Transportation Planning Requirements: Transportation Planning Requirements: Transportation Planning Requirements

Planning Planning Planning Planning Process Process Process Process ActivityActivityActivityActivity

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription MPOsMPOsMPOsMPOs RPOs and RPOs and RPOs and RPOs and

Independent Independent Independent Independent CountiesCountiesCountiesCounties

Unified Planning Work

Program (UPWP)

The UPWP identifies transportation planning activities and establishes the priorities to be conducted during each state fiscal year. Currently the UPWP identifies the individual programs and initiatives to be undertaken within six broader program areas: Data Systems and Modeling, Transportation Plans and Programs (including Environmental Justice Report), Modal Planning and System Operations/Management, Projects to assist PennDOT, Outreach and Coordination (including Public Participation and Communications), and Program Administration. The UPWP also lists the federally-funded transportation studies and tasks to be performed by other regional partners

Yes



Planning Planning Planning Planning Process Process Process Process ActivityActivityActivityActivity

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription MPOsMPOsMPOsMPOs RPOs and RPOs and RPOs and RPOs and

Independent Independent Independent Independent CountiesCountiesCountiesCounties

during the upcoming fiscal year. Also identified are the significant state or local planning activities to be conducted without federal funds in the region during the fiscal year, as well as the source of funds and responsible agency.

Long Range Transportation Plan (20 year)

Regional long-range transportation planning is required by the government through the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) as a prerequisite for federal funding. However, the benefits of planning extend beyond simply complying with federal mandates. First, the planning process provides an opportunity for citizens, government officials, planners, and associated stakeholders to come together to visualize the region’s future, identify trends taking place within the region, and set goals for what the region hopes to achieve within the next 20 or more years. Overall, the long-range transportation plan—both the document and the process— is a chance for a region to invest in its identity and future. Given the scale and longevity of investment and the impact it has on a region’s economy and quality of life, the transportation system demands thoughtful planning. A long-range transportation plan is critical in helping a region realize its vision for the future.

Yes Yes

Transportation Improvement Program (4

year)

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.

Yes Yes

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.

Yes Yes

22222222........55555555 IIIIIIIInnnnnnnntttttttteeeeeeeeggggggggrrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg tttttttthhhhhhhheeeeeeee RRRRRRRROOOOOOOOPPPPPPPP iiiiiiiinnnnnnnnttttttttoooooooo tttttttthhhhhhhheeeeeeee RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll PPPPPPPPllllllllaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrroooooooocccccccceeeeeeeessssssssssssssss

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 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 inputs to future TSOP and Regional ITS Architecture updates, as well as PennDOT’s Statewide LRP.



Operations 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 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 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 planners 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: � Enhanced transportation network reliability, � Improved emergency preparedness, � Greater access to information, and � Consideration of a broader array of potential travel alternatives.

The ROP, once adopted by each region, 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. 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.



33333333 RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss FFFFFFFFrrrrrrrraaaaaaaammmmmmmmeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwoooooooorrrrrrrrkkkkkkkk

33333333........11111111 RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss SSSSSSSSttttttttrrrrrrrraaaaaaaatttttttteeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiieeeeeeeessssssss

The suggested approach for regional operations planning was intended to be flexible, rather than prescriptive. That is, a general process for developing a ROP was recommended which the South Central Region could adapt to its specialized conditions and circumstances. Results of the ROP process included the definition of four “operations areas” that described the region’s needs. These four operations areas are:

� Incident management, � Traveler information, � Traffic signals, and � Goods movement.

Projects for each operations area were identified through respective Task Forces with concurrence of the ROF. The final ROP initiatives fall into three types of “projects:” plans/studies, deployments, and institutional issues. In the South Central region, the ROP projects that were considered to be most important involved the deployment of devices in areas where operational ITS elements are currently lacking. While the major focus in recent history has been on the Harrisburg Metro Area, it was felt that the expansion of this program to other counties in the South Central Region was important, and some work has been initiated to identify the types and locations of devices to be deployed. It is important to note that if funding is available, the additional deployments could be accomplished under the current contract mechanism for the Harrisburg Area ITS Project, as long as construction is started before DATEDATEDATEDATE. In many cases, ROP participants did not believe that there was adequate information currently available to justify advancing specific projects. For example, while most believed that traffic signal corridor upgrade projects would likely be a genuinely good investment, they did not believe that they had adequate information to determine which corridors might be the best investments. The forum group therefore opted to conduct a study to investigate which corridors would be best for signal upgrades prior to making deployment decisions. Discussions by the task forces and forum produced 20 candidate projects that were considered for the final plan, with descriptions highlighting lead and support agencies, linkages to TSOP efforts, estimated costs, benefits, and timeframes for completion, among other criteria. Operations areas and individual ROP projects are identified on the following pages, and detailed ROP project information can be located in Appendix A. It should be noted that there is sometimes significant overlap in the needs areas addressed as part of a particular candidate project.

33333333........22222222 IIIIIIIInnnnnnnncccccccciiiiiiiiddddddddeeeeeeeennnnnnnntttttttt MMMMMMMMaaaaaaaannnnnnnnaaaaaaaaggggggggeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnntttttttt OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss AAAAAAAArrrrrrrreeeeeeeeaaaaaaaa

The Incident Management (IM) 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:

� Deploying the regional infrastructure and services necessary for managing incidents. � Consistency of incident management policies and procedures so that communications,

responses, and protocols are uniform and seamless. � Strengthening relationships among incident management partners.

