organizing of district 7 traffic operations for corridor...
TRANSCRIPT
Organizing of District 7 Traffic Operations
For Corridor Management
Prepared by:
In association with:
May 2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................ i
LIST OF EXHIBITS ..............................................................................................................................ii
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
II. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6
III. EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE .............................................................................. 8
Meetings Held ........................................................................................................................ 9
Priorities for Organizational Structure Options ..................................................................... 9
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OPTIONS CONSIDERED ...................................................... 11
Option 1 – Traditional Matrix Organization ......................................................................... 11
Option 2 – Needs-Based Corridor Management Teams ...................................................... 13
Option 3 – Dedicated Corridor Management Staff ............................................................. 14
Option 4A/B TSM&O-focused Organization ...................................................................... 15
V. PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................................. 18
VI. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................ 20
Implementation Steps .......................................................................................................... 22
Transition to Ultimate Corridor-Based Structure (Option 4B)............................................. 27
ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Short-Term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4A) ................................................ 2
Exhibit 2: Long-term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4B) .................................................. 3
Exhibit 3: System Management Mobility Pyramid ........................................................................ 6
Exhibit 4: Existing District 7 Division of Traffic Operations Functional Organization Chart .......... 8
Exhibit 5: Short-Term Matrix Organization .................................................................................. 12
Exhibit 6: Long-Term Matrix Organization ................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 7: Needs-Based Corridor Management Teams Organization .......................................... 14
Exhibit 8: Dedicated Corridor Management Staff Organization .................................................. 15
Exhibit 9: Short-Term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4A) ............................................... 16
Exhibit 10: Long-term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4B) ............................................... 17
Exhibit 11: Management and Supervisory Staff Transition - (Senior level and above) ................ 19
Exhibit 12: Implementation Road Map ......................................................................................... 21
Page - 1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project, “Organizing of District 7 Traffic Operations for Corridor Management,” was
undertaken by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to help align the Division
of Traffic Operations in urban districts with the principles of system management. Its goal is to
help foster a system management culture in order to maximize the performance of the existing
and future transportation system. The project addressed only District 7, the most congested
Caltrans district in California. It is meant as a pilot that other urban districts can consider
implementing in the future.
The project called for developing two to three prospective organizational charts, presenting
these options to District management and revising them as appropriate, developing a more
detailed organizational chart for the preferred option selected, and working with District
management and staff to develop an implementation plan.
A Strategic Team was assembled to oversee the project from start to end. It was comprised of
management representatives from Headquarters Division of Traffic Operations, the District 7
Deputy District Director for Traffic Operations, the District 7 Deputy District Director for
Planning, and management staff from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro). Based on input from the Strategic Team, the organizational options were to
focus on the following priorities in order to align District 7’s organizational structure to support
more effective and sustainable deployment of Transportation System Management &
Operations (TSM&O) strategies:
Establish Accountability for Corridor Performance
Improve Planning for Operations
Expand Real-Time Active Traffic Management
Address Stovepipe Problems
Ensure Responsiveness to Partners
District management also wanted to ensure that this reorganizational effort builds off of the
previous action already taken by the District 7 Division of Traffic Operations in 2012 to better
integrate safety and operations and balance the number of staff reporting to each of the Office
Chiefs. To address the priorities outlined above, four organizational options were developed
and vetted through District 7 executive management, Operations Office Chiefs, Senior
Operations staff, and the Strategic Team. The options are as follows:
1. Traditional Matrix Organization (with sub-options for short and long term) 2. Needs-Based Corridor Management Teams Organization 3. Dedicated Corridor Management Staff Organization
Page - 2
4. A TSM&O-focused organization that relies heavily on system performance monitoring and evaluation and corridor management accountability (with sub-options for the short and long term)
District staff at all levels, from executives to Senior Engineers, selected Option 4, “TSM&O-
focused Organization” as the preferred option as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 (orange denotes
significant changes). In addition, the preferred option builds off of the prior reorganization work
done to date to organize geographically while simultaneously balancing staff across offices.
