Results Are In From the Traffic Signal Self Assessment

(Last updated 3/1/05)

Practitioners Should Prepare for the Forthcoming National Report Card

The early results from the NTOC-sponsored Traffic Signal Self-Assessment were discussed in Session 2 ("Traffic Signal Operations: Benefits and Strategies") at the recent ITE 2005 Technical Conference and Exhibit in Las Vegas, NV. That presentation marks the completion of the first step in a two-step process to collect and disseminate information about the state of our nation’s traffic signal systems, which will culminate with a press event focusing on the "National Signal Report Card" this coming April. In this discussion with ICDN Editor Jerry Werner, Shelley Row, Associate Executive Director for Technical Programs for the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), shares the "inside scoop" on that effort. In particular, she lays out what practitioners and agencies can and should do now to prepare for this major press event that will occur in less than 2 months.

ICDN: How did the idea for the National Traffic Signal Self-Assessment and National Signal Report Card come about?

Row: When the National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC) formed, we identified several key areas where we felt there was a need for national attention in the short term, and that there was the potential to make a difference. In our first meeting, the NTOC members identified 4 or 5 topic areas, and traffic signal systems was one of them. Representatives from the various associations "raised their hands" for which topics they wanted to participate in. That’s how we formed the "Action Team" around signal operations. That Action Team then met and concluded that it was important to have a benchmarking tool – that’s how the self-assessment tool came about. Then they talked about the historical problem that signal systems just don’t get enough attention -- signals are so low key. That’s when we said, "what if we got some national attention around this issue?" That thought led into the National Report Card.

ICDN: I understand that you first made the Self Assessment available in August 2004. What was the process for completing it?

Row: The survey was primarily conducted over the web. The NTOC associations alerted their members about its availability and provided a web link. The self-assessment itself was hosted on the ITE website as it still is. Practitioners simply completed the survey on the web, pressed the "submit" button, and the results came to us electronically.

ICDN: Now that the "official" deadline for completing it is passed, I understand that you are now in the process of sending those results back to the respondents. Why are you doing that?

Row: We’re doing that because we had so many requests from people wanting their scores back. Many folks apparently didn’t keep copies of their responses.

ICDN: How many responses have you received to date?

Row: 378 different people have responded so far, covering 49 states. There were more than 60 responses from people in state DOTs. That number of responses is higher than the number of states, of course, because in some cases we received responses from multiple districts within state DOTs.

ICDN: I understand that you’ve agreed to keep the individual responses anonymous. What exactly does that mean?

Row: We pledged in all of the literature we sent out with the self-assessment that the results would be anonymous, because of the potentially sensitive nature of the responses to individuals and agencies. To give you a feel for what we’re doing, we’ve not released the results to FHWA or any of the other NTOC member associations, and we’re not planning to release them. We’re trying to be very true to that pledge.

ICDN: You’re talking about the anonymity of specific city and state results, right? Obviously, the aggregate data will eventually be released, right?

Row: Yes, the aggregate data will be released, but we’re not even giving out the names of agencies that responded, much less their scores.

ICDN: Part of the goal of this assessment is to help individual agencies understand how they stack up against the national averages, right?

Row: Correct. When we send them back their scores, we will convert their scores to the equivalent scores on the national scale. The answer for each question on the self-assessment was on a 0 to 5 scale, with 5 being the highest or most positive response. For the national report card, we’re using a 100-point scale and then converting those numbers to letter grades. So the scores we send back will already be converted. We will total up their scores for each section and say, "your score on this section was a 4.2. That converts to an 84 on a 100 point scale, which is a B."

ICDN: So for the national rollout, you will be giving out letter grades just for the aggregate national averages, right?

Row: Correct. On the National Report Card, the part designed for the press (the Executive Summary) will have letter grades. It’s very similar to what ASCE does for their infrastructure assessment. [Editor's Note: See 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.] The final report, designed for practitioners, will include scores on a 100-point scale. That report, as well as the Executive Summary, will be distributed at the time of the national rollout.

ICDN: Are the final report and Executive Summary targeted for different audiences?

Row: The Executive Summary is intended for the press, decision-makers, and a general audience. The full report, which includes more signal jargon, is intended for practitioners. We’ve scrubbed that jargon out of the Executive Summary.

ICDN: Have you made any overall conclusions so far about those Self Assessment scores?

Row: Kathy Falk from Kimley-Horn presented some of the key findings yesterday at the ITE 2005 Spring Conference. What we have said publicly is that overall the national score is low, and it isn’t a surprise. As practitioners, for years we have tried to advocate for more resources and attention to be paid to signal optimization and signal timing, [but] practitioners just haven’t had the resources available to them.

ICDN: When you say that the overall national score is "low," compared to what? How do you know that it’s low?

Row: In developing that self-assessment we created a benchmarking tool. If you marked your score a "5" across the board, that meant that you had an outstanding signal operation. That’s what "low" is compared to -- the best signal operation that we could conceive within rational boundaries.

ICDN: What results did you find surprising, if any?

Row: The Self-Assessment contained six sections: proactive management, individualized signal operations, coordinated operations, detection, maintenance, and there was one section for specialized operations that we’re not counting in the overall score. The nationwide aggregate score for the proactive management category was lower than what we would have guessed going into the process. "Proactive management" means that agencies have a documented approach, philosophy, and/or concept of operations for their signal systems. They consciously and proactively manage their signal systems activity. It’s very much like an asset management approach, where you’re actively managing the system, as opposed to an approach where resource constraints mean that you have to just fight fires.

ICDN: And in the Self Assessment results you could tell the difference between firefighting and a proactive approach? You get a clear indication of what side of the fence they were on by the way they answered the questions?