The original IM needs and finalized initiatives are listed in Table 9, demonstrating the translation from regional operations needs to defined projects that are planned to be addressed by the ROP. Table Table Table Table 9999: Incident Management Regional Needs and Projects: Incident Management Regional Needs and Projects: Incident Management Regional Needs and Projects: Incident Management Regional Needs and Projects

IM NeedsIM NeedsIM NeedsIM Needs IM ProjectsIM ProjectsIM ProjectsIM Projects Brief DescriptionBrief DescriptionBrief DescriptionBrief Description

IM 1IM 1IM 1IM 1 South Central PA ITS South Central PA ITS South Central PA ITS South Central PA ITS Deployment PlDeployment PlDeployment PlDeployment Plan Updatean Updatean Updatean Update

Update of the Harrisburg Metro ITS Early Deployment Plan (EDP) to include the entire South Central Region.

IM 2IM 2IM 2IM 2 Lebanon County ITS Lebanon County ITS Lebanon County ITS Lebanon County ITS DeploymentDeploymentDeploymentDeployment

Deployment of DMS, CCTV, and HAR devices along I-78 and I-81.

IM 3IM 3IM 3IM 3 Lancaster County ITS Lancaster County ITS Lancaster County ITS Lancaster County ITS DeploymentDeploymentDeploymentDeployment

Deployment of DMS, CCTV, and HAR devices along PA 283, SR 30, and SR 222.

IM 4IM 4IM 4IM 4 York County ITS DeploymentYork County ITS DeploymentYork County ITS DeploymentYork County ITS Deployment Deployment of DMS, CCTV, and HAR along I-83 and SR 30.

IM 5IM 5IM 5IM 5 Dauphin County ITS Dauphin County ITS Dauphin County ITS Dauphin County ITS DeploymentDeploymentDeploymentDeployment

Deployment of DMS and CCTV devices along I-81, SR 22/322, Mountain Road, PA 283, South Front Street, and I-83.

IM 6IM 6IM 6IM 6 Cumberland County ITS Cumberland County ITS Cumberland County ITS Cumberland County ITS DeploymentDeploymentDeploymentDeployment

Deployment of CCTV devices along I-81 and PA 581.

IM 7IM 7IM 7IM 7 Assess Providing CCTV Feed Assess Providing CCTV Feed Assess Providing CCTV Feed Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 Centersto 911 Centersto 911 Centersto 911 Centers

Evaluate need and identify architecture and associated costs of providing CCTV feed to 911 centers.

IM 8IM 8IM 8IM 8 Maintain Regional Operations Maintain Regional Operations Maintain Regional Operations Maintain Regional Operations Forum (ROF)Forum (ROF)Forum (ROF)Forum (ROF)

Maintain the ROF established for the development of the ROP.

IM 9IM 9IM 9IM 9 Incorporate ITS into the Incorporate ITS into the Incorporate ITS into the Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning ProcessProject Planning ProcessProject Planning ProcessProject Planning Process

Identify ways of incorporate operations into the PennDOT and local project planning process

IM 10IM 10IM 10IM 10 Expand Unified Incident Expand Unified Incident Expand Unified Incident Expand Unified Incident Command TrainingCommand TrainingCommand TrainingCommand Training

Expand training to include other regional stakeholders and additional PennDOT staff.

� Designated detours should be defined.

� Traffic management for detours is important.

� Need to identify agency roles based on facility type.

� Managing incidents to reduce secondary crashes is important.

� Congestion and safety in work zones needs to be addresses.

� Need to identify device deployment needs.

� The function of the Regional Traffic Management Center (RTMC) needs defined.

� Information needs to be shared between PennDOT, PTC, PSP, and MPOs.

� Need to address specific weather need areas (fog, wind, etc.).

IM 11IM 11IM 11IM 11 Contract with Heavy Tow Contract with Heavy Tow Contract with Heavy Tow Contract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Truck Operators for Service Truck Operators for Service Truck Operators for Service PatrolsPatrolsPatrolsPatrols

Contract to allow larger vehicles to be removed during minor incidents

Figure 2 illustrates the locations of proposed ITS deployments as part of IM 2 through IM 6. See Appendix A for complete project descriptions.



Figure Figure Figure Figure 2222: Proposed ITS Depl: Proposed ITS Depl: Proposed ITS Depl: Proposed ITS Deploymentsoymentsoymentsoyments

33333333........33333333

Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2Figure 2

Proposed ITS DeploymentsProposed ITS DeploymentsProposed ITS DeploymentsProposed ITS Deployments



Figure 2 (cont.)Figure 2 (cont.)Figure 2 (cont.)Figure 2 (cont.)

Proposed ITS DeploymentsProposed ITS DeploymentsProposed ITS DeploymentsProposed ITS Deployments



33333333........33333333 TTTTTTTTrrrrrrrraaaaaaaavvvvvvvveeeeeeeelllllllleeeeeeeerrrrrrrr IIIIIIIInnnnnnnnffffffffoooooooorrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss AAAAAAAArrrrrrrreeeeeeeeaaaaaaaa

The Traveler Information (TI) 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, it will:

� Expand traveler information dissemination. � Expand the types of traveler information available to the

public. � Define the means for apprising the public of available

traveler information.