Since support staff for a corridor will be assigned under a Corridor Manager, this option also
provides clear lines of reporting and supervision. Moreover, this option is scalable. The
reorganization can be deployed in small, manageable steps by converting to corridor
management a few corridors at a time (as shown in short-term option 4A) and also after there
has been an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the previous efforts. In this way, this
option provides a simpler evolutionary path to the complete transition to a corridor
management organizational structure (as shown in long-term option 4B).
Exhibit 1: Short-Term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4A)
Page - 3
Exhibit 2: Long-term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4B)
This option was chosen because it most fully supports the move to an organizational model that
focuses on corridor and system management, provides a platform to respond to some of the
issues raised in the recent State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI) review of Caltrans, and
addresses the aforementioned priorities in the following manner:
Establish Accountability: Establishing Corridor Managers will centralize responsibility for maximizing the performance of each of the existing and future corridors. The new System Monitoring and Evaluation Office will provide ongoing performance assessments as well as before and after analysis for various system management actions taken.
Improve Planning for Operations: Corridor Managers will be charged with mapping the operational evolution of their corridor and developing Plans for Operations for each corridor. These plans will include identifying projects to improve corridor performance. The work will build on ongoing performance assessments and rely heavily on the capabilities of the new System Analysis unit.
Page - 4
Expand Real-Time Active Traffic Management: Corridor Managers will work with the TMC and Incident Management staff to plan for and deploy active traffic management strategies that will improve corridor performance (e.g., Integrated Corridor Management, or ICM)
Address Stovepipe Problems: Needed functional staff required for each corridor will be assigned directly to the corresponding Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager will work with functional experts to address corridor performance issues in an integrated fashion.
Ensure Responsiveness to Partners: Corridor Managers will liaise with stakeholder agencies on matters related to a corridor. Plans for operations, including prioritized project lists, will be developed in conjunction and shared with stakeholder agencies on an ongoing basis. Strengthening these relationships with the local and regional partners will allow the District to establish and sustain an effective transportation leadership role in the LA Region.
The new position for a Principal TE in charge of System Management was deemed to be
invaluable to District 7, especially given the time requirement placed on the Deputy District
Director of Operations in this complex district with many extremely congested corridors.
It is extremely important to recognize that reorganizing alone will not succeed in addressing
the aforementioned priorities and improving overall corridor and system management.
Implementation is crucial and will require changing existing processes and procedures at both
the District and Headquarters. An implementation plan was developed in coordination with
District management and includes the following categories of activities:
1. Program Administration, including:
Gaining approval from Headquarters (HQ) for plan and associated resources
Announcing reorganization to staff
Developing Corridor Manager and System Monitoring duty statements and work plans
Revisions to the Caltrans Traffic Operations Management Information System (TOMIS)
2. Staff Recruitment and Template Development, including:
Principal TE recruitment
Office Chiefs recruitment for the new System Monitoring & Evaluation Office and the Corridor Managers Office.
Senior TE recruitment for new Corridor Managers, performance monitoring, and systems analysis
Designating Corridor Managers
Developing performance reporting template
Page - 5
Developing Plan for Operations template
Consolidating performance monitoring functions
3. Training & Staff Assignments, including:
Identification of staff for new functions
Reassigning staff to initial corridors
Providing training
From the numerous discussions with District 7 Executive staff and operations managers,
there is general agreement with the proposed reorganization. Nevertheless, everyone
acknowledges that the change will not be a simple one.
The District should be granted flexibility during the initial phases of this pilot. This flexibility
may involve adjustments to existing funding schemes, as well as recognizing that there may
be some temporary inefficiencies and reductions in productivity during the transitional
period.
Despite ongoing fiscal challenges, the reorganization will likely require additional resources.
But this should not come as a surprise since the new organization will be responsible for
more work and developing new products. In the end, it is all about improving performance
and being held accountable for the improvements.
Page - 6
II. INTRODUCTION
In April 2013, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) finalized its
Transportation Management System (TMS) Business Plan Update. The document
represents an update to the 2003 individual business plans for the incident management,
ramp metering, and arterial signal coordination business functions at Caltrans.
The TMS Business Plan emphasizes the need for the Caltrans Division of Traffic Operations
to embrace system management and operations through specific goals and actions. System
management is a philosophy best depicted by the Mobility Pyramid in Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 3: System Management Mobility Pyramid
The key related goals articulated in the TMS Business Plan update are to:
1. Realign the TMS organization to create a system management culture -- in order to
maximize the performance of the existing and future transportation system.
