Project snapshot. More details below.
|
Products
(Project Number)
|
Impact on Practice
|
Product Status
|
|
REGIONAL OPERATIONS FORUMS FOR ADVANCING SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT, AND RELIABILITY (L36)
Regional operations forums will provide education and training to transportation agencies on the “best use” of SHRP 2 Reliability products. A final report, including presentations and software used, will document the process and findings.
|
Sources of unreliability account for approximately half of total congestion delay. Strategies, technologies, and practices provided through training in the proposed regional operations forums can reduce reliability-related delay.
|
The first regional operations forum will be held in the summer of 2013 and will continue until the summer of 2014. The final report will be completed in the winter of 2015.
|
Reliability Focus Area
The major objective of SHRP 2 Reliability research is to greatly improve the reliability of highway travel times by reducing the frequency and effects of events that cause travel times to fluctuate unpredictably. The results of the research program should help local, state, and national agencies reduce travel time variability for travelers and shippers. The Reliability research plan addresses both recurring and nonrecurring congestion with an emphasis on nonrecurring congestion. The following seven potential sources of unreliable travel times (i.e., events that cause variable travel times) were identified: traffic incidents, work zones, demand fluctuations, special events, traffic control devices, weather, and inadequate base capacity.
The Reliability focus area targets travel time variation—that frustrating characteristic of the transportation system that means you must allow an hour to make a trip that normally takes 30 minutes. Not only is reliability an important component for travelers and shippers, it is also an area of the congestion problem in which transportation agencies can make significant gains even as travel demand grows. The seven sources of unreliability account for approximately half of the total delay. Reducing reliability-related delay will also result in fewer crashes, reduced vehicle emissions and fuel use, and other benefits. These benefits can be realized through a mix of leading-edge research into a better understanding of strategies and their consequences, new technology and practices, and reducing institutional barriers so that our existing knowledge can be more fully exploited.
Purpose
Project L36 “Regional Operations Forums for Advancing Systems Operations, Management and Reliability” is expected to advance transportation system operations and management (SO&M), and serve as a platform for mainstreaming SHRP 2 Reliability research into an operations forum concept. The curriculum offered through the regional forums will provide pertinent education and training on business processes, organizational capabilities, operations and planning, design, technical, and analytical projects to all transportation agencies.
Throughout this project, the L36 contractor should work closely with the SHRP 2 L36 project team consisting of the SHRP 2 staff and the L36 Technical Expert Task Group (TETG) along with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and other public sector and industry representatives. It is mandatory that the L36 contractor coordinate with other SHRP 2 Travel Time Reliability Research project efforts as those projects are developed and deployed so that the research results can be incorporated into the curriculum as appropriate.
Project Objectives
Project L36 project has the following objectives:
· To design a curriculum for the regional operations forums (ROFs) based on a comprehensive review of available and anticipated research results of the SHRP 2 Reliability program and other information available from SO&M resources including federal, state, and local initiatives. The curriculum could use as a starting point the syllabus of existing SO&M educational and outreach programs, including those of the Operations Academy™.
· To pilot test the curriculum developed in this project in such a manner that the currently available SHRP 2 research results and future /anticipated research outcomes are incorporated into the curriculum as they become available and the pilot test is adjusted accordingly. The piloting process will include both curriculum delivery and ongoing evaluation of its effectiveness. The required modifications will be made on a continuing basis as the research outcomes are available.
· To develop a sustainable business model for the ROF beyond SHRP2.
Guiding Principles
The following principles will be used as the basis for the development of the ROFs:
1. The ROF curriculum must be designed to be beneficial both to practitioners in the field of system operations and management and to attendees whose experience is outside the SO&M field.
2. The ROFs must take advantage of the variety of experiences and backgrounds that exist among the attendees, including practitioners and policy makers, various levels of management, various disciplines (planning, engineering, operations, etc.), various organizations (cities, MPO, DOT, law enforcement agencies, fire and emergency response etc.),
3. The curriculum should be designed for flexibility in implementation so that it can be readily tailored to the interests and capabilities of the regions in which the ROFs are delivered. It should also be possible to tailor the curriculum to varying mixes of attendees including pilots in which attendees are from both state and local organizations, and those attended exclusively by state employees.
4. The curriculum should balance technical subjects (tools, analytical techniques, devices, standards, testing, etc.) and nontechnical subjects (planning, programming, organization, workforce, funding, collaboration, etc.).
Statement of Work
This statement of work describes the key tasks to be performed for the SHRP 2 L36 project. The task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for development and delivery of the ROFs. SHRP 2 is seeking the insights of the proposers on how best to achieve the overall project objectives. Proposers are expected to describe their technical approach to the development and delivery of the Regional Operations Forums and all work plans that can be realistically accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposers must present their current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the L36 Project objectives.