The original TI needs and finalized initiatives are listed in Table 10, demonstrating the translation from regional operations needs to defined projects that are planned to be addressed by the ROP. Again, it should be noted that many of the projects identified under Incident Management also address Traveler Information needs. Table Table Table Table 10101010: Traveler Information Regional Needs and Projects: Traveler Information Regional Needs and Projects: Traveler Information Regional Needs and Projects: Traveler Information Regional Needs and Projects

TITITITI Needs Needs Needs Needs TITITITI Projects Projects Projects Projects Brief DescriptionBrief DescriptionBrief DescriptionBrief Description

TITITITI 1 1 1 1 Upgrade PennDOT District 8Upgrade PennDOT District 8Upgrade PennDOT District 8Upgrade PennDOT District 8----0 0 0 0 WebsiteWebsiteWebsiteWebsite

The website should be upgraded to include available traveler information.

� Traveler information must be addresses on a regional level (100 mile radius from incident).

� Travel time and specific delay information should be provided for routine congestion.

� Disseminating information to tourists is important.

� Need to disseminate weather information to motorists.

� Traveler information relating to delay or length of work zone is important.

TITITITI 2 2 2 2 Institute Traveler Information Institute Traveler Information Institute Traveler Information Institute Traveler Information Public Relations CampaignPublic Relations CampaignPublic Relations CampaignPublic Relations Campaign

Outreach should be designed to inform the public regarding available traveler information.

See Appendix A for complete project descriptions.

33333333........44444444 TTTTTTTTrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaffffffffffffffffiiiiiiiicccccccc SSSSSSSSiiiiiiiiggggggggnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss AAAAAAAArrrrrrrreeeeeeeeaaaaaaaa

The Traffic Signals (TS) Operations Area focuses on upgrades to traffic signals and the operation of signals at the corridor and regional levels. In particular it:

� Pilots an integrated freeway/arterial traffic signal management program

� Addresses the need for prioritizing upgrades to key corridors

� Identifies operations and maintenance opportunities. The original TS needs and finalized initiatives are listed in Table 11, demonstrating the translation from regional operations needs to defined projects that are planned to be addressed by the ROP.



Table Table Table Table 11111111: Traffic Signal Regional Needs and Projects: Traffic Signal Regional Needs and Projects: Traffic Signal Regional Needs and Projects: Traffic Signal Regional Needs and Projects

TSTSTSTS Needs Needs Needs Needs TSTSTSTS Projects Projects Projects Projects BrBrBrBrief Descriptionief Descriptionief Descriptionief Description

TS 1TS 1TS 1TS 1 Include Need for Emergency Include Need for Emergency Include Need for Emergency Include Need for Emergency Preemption, Uninterrupted Preemption, Uninterrupted Preemption, Uninterrupted Preemption, Uninterrupted Power SupplyPower SupplyPower SupplyPower Supply, and Equipment , and Equipment , and Equipment , and Equipment Consistency in the Planning Consistency in the Planning Consistency in the Planning Consistency in the Planning ProcessProcessProcessProcess

Modify the PennDOT planning process to include an assessment of important traffic signal operation parameters.

TS 2TS 2TS 2TS 2 Identify and Prioritize Key Identify and Prioritize Key Identify and Prioritize Key Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Traffic Signal Upgrade Traffic Signal Upgrade Traffic Signal Upgrade CorridorsCorridorsCorridorsCorridors

Develop a screening process to maximize the benefit of funding expenditures.

TS 3TS 3TS 3TS 3 Integrated Corridor Integrated Corridor Integrated Corridor Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Pilot Management (ICM) Pilot Management (ICM) Pilot Management (ICM) Pilot ProjectProjectProjectProject

Identify pilot corridor and design and construct ICM improvements.

TS 4TS 4TS 4TS 4 Use LTAP for Training Use LTAP for Training Use LTAP for Training Use LTAP for Training AssistanceAssistanceAssistanceAssistance

Take advantage of LTAP training programs related to traffic signals.

TS 5TS 5TS 5TS 5 Evaluate Routes for Potential Evaluate Routes for Potential Evaluate Routes for Potential Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit PriorityTransit PriorityTransit PriorityTransit Priority

Develop screening process to identify key corridors that would benefit from transit priority.

� Effective use of the CCIP and TSEI funding should be maximized.

� Detour management and special needs issues are important.

� Interjurisdictional adaptability is important.

TS 6TS 6TS 6TS 6 Explore Grant Programs for Explore Grant Programs for Explore Grant Programs for Explore Grant Programs for LED UpgradesLED UpgradesLED UpgradesLED Upgrades

Research and identify grant programs to assist municipalities with LED upgrade funding.

See Appendix A for complete project descriptions.

33333333........55555555 GGGGGGGGooooooooooooooooddddddddssssssss MMMMMMMMoooooooovvvvvvvveeeeeeeemmmmmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnntttttttt OOOOOOOOppppppppeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss AAAAAAAArrrrrrrreeeeeeeeaaaaaaaa

The Goods Movement (GM) Operations Area warranted a significant amount of discussion based on the results of the South Central Pennsylvania Regional Goods Movement Study which predicts a nearly 80% increase in truck traffic by 2030. While only one project was identified in this area, its importance will continue to grow in the future as the region’s planning partners wrestle with the potential implications of significant increases in truck traffic. As a result, it is likely that additional projects relating to this need area will be identified in future years. The original GM needs and finalized initiatives are listed in Table 12, demonstrating the translation from regional operations needs to defined projects that are planned to be addresses by the ROP. Table Table Table Table 12121212: Goods Movement Regional Needs and Projects: Goods Movement Regional Needs and Projects: Goods Movement Regional Needs and Projects: Goods Movement Regional Needs and Projects

GMGMGMGM Needs Needs Needs Needs GMGMGMGM Projects Projects Projects Projects Brief DescriptioBrief DescriptioBrief DescriptioBrief Descriptionnnn

� Traveler information for regional freight movement is important.