2. Adopt and implement a performance-based framework for all TMS work activities and
funding prioritization -- so that the Department uses the scarce transportation
resources as effectively as it can to demonstrate performance improvements to its
partners and to the public.
Page - 7
3. Establish a well-maintained and high-performing TMS infrastructure that supports
real-time traffic management -- in part by teaming with regional and local partners who
control much of the funding in California.
4. Cooperatively develop and implement real-time traffic management to optimize flow
and safety and to aid regions and the state in meeting greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction targets from transportation -- recognizing the need to establish partnerships
and operational agreements with the more engaged local and county agencies.
This project, “Organizing of District 7 Traffic Operations for Corridor Management,” is
meant to address the first goal above in the most congested Caltrans district that has some
of the most congested corridors in California as a pilot and then potentially extend it to
other urban districts. Any reorganizational realignment also needs to consider the other
goals. This effort is also consistent with recent organizational reviews conducted as part of
the Caltrans Program Review1 and the SSTI report “Caltrans Plan for the Future.”2
The scope of the project calls for developing two to three organizational options, presenting
these options to District management, and then developing a more detailed organizational
chart for the preferred option selected. Finally, it calls for working with District
management and staff to develop an implementation plan. The remainder of this report
includes:
Section III: Current Organization -- discusses the current functional organizational
structure of the Division of Traffic Operations in District 7.
Section IV: Organizational Options Considered -- presents 4 different options (as
opposed to the 2-3 required by the RFP) with variations for two of them.
Section V: Preferred Organizational Options -- details the option selected by the
District and presents a more detailed organizational chart (down to the Senior
Engineer level) as required by the scope of work.
Section VI: Implementation Plan for Preferred Option -- discusses the steps needed
to implement the preferred option based in large part on input and feedback
received from District management.
1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/Program_Review_Final_Report_Jan_2014.pdf
2 http://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/prgrev2012.pdf
Page - 8
III. EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The District 7 Division of Traffic Operations includes six engineering offices, an
administration unit, and 334 total positions, 39 of which are senior positions. Exhibit 4
below depicts a simplified functional organizational chart for the Division. This chart was
developed in part to compare it to organizational options developed and discussed in the
next section.
It is important to note that this existing organization represents recently implemented
changes in 2012 to start focusing on geographical areas and balance the number of staff
reporting to each of the Office Chiefs. Before these changes, there was an Office of
Operational Investigations and an Office of Safety Investigations instead of an Office of
Traffic Engineering North and an Office of Traffic Engineering South. The change was made
to be consistent with the first goal communicated in the Headquarters reorganization of the
Division of Traffic Operations: “Fully integrate safety and mobility by focusing on system
performance.”
Exhibit 4: Existing District 7 Division of Traffic Operations Functional Organization Chart
Page - 9
Meetings Held
Several meetings were held with District 7 management to identify issues with the current
organization before developing organizational options for consideration. These meetings
included:
Monthly Strategic Team Meetings -- A strategic team was formed and included
management representatives from the Headquarters Division of Traffic Operations,
the District 7 Deputy District Director for Traffic Operations, the District 7 Deputy
District Director for Planning, and management staff from the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro).
One-on-one Meetings with the Office Chiefs of the District 7 Division of Traffic
Operations.
Workshop with all the Office Chiefs of the District 7 Division of Traffic Operations.
Workshop with the Senior Engineers of the District 7 Division of Traffic Operations.
Meetings with the Executive Management of District 7.
Priorities for Organizational Structure Options
Based on input gained during these meetings on the issues and shortcomings of the current
structure, the organizational structure options developed were to focus on the following
priorities:
Establish Accountability -- The current organizational structure does not place
responsibility or accountability for corridor performance on individuals. If a problem
occurs on a corridor, it is unclear who is to be held accountable for knowing about
and then addressing the problem. Furthermore, no individual is assigned the role of
understanding overall corridor performance trends, identifying opportunities for
improvements, tracking upcoming funded projects, or interfacing with external
stakeholders of the corridor. Management, in general, agreed with the scope of
work and that the TMS Business Plan recommendation to “Appoint corridor
managers (new positions) responsible for one or more urban corridors” should be a
central theme of any organizational option developed.