Project Tasks
The proposal must use a task structure to describe the proposer’s approach, and must provide a cost estimate for each task in the proposal. A brief description of possible tasks to be performed for the L36 project is provided in this section. The objectives described for these tasks are considered essential, but proposers are invited to suggest different approaches that would accomplish the same objectives more effectively or efficiently. Also, proposals should identify and describe sub-tasks where appropriate.
Task 1: Literature Review of the SO&M State of the Art
The contractor should develop a list of the subject areas (e.g., signal control, incident management, etc.) to be included in the curriculum to ensure comprehensive consideration of all aspects of the field both during the state-of-the-art review and in subsequent development of the ROFs. This list of subject areas should be used as the basis for a review of ongoing research at the SHRP 2, federal, state and local levels, as well as other relevant activities for the purpose of structuring the ROF program. The literature review enables the contractor to ensure SHRP 2 projects are fully considered and provides a foundation to develop the curriculum for the ROFs.
Deliverable: A list of the categories of specialties that will be considered during the Task 1 review should be submitted for approval prior to initiating the review. At the conclusion of this task, a working paper should be developed that summarizes the results of Task 1. The working paper should include a brief summary of material reviewed, and should emphasize the implications of the review to the design of the ROF including its agenda and the instructional techniques.
Task 2: Regional Operations Forum Agenda
Develop agendas for the ROF using the objectives, guiding principles, and the results of Task 1. The agendas should be developed for a three-day program for senior managers and a five-day program for program leaders. They should identify the subjects covered, the time devoted to each subject, and the sequence in which they are presented. They should include a description of the instructional techniques associated with the delivery of each subject area proposed. The agendas should also identify core subjects as well as optional subjects that may be used to adapt ROF instruction to the requirements of the region and audience to which it is presented. Each subject included in the agendas should be described using a bulleted list of items to be addressed within each subject. The agendas should be accompanied by a recommended list of potential instructors who may be the contractor’s employees or other individuals from either the public or private sectors.
This task should also include the definition of performance measures by which the success of the ROFs can be evaluated. The performance measures will be capable of identifying strengths and weaknesses in the ROF activities to permit ongoing adjustments as the program progresses. The performance measures should also be able to determine the degree to which the ROF program is meeting its stated objectives and to identify gaps and shortcomings.
At a minimum, the agenda should include the subject matter in the following list, which to the greatest extent possible should be presented in a manner that maximizes interaction and networking among attendees. These subjects are presented in no particular order, and may be combined, supplemented, or modified by the contractor based on the subject areas of Task 1 and the need to develop a fully integrated program.
· An overview of SO&M including definition, description of the tools of operations, and the business case for SO&M (why SO&M is important)
· Performance measurement and data visualization techniques
· Incident management – perhaps drawing on the experience of the participants
· Communicating with the media
· Customer service
· Integrating planning and operations
· The relationship between SO&M and safety
· Goods movement
· Workforce development
· Building a business case for SO&M
· Creating an individual implementation plan
The above identified topics should be aligned with the following completed and to be completed SHRP 2 Reliability research projects:
|
Project
|
Project Title
|
Status
|
|
L01
|
Integrating Business Processes to Improve Reliability
|
Report Published
|
|
L02
|
Establishing Monitoring Programs for Mobility and Travel Time Reliability
|
Research in progress
|
|
L03
|
Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of Reliability Mitigation Strategies
|
In publication
|
|
L04
|
Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures in Planning and Operations Modeling Tools
|
Research in progress
|
|
L05
|
Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes
|
Research in progress
|
|
L06
|
Institutional Architectures to Advance Operational Strategies
|
Final report in review
|
|
L07
|
Evaluation of Costs and Effectiveness of Highway Design Features to Improve Travel Time Reliability
|
Research in progress
|
|
L08
|
Incorporation of Non-Recurrent Congestion Factors into the Highway Capacity Manual
|
Research in progress
|
|
L10
|
Feasibility of Using In-Vehicle Video Data to Explore How to Modify Driver Behavior that Causes Non-recurring Congestion
|
Report published
|
|
L11
|
Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve Travel Time Reliability
|
In publication
|
|
L12
|
Training and Certification for Traffic Incident Responders
|
In publication
|
|
L13
|
Requirements and Feasibility of a System for Archiving and Disseminating Data from SHRP 2 Reliability and Related Studies
|
Report Published
|
|
L13A
|
Archive for Reliability and Related Data and Assistance to Contractors to Archive Their Data for Reliability and Related Projects
|
Research in progress
|
|
L14
|
Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability
|
Research in progress
|
|
L15A
|
Reliability Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA)
|
Final Report in Review