� Truck parking is an issue. � Hazmat tracking is important.

GM 1GM 1GM 1GM 1 Establish a Goods MoEstablish a Goods MoEstablish a Goods MoEstablish a Goods Movvvveeeement ment ment ment ForumForumForumForum

Establish a forum as the focal point for coordinated freight planning for the region.

The region is aware that PennDOT central office will have results from TSOP-03 available Spring-Summer 2007. When this information is made available to the region, the region will review and act upon this information accordingly, to plan, program and deploy as funds become available.



44444444 RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrrooooooooggggggggrrrrrrrraaaaaaaammmmmmmm

44444444........11111111 OOOOOOOOvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrvvvvvvvviiiiiiiieeeeeeeewwwwwwww

The ROP “projects” were developed such that the various stakeholders in the region share responsibility for their completion. The projects are sequenced to conform with the lead agency’s business and strategic plan frameworks. This mainstreaming of the ROP also ensures projects are incorporated into the existing planning and programming functions of the MPOs, including the 2009 TIP and Long-Range Plan update, and that they utilize and build on existing programs in the region to implement the initiatives defined in the plan. Overall coordination and cooperation between agencies is critical for the successful implementation of the ROP.

44444444........22222222 PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrroooooooojjjjjjjjeeeeeeeecccccccctttttttt PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrriiiiiiiioooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiittttttttiiiiiiiieeeeeeeessssssss

Forum members were asked to prioritize the final project list based on what they felt was important to the region as a whole. Members were asked to rank the projects from one to twenty, with number one being the most important. The following table details the resulting ranking and average score. Table Table Table Table 13131313: Candidate Operations Projects Ranking: Candidate Operations Projects Ranking: Candidate Operations Projects Ranking: Candidate Operations Projects Ranking

RankRankRankRank

ProjectProjectProjectProject

Average Average Average Average ScoreScoreScoreScore

1111 IM 3 IM 3 IM 3 IM 3 –––– Lancaster County ITS Deployment Lancaster County ITS Deployment Lancaster County ITS Deployment Lancaster County ITS Deployment 1.71.71.71.7

2222 IM 4 IM 4 IM 4 IM 4 –––– York County ITS Deployment York County ITS Deployment York County ITS Deployment York County ITS Deployment 1.71.71.71.7

3333 IM 2 IM 2 IM 2 IM 2 –––– Lebanon County ITS Deployment Lebanon County ITS Deployment Lebanon County ITS Deployment Lebanon County ITS Deployment 1.91.91.91.9

4444 IM 5 IM 5 IM 5 IM 5 –––– Dauphin County ITS Deplo Dauphin County ITS Deplo Dauphin County ITS Deplo Dauphin County ITS Deploymentymentymentyment 1.91.91.91.9

5555 IM 6 IM 6 IM 6 IM 6 –––– Cumberland County ITS Deployment Cumberland County ITS Deployment Cumberland County ITS Deployment Cumberland County ITS Deployment 1.91.91.91.9

6666 IM 1 IM 1 IM 1 IM 1 –––– South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update South Central PA ITS Deployment Plan Update 2.82.82.82.8

7777 IM 9 IM 9 IM 9 IM 9 –––– Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process Incorporate ITS into the Project Planning Process 3.13.13.13.1

8888 TS 2 TS 2 TS 2 TS 2 –––– Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors Identify and Prioritize Key Traffic Signal Upgrade Corridors 4.54.54.54.5

9999 IM 8 IM 8 IM 8 IM 8 –––– Maintain Regional Operations Forum Maintain Regional Operations Forum Maintain Regional Operations Forum Maintain Regional Operations Forum 4.64.64.64.6

10101010 TI 2 TI 2 TI 2 TI 2 –––– Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign Institute Traveler Information Public Relations Campaign 5.15.15.15.1

11111111 TS 3 TS 3 TS 3 TS 3 –––– Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project Integrated Corridor Management Pilot Project 5.55.55.55.5

12121212 IM 10 IM 10 IM 10 IM 10 ---- Expand Unified Incident Command Training Expand Unified Incident Command Training Expand Unified Incident Command Training Expand Unified Incident Command Training 6.46.46.46.4

13131313 TS 6 TS 6 TS 6 TS 6 –––– Explore G Explore G Explore G Explore Grant Programs for LED Upgradesrant Programs for LED Upgradesrant Programs for LED Upgradesrant Programs for LED Upgrades 6.56.56.56.5

14141414 IM 11 IM 11 IM 11 IM 11 –––– Contract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrols Contract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrols Contract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrols Contract with Heavy Tow Truck Operators for Service Patrols 6.66.66.66.6

15151515 TI 1 TI 1 TI 1 TI 1 –––– Upgrade PennDOT District 8 Upgrade PennDOT District 8 Upgrade PennDOT District 8 Upgrade PennDOT District 8----0 Website0 Website0 Website0 Website 6.66.66.66.6