Improve Planning for Operations -- District Traffic Operations does not currently
produce a regular plan on how to optimize the performance of corridors, let alone to
define the limits or components of what is considered to be part of a corridor (i.e.
freeway/highway facilities, major parallel arterials, transit routes, bike and
pedestrian facilities, etc.). Consistent with federal initiatives where “Planning for
Page - 10
Operations” is becoming a major theme, District and Metro management believe
that Caltrans should develop and update a Plan for Operations in conjunction with
local partner agencies for each corridor, however defined, on an ongoing basis. Such
plans would focus on short- to medium-term operational projects and other
strategies to optimize the performance of corridors and could be used by Metro to
prioritize Measure R expenditures.
Expand Real-Time Active Traffic Management -- Real-time traffic management is
currently handled on an ad hoc basis, with the focus on freeway operations only.
Little integration with transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and arterials exists.
Another major theme at the federal level is the need to focus on TSM&O-related
initiatives, including the Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiatives in San
Diego, Dallas, and Virginia. The San Francisco Bay Area is also implementing an ICM
for Interstate 80. The recent Caltrans investment in “Connected Corridors” for
Interstate 210 presents a significant opportunity to support the robust
implementation of the first Caltrans-led ICM in Los Angeles with the reorganization
of the Division of Traffic Operations.
Address Stovepipe Problems -- One major issue discussed is that the current
organizational structure lends itself to functionally-focused groups that do not
interact sufficiently with other functional groups even though such interfaces would
benefit overall corridor performance. Coordination of disparate operational
activities within the same corridor is not the norm. For instance, the ramp metering
staff does not interact sufficiently with arterial signal coordination staff even though
both groups aim to manage traffic within close boundaries defined by the freeway
ramps and the signalized intersections at the ramp termini, thereby maximizing
system productivity. District management communicated its goal of minimizing
stovepipe problems with any reorganizational option.
Ensure responsiveness to partners -- District management emphasized that any
organizational structure option should ensure responsiveness to Caltrans partners in
the District. These partners include Metro, but also the sub-regions, generally
organized as Councils of Governments (COGs) and the local cities. Metro, through
Measure R, is working with the COGs to prioritize highway investments in Los
Angeles. Being responsive to the partners (e.g., by providing performance
assessments, Plans for Operations) would benefit everyone since the most
promising projects would more likely be funded.
Using the input from the various meetings and the list of issues to address, four
organizational options were developed for consideration.
Page - 11
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The organizational options developed are discussed in this section. However, it is
understood that changing only the organizational structure will not resolve all the issues. It
is important to revise processes and to modify resource allocations in order for any
structure to succeed. Section VI contains a discussion of the implementation steps (jointly
developed with District management and staff) that are critical to the success of any
organizational change. Three of the four options presented herein “institutionalize”
performance measurement by combining existing system monitoring and evaluation
functions, elevating their importance and adding additional related functions like system
analysis. This is done to recognize the importance of performance measurement to any
system management initiative. After all, “Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation” is the
foundation of the Mobility Pyramid presented in the first section of this report.
Option 1 – Traditional Matrix Organization
Private sector firms often face some of the same challenges/issues presented in the
previous section. Specifically, there are always challenges related to balancing the need for
functional units and geographic units at the same time. Consider a large consulting firm
with specific expertise in multiple disciplines (e.g., strategic planning, operations, and
design) with offices scattered around the country. Such a firm often holds regional offices
accountable for clients and financial performance, yet recognizes that functional teams are
beneficial for staff members to learn from one another and for providing a career track for
functional experts. Such firms often employ a matrix organization. Exhibits 5 and 6 depict
short- and long-term matrix organizational examples for corridor management at District 7.
The short-term matrix in Exhibit 5 represents the minimum change proposed in order to
cooperatively develop Plans for Operations, as discussed earlier. Note that real-time
activities are not included. Corridor Managers would be assigned staff from various
functional groups, including the current traffic monitoring, safety investigations, operational
investigations, ramp metering, signal operations, and HOV operations. However, assigned
staff would also continue to report to functional managers. Therefore each staff member
would in effect have two “bosses.”