Row: Yes. We didn’t specifically ask "do you fight fires with your resources?" It wasn’t that definitive, but reading between the lines in several sections, again and again, you see the same pattern repeating itself. At the highest level you can see that individualized intersections scored much higher than coordinated systems. You’d like to think that, particularly in metropolitan areas, the scores would be reversed.

ICDN: Why do you think that individual intersections scored relatively higher than coordinated systems?

Row: It’s because these agencies are fighting fires. They’re putting most of their efforts into keeping individual intersections functioning at some minimum level of functionality. That’s one example at the highest level, but in each section you get a feel that they’re doing the best they can with the resources that they have available.

ICDN: The presentation of the Self Assessment results at the ITE Technical Conference is the first step in preparing agencies for the National Report Card event, correct?

Row: That’s exactly right, and this step is critical. We’re trying to give state and local agencies as much heads-up time to be prepared for this national event as we can. Again and again in the literature that we’re putting out about this event, we say that your best defense is a good offense. You need to be prepared, to have your own story ready to tell, whatever it is.

ICDN: What is the date for the press rollout of the National Signal Report Card?

Row: We don’t have it nailed down yet. We’re looking at the end of the week of April 11. It will probably be held at a busy intersection in Washington, DC.

ICDN: The national press will be invited, I presume?

Row: Correct. We have a Public Relations firm on board, and they will be working the press angle to get the press there.

ICDN: Your hope would be that the national television news and national print media would pick it up this story, I presume?

Row: That’s true. In fact, we’re preparing what the television media refers to as "b-roll" – a television-ready video. The b-roll gives them the tools they need to tell the story. We’re spending the money on the b-roll to help the television media get the story out.

ICDN: The opportunity here is for local agencies to host a local press event in sync with that national one, is that correct? Do you expect that the local event would occur on the same day?

Row: We hope so -- that’s what we would encourage. It’s very important that that local event not occur the day before the national event. Having it occur on the same day is the best option for them to maximize their news coverage. We’re going to try to host the national event in the morning so that both events can work in tandem.

ICDN: I presume that the data that’s going to be discussed at the National Report Card event would be available some time in advance to the local agencies, so that they can prepare their own local report cards, correct?

Row: That’s correct. The plan right now is that we will send out what we’re calling "local press kits" to everyone who responded to us. Those press kits will be mailed in the middle-to-end of March. Those kits will have background material, as well as guidance for how to host press events. They will not contain the final report, which will be sent out under a separate cover a couple days prior to the national press event. However, the press kits will include information to help state and local agencies craft their own messages.

ICDN: Do you think the messages will differ in the local context? Different local entities may be in different positions relative the national average.

Row: I think that they will be slightly different, depending on their situations. A number of agencies will have good stories to tell -- they’re doing the right stuff, and there’s always room to do more. That’s what we’re trying to position them to be able to say: "Here’s what we’re doing. We think we’re doing the best job that we can. If we had more resources, we could score even better."

ICDN: To pull off successful local events, the traffic engineering folks who responded to the self-assessment will need to partner with folks in their own public relations departments, won’t they?

Row: You couldn’t be more correct.

ICDN: They may not even know each other?

Row: They may not. In the literature that we’re sending out, we’re saying "this is a good time to talk to your Public Information Officer, as well as your manager, your Mayor, your City Council – whomever you need to talk to – before this hits the press. It’s time."

ICDN: These results may also be quite useful to present to City Councils, won’t they?

Row: Absolutely. These results will hopefully give state and local traffic engineers ammunition to make better cases before their own Councils or State Legislatures or whichever bodies set priorities and funding.

ICDN: What materials are available now to help agencies prepare for this event – or at least begin the dialogue with their communications departments?

Row: As I mentioned earlier, we’re sending emails to all 378 respondents. Those email messages will include two additional documents, a Timeline and Checklist to help them start preparing for their local events. Again, in mid-to-late March we will send out in hardcopy the local press kits so that they can begin tailoring their own messages. We will also make many of these materials available electronically. That way, agencies that did not originally send in results can also access these materials.

We’ll send out another email message as soon as we’ve nailed down the exact date and time of the national press event, and right before that event we’ll send out the final report as well as the final talking points with the scores. That will probably be a hardcopy mailing, as well. We will not release the final report electronically until the day of the press event.

ICDN: What should practitioners do now, in addition to contacting their communications departments to let them know what’s coming?

Row: If they completed the self-assessment, they should start reviewing their own scores. They should talk to their Public Information Officers and any key management staff. They should start thinking about what their stories are, and the main messages that they want to communicate to the press. Ultimately, they need to start scheduling and preparing for their local press events.

ICDN: What is your hope and expectation from this national event, once it’s over and the dust is settled?

Row: I and the other NTOC members are hoping that the issue of optimizing the nation’s traffic signal systems is higher in people’s priorities -- that’s the big-ticket goal. As a result of both the national and local efforts, we would love to see more support for signal improvements, and support through staff time, attention, and money. We would also like to see a better-educated population about the value of signal systems. It’s not just about signals turning green, yellow, and red.

ICDN: In your recent presentation at the Talking Operations webcast on traffic signal optimization, you talked about what a miniscule amount of dollars today goes into traffic signal retiming when compared with the overall national surface transportation budget. Did I capture your observation correctly?

Row: Actually, what I said was that what we need is a miniscule amount. What we have is even less than miniscule. Our estimates are that to get an "A" score, a billion dollars a year nationwide needs to go into signal resources, including hardware updates, timing updates, and maintenance staff. Today, over $100 billion is spent in state, local, and federal moneys on highway transportation. We need less than one percent of that amount to get an "A."

Shelley Row can be reached at srow@ite.org