16161616 TS 1 TS 1 TS 1 TS 1 –––– Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the Include Need for Emergency Preemption, UPS, and Equipment Consistency in the PlannPlannPlannPlanning Processing Processing Processing Process

6.86.86.86.8

17171717 IM 7 IM 7 IM 7 IM 7 ---- Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 Centers Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 Centers Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 Centers Assess Providing CCTV Feed to 911 Centers 6.96.96.96.9

18181818 TS 5 TS 5 TS 5 TS 5 –––– Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority Evaluate Routes for Potential Transit Priority 7.17.17.17.1

19191919 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 –––– Establish Goods Movement Forum Establish Goods Movement Forum Establish Goods Movement Forum Establish Goods Movement Forum 7.47.47.47.4

20202020 TS 4 TS 4 TS 4 TS 4 –––– Use LTAP for Training Assistance Use LTAP for Training Assistance Use LTAP for Training Assistance Use LTAP for Training Assistance 8.88.88.88.8

The above table illustrates the emphasis on incident management related activities, especially device deployments. In fact, the Forum decided to essentially rate all of the ITS deployment projects equally because of their importance to the region as a whole.

Incident Management Operations AreaIncident Management Operations AreaIncident Management Operations AreaIncident Management Operations Area Traffic Signals Operations AreaTraffic Signals Operations AreaTraffic Signals Operations AreaTraffic Signals Operations Area Traveler Information Operations AreaTraveler Information Operations AreaTraveler Information Operations AreaTraveler Information Operations Area

Goods Movement Operations AreaGoods Movement Operations AreaGoods Movement Operations AreaGoods Movement Operations Area



It should be noted that the prioritization is shown for planning purposes, and the actual implementation of projects may be phased or coordinated by each planning partner where practical and feasible.

44444444........33333333 AAAAAAAApppppppppppppppprrrrrrrrooooooooaaaaaaaacccccccchhhhhhhh ttttttttoooooooo FFFFFFFFuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnddddddddiiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg

Linking planning and operations is important to improve transportation decision-making and the overall effectiveness of the system. Coordination between planners and operators helps ensure that regional transportation investment decisions reflect full 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 too high. One of the most important considerations is ensuring that identified projects are consistent with the South Central Regional ITS Architecture in order to move towards implementation. The Architecture ensures consistency among state, regional, and local planning processes, and therefore any discrepancies must be captured and documented so that necessary changes can be reflected in subsequent updates Funding SourcesFunding SourcesFunding SourcesFunding 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 foster economic growth and development. Regional FundingRegional FundingRegional FundingRegional 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 have been developed. Projects have been defined in terms of planning type projects or deployment-type projects. Planning-type projects are programmatic and policy in nature. If the project is a planning-type project, it may be considered in the MPO/RPOs Work Program. 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 2008. Projects that are defining and leading 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 PennDOT ITS Project Delivery Guidance, which incorporates the FHWA adopted 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 June 2008. 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-140 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 FundingFederal FundingFederal FundingFederal Funding There is flexibility in the use of federal funds (i.e. NHS, STP, CMAQ) for operations projects championed by planning partners and PennDOT. Federal funds can be used for 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, current FHWA PA Division Office policy is that it would be eligible for IM funds.

Some of the eligible IM costs include: � Infrastructure-based improvements, such as newnewnewnew dynamic message signs, CCTV,

detectors, and communication systems, � Replacement or rehabilitation of infrastructure, such as replacing components of dynamic

message signs 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 not not not be eligible for Interstate Maintenance funding.



Other SupportOther SupportOther SupportOther Support In addition to the funding options described above, there are low- or no-cost support services available FHWA. The Resource Center offers training and expert assistance in a variety of transportation technical areas, including courses, seminars, and workshops. State Planning and Research (SPR) funds can also be used for travel and training reimbursement for qualifying activities. There is also an Intelligent Transportation Peer-to-Peer Program that provides public sector transportation stakeholders with a convenient method to tap into the growing knowledge base of ITS experience and receive short-term assistance.

44444444........44444444 RRRRRRRReeeeeeeeggggggggiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll OOOOOOOOvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrssssssssiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt

Ultimately, to be successful ROP implementation will require the collaboration of many stakeholders. However, to help move the implementation process forward, it is expected that the Regional Operations Forum be maintained to provide oversight and champion this Plan. The Forum can further track progress on implementation, oversee any “regional” projects, track performance measures and lead the update of any future ROPs. Initially, the Forum must be able to identify the:

� Mechanisms/procedures for reviewing and “green-lighting” regional operations projects � Mechanisms/procedures for managing and guiding activities and performance.

44444444........55555555 MMMMMMMMeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssuuuuuuuurrrrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg SSSSSSSSuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccceeeeeeeessssssssssssssss

To better ensure that operations-related efforts are producing meaningful results, projects that can be measured, should be. For most of the projects within the ROP, there are one or more key measures proposed to monitor the effectiveness of the project. While we would ideally measure desired outcomes, in the absence of outcome measures, the team suggests measures that are more output-oriented. 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 didn’t 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 given. 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 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.