The long-term matrix adds the real-time activities by also integrating the traffic
management team, TMC operations, dispatch, and TMP activities within the matrix
structure. It is envisioned that implementing the matrix organization would entail adopting
Page - 12
the short-term structure first, and then, as time goes by, adding the real-time activities to it.
Both options may be difficult to implement at Caltrans due to civil service laws and policies.
They do, however, offer a model that has been used regularly in the private sector and can
be implemented without too much disruption to the current organization.
Exhibit 5: Short-Term Matrix Organization
Exhibit 6: Long-Term Matrix Organization
Page - 13
Option 2 – Needs-Based Corridor Management Teams
The second option is shown in Exhibit 7. The boxes in orange depict the main changes, in
the form of new or revamped functions, from the current functional organizational
structure discussed in the previous section. Highlights of this option include:
Creating a new Office of Corridor Managers, with an Office Chief and Corridor
Managers -- Corridor Managers would be responsible for forming and leading
Corridor Management Teams on an ad-hoc basis to address specific performance
issues and needs on the corridor identified by the performance assessment and
system analysis functions. Depending on the needs identified, these teams will be
comprised of staff from functional units in other offices and potentially from other
Caltrans Divisions (i.e., Transportation Planning, Maintenance, etc.). That is why this
option is called Needs-Based Corridor Management Teams.
Combining various performance measurement efforts into one function under the
new office -- This group will be in charge of corridor performance assessments and
causality analysis of deficiencies (e.g., bottlenecks) and will report to the district
management regularly on all aspects of traffic performance of the highway system.
Creating a new function for System Analysis that can evaluate various project
alternatives, including safety and operational strategies that will improve corridor
performance, thereby laying the foundation for the development of corridor-specific
Plans for Operations.
Recognizing the need for internal and external coordination to ensure
responsiveness to external partners and facilitate internal coordination since there
are many stakeholders involved in successfully managing a corridor.
Corridor Managers under this option would not have dedicated staff from the various
functional units and therefore would need to rely on the functional managers for support.
However, they would be accountable for convening teams to develop the Plans for
Operations and reaching out to the functional experts once performance issues are
identified.
As mentioned earlier, this is the first option that “institutionalizes” performance
measurement, which is a critical component of system management and a goal of both the
TMS Business Plan and the Headquarters Division of Traffic Operations Reorganization that
was implemented in July 2013. This option also retains the functional expertise.
Page - 14
One issue that District 7 management identified with this organizational option is that
Corridor Managers may have to be designated as Senior Specialists if they do not directly
supervise any staff. For a variety of reasons, Senior Specialists get paid more than Senior
Engineers, which would likely create some unwelcomed tension and budget challenges.
Exhibit 7: Needs-Based Corridor Management Teams Organization
Option 3 – Dedicated Corridor Management Staff
The third option is shown in Exhibit 8. The orange boxes representing new functions are
identical to those in Option 2. However, the gray shown in the functional boxes is new and
reflects staff members that are dedicated to the Corridor Managers for only a period of
time, which eliminates the issues associated with requiring the Corridor Managers to rely on
the functional managers for staff support.
Under this option, the Corridor Manager has more authority and control over the staff, but
it could potentially start to confuse reporting lines for staff as they are temporarily assigned
to the new Corridor Managers Office. The other potential issues with this option are the
possible “cherry-picking” of staff for reassignment and the potential to deplete functional
unit resources by dedicating limited staff to specific corridors in the new office.
Page - 15
Exhibit 8: Dedicated Corridor Management Staff Organization
Option 4A/B TSM&O-focused Organization
The fourth and final option, broken down into short and long term, is shown in Exhibits 9
and 10. This option further elevates the importance of the system management, corridor
management, and system monitoring and evaluation functions. This option more directly
builds upon the prior reorganization efforts conducted in 2012 by breaking up the
functional units and reorganizing staff geographically.
Unlike Option 3, where staff members are dedicated to the Corridor Manager only on a
temporary basis and functional units may be depleted, this option ultimately moves toward
dissolving the functional units and permanently dedicating staff with varying functional
expertise to working on specific corridors under Corridor Managers who may be at the
Office Chief or Senior level. Recognizing the importance of the performance monitoring and
system analysis functions, a separate new Office of System Monitoring and Evaluation was
created. These changes are consistent with Headquarters Traffic Operations organizational
changes that assigned Assistant Division Chief positions and created an Office of
Performance.