|
|
L15B
|
Reliability Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA)
|
Research in progress
|
|
L15C
|
Reliability Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA)
|
Research in progress
|
|
L15D
|
Reliability Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA)
|
Research in progress
|
|
L17
|
A Framework for Improving Travel Time Reliability
|
Research in progress
|
|
L33
|
Urban Freeway Models Validation
|
ETG formed
|
|
L35
|
Economic Value of Travel Time Reliability
|
RFP planned for Sept. 2012
|
|
L31
|
Outreach on Operations and Reliability to CEO, Chief Engineers and Executive Management
|
Research in progress
|
|
L32A
|
Train the Trainer Course for Incident Responders
|
Research in progress
|
|
L32B
|
B: E-learning for training traffic incident responders and managers
C: Training and certification of traffic incident responders (Added to L32B Project)
|
RFP ready
March 2012
|
|
L32C
|
Inter-disciplinary “train the trainer" post-course assessment E-tool
|
RFP ready March 2012
|
|
L34
|
E-Tool for Operation Business Process
Operations Business Process for Self Assessment Tool
|
RFP ready
March 2012
|
|
L36
|
Regional Operations Academy for Advancing Systems Operations, Management and Reliability
|
RFP Pending
|
|
L38
|
Piloting 2010 and 2011 Reliability Implementation projects
|
RFP Pending
|
Deliverable: An annotated outline that describes the proposed ROF agendas and accompanying performance measures as defined by the Task 2 activities. The contractor may not proceed with work on Tasks 4 and beyond until the outline has been approved. The contractor may be required to resubmit at least one and possibly two modified versions of the outline based on the review comments received. Work on Task 3 can be conducted while awaiting approval of this deliverable.
Task 3: Regional Operations Forum Venues for Pilot Deliveries
The contractor is required to propose a phased plan to conduct an appropriate number of pilots with an appropriate number of students. The course curriculum should absorb as many completed or largely completed SHRP 2 Reliability projects as can be readily incorporated into the curriculum and be pilot tested. The contractor is responsible for selecting the pilot locations, identifying the host organization and the lead individual within the host organization, and other participating organizations. The SHRP 2 program reserves the right to modify the number of pilots to be delivered during this project. The number of regional forums will be determined prior to contract execution with the selected contractor.
The locations identified by the contractor should include the state, city, and facility in which the ROFs are to be held. This selection should take into consideration factors such as travel and per diem costs, proximity to potential attendees, amenities of the facility (dining, meeting rooms, breakout rooms, recreation facilities, etc.), nearby sites for relevant field trips, and other factors identified by the contractor. At the conclusion of this task, a recommended ROF pilot delivery schedule should be provided.
Deliverables: A working paper containing the recommended locations and number of students for pilot ROFs. The paper should describe the recommended venues, and include cost, budget and schedule of these activities.
Task 4: Develop the Regional Operations Forum Curriculum
The contractor should develop the curriculum for the ROF based on the approved outline prepared during Task 2. This curriculum has to be developed in a phased manner considering the availability of SHRP 2 research projects and the pilot test location/schedules. There should be a core curriculum that is not location dependent and other elements that may meet the interest of a particular region. There should be a relationship between the interest of the pilot location and the curriculum topics emphasized in that pilot test.
During this task all presentations should be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the contractor both for overall presentation quality and for completeness and quality of the content for each subject defined in the curriculum. In addition, all presentations using specialized visualizations, animations, and other interactive approaches should be prepared. Also during this task, all instruments (questionnaires, etc.) needed for collection and processing of performance measures will be developed.
At the conclusion of this task, a walk-through of a hypothetical ROF will be presented by the contractor; the contractor’s selected instructors, and facilitators to the members of the TETG and others identified by the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer. Presenters and facilitators should be those scheduled to participate in the actual ROF delivery. The walk-through should include all presentations, demonstrations, quizzes, workshops, and any other instructional techniques associated with the ROF agenda. The contractor should make all needed changes to the agenda and presentation contents as identified in a review and discussion of the walk-through.
Deliverables: Two weeks prior to the delivery of the walk-through, the contractor will deliver all material that will be used including special sections of the curriculum that are geographic specific. Presentation of the ROF walk-through includes explaining all material, presentation of representative sessions, and delivery of copies of all instructional material, forms, quizzes, workshops, and other supporting material associated with the walk-through. In addition, the list of instructors and facilitators proposed for the ROF walk-through presentations should be submitted for the approval of the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer. Changes to personnel assignments should not be made without prior approval of the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer. The walk-through will be presented to the TETG and others as determined by the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer.