44444444........66666666 IIIIIIIInnnnnnnnssssssssttttttttiiiiiiiittttttttuuuuuuuuttttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaallllllll CCCCCCCCoooooooonnnnnnnnssssssssiiiiiiiiddddddddeeeeeeeerrrrrrrraaaaaaaattttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss

Throughout the process, the Forum and Task Force attendees raised numerous institutional issues that fell outside of the purview of the region. 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. CMAQ Funding for Traffic Signal Upgrade ProjectsCMAQ Funding for Traffic Signal Upgrade ProjectsCMAQ Funding for Traffic Signal Upgrade ProjectsCMAQ Funding for Traffic Signal Upgrade Projects –––– The group thought it would be worthwhile to explore the potential use of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding for traffic signal upgrade projects. The CMAQ program is intended to provide funding for congestion mitigation activities that provide air quality benefits. However, the air quality/emissions reduction benefits need to be analyzed and documented and typically these funds are only available for the first three years of e new program. Expand COSTARs ProgramExpand COSTARs ProgramExpand COSTARs ProgramExpand COSTARs Program – The Cooperative Sourcing to Achieve Reductions in Spending (COSTARs) program, established by the Department of General Services, allows users to receive special pricing on IT equipment by accessing pre-approved “shopping lists” of all qualified vendors. Its is suggested that the program be expanded to include additional traffic signal equipment such as controllers, conflict monitors, loop detector amplifiers, etc. Expedite 511 Statewide Deployment Expedite 511 Statewide Deployment Expedite 511 Statewide Deployment Expedite 511 Statewide Deployment –––– While the Forum understands that progress is being made in the deployment of a statewide 511 phone and web service (TSOP 04), they stressed the importance of disseminating information to the traveling public and the need to provide some type of traveler information service as soon as possible. Evaluate the Reliability and Usefulness of Travel Time InformationEvaluate the Reliability and Usefulness of Travel Time InformationEvaluate the Reliability and Usefulness of Travel Time InformationEvaluate the Reliability and Usefulness of Travel Time Information –––– There was general agreement that providing travel time information to motorists would be beneficial. However, it was felt that Central Office should conduct research to determine the reliability of the information based on current technologies and the usefulness of the information from the motorists’ standpoint. Does providing the information really make a difference from a user, safety, or congestion perspective? Develop a Statewide Truckers Map Develop a Statewide Truckers Map Develop a Statewide Truckers Map Develop a Statewide Truckers Map –––– While the current statewide truckers map has been a benefit, it is out-of-date and someone cumbersome. It is suggested that the map be updated in a more user-friendly format to include current information. Suggestions included possibly breaking the map down by regions. Develop Statewide Intermodal/Truck Terminal Planning Requirements Develop Statewide Intermodal/Truck Terminal Planning Requirements Develop Statewide Intermodal/Truck Terminal Planning Requirements Develop Statewide Intermodal/Truck Terminal Planning Requirements –––– Currently, the development of intermodal and truck facilities is approved by the local planning commissions, possibly with some input from PennDOT if state facilities are involved. With the roadways in the region already carrying substantial truck volumes, and tremendous increases projected for the future, this issue needs to be addressed from a regional perspective. It is suggested that PennDOT assume more of an oversight role in the approval process for intermodal/truck facilities of certain sizes, similar to what is currently being done with solid waste facilities. Incorporate Operations in the Project Planning Process Incorporate Operations in the Project Planning Process Incorporate Operations in the Project Planning Process Incorporate Operations in the Project Planning Process –––– While this was identified as a specific project for the South Central Region to be accomplished by the District, the MPOs, and local planning commissions, it was felt that Central Office needs to take a more active role in this issue by updating PennDOT design manuals and publications to include operations in the planning and design process. Of significant importance is identifying operational needs during the scoping field view stage.



55555555 SSSSSSSSuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaarrrrrrrryyyyyyyy 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 ROP tend to be cost effective in supporting (not eliminating) regional congestion issues. So as the region begins to review transportation options a goal should be to have ITS and operations solutions examined, weighed and equally placed in the public forum for regional consideration and funding. This will ensure that innovative and cost effective solutions get a fair hearing alongside more costly capacity expansion projects. Continued success however relies on integration and coordination between PennDOT, regional planning partners and transportation stakeholders who together will systematically build operations programs based on policies, studies and physical deployments. These improvements will ultimately help improve the 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 the planning partners and PennDOT District 8-0 to fully realize the goals set out in the ROP. In return the South Central Region will have a safer and more reliable transportation system for its future.



AAAAAAAAppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeennnnnnnnddddddddiiiiiiiixxxxxxxx AAAAAAAA PPPPPPPPrrrrrrrroooooooojjjjjjjjeeeeeeeecccccccctttttttt DDDDDDDDeeeeeeeessssssssccccccccrrrrrrrriiiiiiiippppppppttttttttiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnnssssssss



INCIDENT MANAGEMENT (IM)



IM 1: SOUTH CENTRAL PA ITS DEPLOYMENT PLAN UPDATE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Update of the Harrisburg Metro ITS Early Deployment Plan (EDP) to include all of the South Central PA Region. The update should address at a minimum: � Expansion of Service Patrol beyond the Capital Beltway � Communications (potential fiber optic backbone) � Deployment of detection devices for travel time information � Additional DMS, HAR, CCTV, and RWIS in key corridors � Traffic Management Center upgrades. The update should also identify implementation timelines, preliminary costs, and funding opportunities.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, Planning Partners

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 years Design: Construction:

ESTIMATED COSTS: $100K Capital: N/A Annual O&M: N/A

PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): None

PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: None

PERFORMANCE MEASURES: None

BENEFITS: A regional ITS program will set the stage for deployment and operations for the near and long term horizon. This will be a valuable tool to assist the planning partners in prioritizing transportation projects for the regions.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES:



IM 2: LEBANON COUNTY ITS DEPLOYMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the deployment of ITS devices along Interstates 78 and 81, including DMS, CCTV, and HAR.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, PennDOT CO, Lebanon County Planning Department

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 16.