To assist the Deputy District Director with effectively managing the new organization and
new functions, a Principal TE position was created to oversee these offices along with the
Page - 16
Office of the District Traffic Manager. This Principal TE would manage the most direct
system management functions and the corresponding staff, thus providing critical support
to the Deputy District Director and enabling him/her to focus on other division priorities
and respond to partners, executive staff, and Headquarters in a timely manner. Again, this
is aligned with the Headquarters reorganization which includes an Assistant Division Chief
to effectively manage the operations offices and enable the Division Chief to liaise with
districts and partner agencies.
The short-term phase of Option 4 shown in Exhibit 9 starts with only one or two Corridor
Managers supported by fully assigned staff. It is preferred to test the implementation with
a small set of corridors before implementing them for all corridors in the district. This way,
there is an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the previous efforts and make
adjustments as needed. The adjustments can then be incorporated for the rest of the
corridors. The District has identified the I-210 and the State Route 110 as the top two
highest priority Connected Corridors, and therefore the Option 4, short-term phase will
begin with organizing the Office of Corridors Managers to include these two important
corridors. Note that since the short-term phase is only for two corridors, the Offices of
Traffic Engineering North and South would stay the same, except for some personnel to be
reassigned to the new Office of Corridors Managers.
Exhibit 9: Short-Term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4A)
Once expanded to include all corridors in the district, the North and South offices disappear
and their staff members are assigned to various corridors as either Corridor Managers or
Page - 17
functional staff. As mentioned earlier, Corridor Managers for complex corridors may be
Office Chiefs, while others may be Senior Engineers. Given this, this option also has the
additional benefit of providing promotional opportunities for staff.
Exhibit 10: Long-term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4B)
This two-step option was selected by the District as their preferred option. It attempts to
address all of the issues identified with the existing organizational structure (e.g.,
accountability, planning for operations, real-time active traffic management, stovepipe
problems, and responsiveness to partners). It is again important to emphasize that
changing only the organizational structure will not solve all of the aforementioned
problems and result in improved system and corridor management. Issues such as
uniformity/consistency across geographical areas and necessary skill sets with broadened
functional expertise will have to be addressed through the implementation of this option.
Existing processes will inevitably need to be revised and staff will need to be empowered
with the knowledge to carry out their new system and corridor management activities.
Page - 18
V. PREFERRED OPTION
As stated in the previous section, the district’s preferred option was chosen because it most
fully supports the move to an organizational model that focuses on Transportation System
Management & Operations and addresses the priorities described in this report’s
Introduction:
Establish Accountability: Establishing Corridor Managers will centralize responsibility for maximizing the performance of each of the existing and future corridors. The new System Monitoring and Evaluation Office will provide ongoing performance assessments as well as before and after analysis for various system management actions taken.
Improve Planning for Operations: Corridor Managers will be charged with mapping the
operational evolution of their corridor and developing Plans for Operations for each
corridor. These plans will include promising projects to improve corridor performance.
The work will build on ongoing performance assessments and rely heavily on the
capabilities of the new System Analysis unit.
Expand Real-Time Active Traffic Management: Corridor Managers will work with the
TMC and Incident Management staff to plan for and deploy active traffic management
strategies that will improve corridor performance (e.g., Integrated Corridor
Management, or ICM).
Address Stovepipe Problems: Needed functional staff required for each corridor will be
assigned directly to the corresponding Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager will
work with functional experts to address corridor performance issues in an integrated
fashion.
Ensure Responsiveness to Partners: Corridor Managers will liaise with stakeholder
agencies on matters related to a corridor. Plans for Operations, including prioritized
project lists, will be developed in conjunction and shared with stakeholder agencies.
In addition, the preferred option builds off of the prior reorganization work done to date to
organize geographically while simultaneously balancing staff across offices. Since support staff
for a corridor will be assigned under a Corridor Manager, this option also provides clear lines of
reporting and supervision. Moreover, this option is scalable. The reorganization can be
deployed in small manageable steps by converting to corridor management a few corridors at a
time, as previously discussed. In this way, this option provides a simpler evolutionary path to
the complete transition to a corridor management organizational structure (as shown in long
Page - 19
term option 4B). Exhibit 11 shows the detailed management and staff changes for
implementing Option 4A.