Task 5: Scheduling and Outreach
Following approval of the walk-through, and incorporation of any recommended changes into the curriculum, the contractor should begin the scheduling of the ROF programs. Scheduling should be conducted as a two-step process in which the support of agencies within each region is solicited, and estimates of likely numbers of attendees acquired. The solicitation process should be conducted using the outreach plan developed during Task 3 and must be done to ensure diversity of discipline amongst the participants. It should be closely coordinated with AASHTO and SHRP 2, whose cooperation is essential to guaranteeing the success of the program. As regions with adequate numbers of agencies and participants to support the ROF program are identified, the contractor should schedule the pilot for that region and contact the selected regional venues to reserve the needed facilities. The contractor will coordinate with the participating agencies in each region, to enroll participants, and make needed reservations at the ROF venues. It will also be the contractor’s responsibility to schedule field trip visits and make arrangements for transportation to the field trip sites. It will also be the contractor’s responsibility to arrange for all facilities and equipment needed to support the ROF including meeting rooms, breakout rooms, projectors, screens, speakers, and any other special equipment required for instructional support. The proposal should include a plan for tracking these plans and communicating them to the Senior Program Officer.
Deliverables: The contractor should provide a regional ROF summary to the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer for review, prior to scheduling each regional workshop. The summary should indicate the date and location of the workshop. The facilities needed, transportation required and field visit(s). The summary should also include a preliminary agenda for the workshop. The SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer will review and approve the summary within one week of its receipt.
Task 6: Regional Operations Forum Pilot Program Delivery
Each of the pilots should be conducted using the agenda, instructional techniques, and procedures that were used during the walk-through of Task 4, and as modified according to adjustments made for that region, and comments received during the walk-through and previous pilots. The ROF agendas are expected to evolve based on experience and attendees’ comments, as the pilots are presented. Enhancements to the agenda based on these considerations are encouraged. The contractor is responsible for the delivery of all ROFs. The contractor’s project manager or designated representative should be on site for the entire duration of the pilot, to monitor attendance of participants and instructors, ensure that adequate facilities and resources are available, quizzes and exams (if any) are used appropriately, and to oversee the performance measurement process. Additionally, the contractor will identify and establish an independent expert group to perform and document impartial evaluations of each of the pilots.
Deliverables: The contractor will prepare a technical memorandum documenting the evaluation results of the pilot conducted by independent expert group. The memorandum will describe what went well and what did not go well. It should include recommended modifications for future pilots, which should be implemented with prior SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer approval.A second brief technical memorandum should report on the progress of the SHRP 2 Reliability research, advice on the availability of new research products, and for new products, present recommendations for incorporation into the curriculum.
Task 7: Final Report
Within 60 calendar days after the conclusion of the last ROF, the contractor will prepare a draft final report documenting all of the activities that have occurred in connection with this project. The report should summarize the performance measures that have been recorded for the forums, and document the costs and benefits of these activities. It should also include copies of all instructional material and software used in connection with the forums. It should summarize the numbers of workshop and attendees, including an analysis of their backgrounds and levels of experience. Recommended future activities should be provided in terms of adjustments to the program, modifications to the curriculum, and extensions of the ROFs to other geographic locations and other agencies. The draft final report should include an implementation plan for deployment of the ROF and a recommended business plan for funding of the ROFs on a continuing basis.
Deliverables: A draft final report will be submitted for review by the TETG and the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer. Comments will be provided to the contractor within 60 days. The contractor will have 30 days to modify the report in response to the review comments and submit a revised final report.
Special Notes
· All training material and software developed in connection with this project become the property of the SHRP 2 program. Obtaining written copyright permission from the owners of intellectual property is the responsibility of the contractor.
· Material presented during the ROFs will meet the generally accepted standards for students to receive CEU and/or PDH credits for successful completion of the training
· Successful proposals will include innovative approaches to learning in combination with PowerPoint and other audio/visual tools.
· The ROF program should be based as much as possible on off-the-shelf software and equipment that is readily available to government agencies through existing contracts. The contractor should seek to minimize ongoing licensing and maintenance costs of all products utilized without compromising functionality.
· The standard SHRP 2 proposal selection criteria will be used in connection with this project. These include: understanding of the problem, quality of the proposal, experience and qualifications of the research team, a plan for participation by disadvantaged businesses, and adequacy of facilities (if special facilities are needed).
o An understanding of the need for expanded emphasis of SO&M within the transportation community, and the challenges of enlisting the support of public transportation agencies
o Successful experience with the delivery of training to professionals using a variety of multi-media techniques
o A knowledge of the tools and techniques available to establish and support peer networks
o An in-depth understanding of the SO&M discipline including both its technical and nontechnical aspects
· The contractor is responsible for all costs associated with this project including the cost of facilities, as well as the cost of attendees travel, room and board. The contractor shall provide an itemized cost estimate per pilot ROF workshop and for the 5-day ROFs and 3-day ROFs.
Deliverables
The L36 project deliverables include:
· Detailed work plan for the project, including a detailed time line with tasks, delivery dates, and proposed schedule for conducting the regional ROFs
· Task reports as specified
· All presentations and software used in connection with the delivery of the ROFs in both electronic and hard copy form
· Final Report