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: 3-5 yrs Study: Design: Construction:

ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: $1.1 million Annual O&M: ?

PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Complex

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): NA


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % of lane-miles of facilities (by classification) covered by CCTV, detection devices, etc.; reduction in non-recurring hours of delay per million VMT.

BENEFITS: Improved surveillance, detection, verification and notification of incidents and emergencies along the region’s highways.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: To expedite implementation, this deployment could be accomplished as an expansion of the Harrisburg ITS Project. Construction would need to begin prior to DATE.



IM 3: LANCASTER COUNTY ITS DEPLOYMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the deployment of ITS devices along PA 283, SR 30, and SR 222, including DMS, CCTV, and HAR. .

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, PennDOT CO, Lancaster County Planning Commission












IM 4: YORK COUNTY ITS DEPLOYMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the deployment of ITS devices along Interstate 83 and SR 30, including DMS, CCTV, and HAR.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, PennDOT CO, York County Planning Commission

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13 and 16.











IM 5: DAUPHIN COUNTY ITS DEPLOYMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the deployment of ITS devices along Interstates 81 and 83, SR 22/322, Mountain Road, South Front Street, including DMS and CCTV.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, PennDOT CO, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13 and 16.

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: 3-5 yrs Study: Design: Deployment:










IM 6: CUMBERLAND COUNTY ITS DEPLOYMENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the deployment of ITS devices along Interstate 81 and PA 581 including CCTV.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, PennDOT CO, Tri-County Planning Commission



ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: Greater than $750k Annual O&M: ?









IM 7: ASSESS PROVIDING CCTV FEED TO 911 CENTERS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project would evaluate the need and identify the architecture required and associated cost of providing CCTV feeds to the County 911 centers.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 3, 5, 9, and 13.

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 yrs Design: Deployment:

ESTIMATED COSTS: $50k Capital: Annual O&M:

PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple




BENEFITS: Providing CCTV feeds to 911 centers may allow incidents to be identified earlier and result in quicker response times.




IM 8: MAINTAIN REGIONAL OPERATIONS FORUM (ROF)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project would involve maintaining the Forum that has been established for the development of the Regional Operations Plan. The Forum could meet on a regular basis (or as needed) to discuss operational projects and institutional issues. The makeup of the Forum could be modified as necessary.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, Planning Partners, PTC, FHWA, PSP, EMAs

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 5 and 14.

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Immediate Study: Design: Deployment:

ESTIMATED COSTS: None Capital: Annual O&M:

PROJECT TYPE: Institutional LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple




BENEFITS: Maintaining the Forum will allow the key stakeholders in the region to address and resolve operational issues and plan for future deployments. It also provides the opportunity to share “lessons learned” information for the benefit of all involved in operations.




IM 9: INCORPORATE ITS INTO THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves addressing operational needs during the planning process on a local and state level.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, PennDOT CO, Planning Partners, municipalities

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 14



PROJECT TYPE: Institutional LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate




BENEFITS: Operations mainstreaming will ensure that operational needs are addressed during the planning process and appropriate technologies are included in construction projects.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Close coordination with TSOP 14 will be required. At the District level, HOP reviews should include the potential applicability of all operational solutions (including ITS devices) when improvements are defined. At the local level, subdivision ordinance updates may be necessary to require an “operational” evaluation as part of subdivision development applications. MPO support may be necessary in developing standard language.



IM 10: EXPAND UNIFIED INCIDENT COMMAND TRAINING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The Unified Incident Management (UIC) training should be expanded to include additional stakeholders responsible for incident management in the region (tow truck operators, safety patrol, additional PennDOT personnel, etc.).

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, incident response personnel

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 1, 2, and 5.

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: 1-2 yrs Design: Deployment:






BENEFITS: Better training may result in reduced time to respond and clear incidents on major corridors.




IM 11: CONTRACT WITH HEAVY TOW TRUCK OPERATORS FOR SERVICE PATROLS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: In many instances, an incident may involve a large vehicle that cannot be removed by the Service Patrol vehicle. If access to a heavy tow truck were provided, most minor incidents could be cleared quickly and safely, thereby restoring normal traffic flow and reducing congestion and secondary crashes.



ESTIMATED SCHEDULE: Study: Design: Deployment: 1-2 yrs

ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: Annual O&M: ?

PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Simple



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Change in time to respond to an incident; % change in time to clear an incident

BENEFITS: Reduction in the time to respond and clear minor incidents on major corridors.




TRAVELER INFORMATION (TI)



TI 1: UPGRADE PENNDOT DISTRICT 8-0 WEBSITE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: The PennDOT District 8-0 website currently provides a limited amount of information, primarily related to construction projects in the region. It is generally only updated when construction projects have started or completed. The website should be upgraded to include camera images, traffic information, and more.




ESTIMATED COSTS: $100k Capital: Annual O&M: $25k

PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate

TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS (if applicable): Establishing interface with website.


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of website hits.

BENEFITS: Method for effectively disseminating traveler information to a wide audience.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: The upgrades would be accomplished until such time that a statewide traveler information service has been implemented (TSOP 4).



TI 2: INSTITUTE TRAVELER INFORMATION PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project involves the development, implementation, and maintenance of a public relations campaign to inform the general public regarding the traveler information that is available. Initially, marketing materials could include brochures/newsletters and public service announcements regarding available services. Intermittent messages displayed on DMS and up-to-date information on the District website can also be used. The campaign should be modified and expanded as additional traveler information comes online.




ESTIMATED COSTS: Capital: Greater than $250k Annual O&M: $50k

PROJECT TYPE: Deployment LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate



PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Number of website hits.

BENEFITS: Increased awareness of available traveler information for better trip planning.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Close coordination with TSOP 4 will be necessary as the statewide traveler information system will likely have its own public relations element.



TRAFFIC SIGNALS (TS)



TS 1: INCLUDE NEED FOR EMERGENCY PREEMPTION, UPS, AND EQUIPMENT

CONSISTENCY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: For any construction or enhancement project that includes potential upgrades to traffic signals, emergency preemption, Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS), and equipment consistency should be addressed at the scoping field view stage. Emergency preemption should be evaluated in the context of local responder operations and existing equipment. With the advent of LED traffic signals, power consumption has dramatically decreased resulting in UPS being a more feasible and cost-effective option. Equipment consistency is often overlooked, especially when upgrades require coordination implementation/upgrade.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, municipalities

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, and 14.


ESTIMATED COSTS: $25K Capital: Annual O&M:




PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Traffic signal downtime.

BENEFITS: Better planning will result in more effective signal systems that address all stakeholders concerns.




TS 2: IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE KEY TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE CORRIDORS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project would identify critical corridors that could benefit from traffic signal upgrades including system upgrades and the potential for Integrated Corridor Management (ICM). Key corridors that may benefit from event timing plans should also be included. The first step would be the development of a screening process to identify candidate projects. The strategy would result in the identification of a number of projects per year based on funding availability.

STAKEHOLDERS: PLANNING PARTNERS, PennDOT District 8-0, Municipalities

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14







BENEFITS: This process will allow for funding to be dedicated to priority corridors.




TS 3: INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT (ICM) PILOT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project includes the identification of a corridor for the implementation of ICM that includes design and deployment. ICM involves an approach to incident management that encompasses major highway facilities and adjacent signalized corridors, and may include District control of traffic signals along parallel corridors.

STAKEHOLDERS: PENNDOT DISTRICT 8-0, Planning Partners, Municipalities







PERFORMANCE MEASURES: % change in peak travel times, delay reduction.

BENEFITS: Integrated signals can reduce delay, travel times, emissions, and fuel consumption. District control of signals allows for timing adjustments along adjacent corridors when needed for incident management. This pilot project can also be used to evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of this kind of approach.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: Possible pilot locations include SR 11, SR 22, or the Miracle Mile.



TS 4: USE LTAP FOR TRAINING ASSISTANCE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Created by FHWA and administered by PennDOT, the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) provides local municipalities with a variety of free training programs, including traffic signals and ITS.

STAKEHOLDERS: Municipalities



ESTIMATED COSTS: NA Capital: Annual O&M:





BENEFITS: Training for municipal personnel can result in better maintained and operated traffic signal systems.




TS 5: EVALUATE ROUTES FOR POTENTIAL TRANSIT PRIORITY

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This project would identify key corridors that could benefit from a transit priority system. As with the key traffic signal corridors, a screening process would be developed to identify candidate projects. The strategy would result in the identification of potential projects based on funding availability.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT District 8-0, Planning Partners, Municipalities

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 8, 10, 14, and 17.



PROJECT TYPE: Plan/Study LEVEL OF EFFORT: Moderate


PREREQUISITES AND DEPENDENCIES: NA


BENEFITS: The benefits and cost-effectiveness of this kind of approach can be evaluated for each project that is advanced through implementation.




TS 6: EXPLORE GRANT PROGRAMS FOR LED UPGRADES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: Nationwide, many grant programs have been established to encourage the replacement of incandescent traffic signal indications with Light Emitting Diode (LED) indications, including the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation, the California Energy Commission, and the Sustainable Energy Fund in eastern Pennsylvania. PennDOT could explore the availability of these types of programs in Pennsylvania.

STAKEHOLDERS: PennDOT CO, PennDOT District 8-0, Municipalities








BENEFITS: LED upgrades can significantly reduce operations and maintenance costs for municipalities.




GOODS MOVEMENT (GM)



GM 1: ESTABLISH A GOODS MOVEMENT FORUM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE: This was one of the primary recommendations that came out of the South Central PA Regional Goods Movement Study. The Forum would be the focal point for coordinated freight planning in the region, and would likely be a continuation of the steering committee established for the study. The report identifies several issues that need to be addressed including the establishment of a mission statement and goals, development of the structure of the Forum, determination of how the group should initially form, and identification of short- and long-term activities.

STAKEHOLDERS: Planning Partners, PennDOT District 8-0

PERTINENT TSOP PROJECTS: 18 and 19


ESTIMATED COSTS: NA Capital: Annual O&M:





BENEFITS: The Forum can facilitate coordinated freight planning for the region.




AAAAAAAAppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeennnnnnnnddddddddiiiiiiiixxxxxxxx BBBBBBBB MMMMMMMMeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttiiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg MMMMMMMMiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnuuuuuuuutttttttteeeeeeeessssssss

south central regionsouth central region regional ... 8 rop version 1 070907.pdf · scott nazar...

Documents