It should be noted that this option was selected by District 7 based on an assessment of their
specific needs. Many aspects of the District 7 reorganization may be applicable to other
districts, depending on the district’s geographic complexity or size. Reorganizations in other
districts should be carefully tailored to each area, with a strong emphasis on institutionalizing
the performance monitoring, system analysis, and planning for operations functions.
Exhibit 11: Management and Supervisory Staff Transition - (Senior level and above)
Page - 20
VI. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PREFERRED OPTION
The reorganization should proceed expeditiously but deliberately. Staff members have
anxiously awaited the reorganization for almost two years, and Operations Office Chiefs and
Senior Engineers have been engaged in helping shape this effort for the last year. The longer it
takes to begin the reorganization, the greater the risk that support and momentum will wane.
There are numerous reasons, however, to proceed deliberately. The entire process of the
reorganization -- beginning with the reasons for it to the desired products and outcomes --
must be fully thought through before starting. The reorganization process and the requisite
background information must be clearly articulated to staff in order to gain and maintain their
support. Management must be prepared to respond to staff concerns and minimize errant
speculation by presenting an understandable road map. Central to that will be the
establishment of realistic goals and schedules and judiciously avoiding over-promising. To that
end, the phased implementation approach in the district’s preferred option provides an
opportunity to assess an initial small-scale reorganization before proceeding with the division-
wide restructuring.
Key to the speed with which this reorganization can be implemented will be the various internal
administrative processes that will have to be navigated. Most significant of these will be the
numerous staff recruitments for the new corridor management hierarchy, which ideally will
occur in a series (rather than in parallel) so that each management level will have a say in
selecting their subordinate staff. Headquarters and district Administration support will be
critical to keeping this part of the process moving.
The “Implementation Road Map” in Exhibit 12 outlines the major steps to implement the initial
phase of the reorganization (Option 4A). While it presents one logical sequence to complete
the initial phase, the actual order and timing of events can be adjusted as needs arise.
Moreover, the draft timeline shown is admittedly optimistic and assumes that all the required
pieces fall into place in the form and time needed. External assistance may be needed for
several of the steps where the district is not sufficiently resourced.
Page - 21
Exhibit 12: Implementation Road Map for Short-Term TSM&O-focused Organization (Option 4A)
Page - 22
Implementation Steps
The steps to implementation can be grouped into three general categories, which, in large
part, should be performed sequentially. The first category, “Program Administration,”
includes the work needed to initiate the reorganization, including the broad programmatic
steps such as approvals and development of schedules, duty statements and workplans.
The second category, “Staff Recruitments and Template Development,” involves filling the
management and supervisory positions of the new System Monitoring & Evaluation and
Corridor Managers offices, as well as the development of templates for the performance
reports and Plan for Operations. These templates will serve as the basis for the products of
the new offices. Finally, the third category, “Training and Staff Assignments,” covers the
actual reassignment of staff to the new offices and providing the necessary training for their
new tasks.
(1) Program Administration
HQ approval of reorganization plan
Headquarters Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning management and staff, including Division Chiefs, were briefed on the proposed reorganization on February 5, 2014. Headquarters management and staff were generally supportive of the concept and approach, although it is not known whether the positions and funding augmentations needed for District 7 to fully implement the preferred option will be reflected in the FY 14/15 Traffic Operations Program budget allocations. It is also not known at this time if approvals will be needed from the Department of Finance and the Department of Human Resources for the new positions, particularly the new Principal TE.
The District 7 Executive Team, including the District Director, was briefed on January 21, 2014, and supported the reorganization.
Finalize plan & schedule This step would review and finalize the “Road Map” shown above. Major steps and milestones would be confirmed, as would the inter-dependency of related events. While it will be important to develop enough detail at this point to begin work on the immediate next steps, it should also be acknowledged that the initial implementation will not be perfect, and adjustments and revisions will be needed as actual experience with corridor management is acquired.
Development of an aggressive but achievable schedule will also require careful attention to existing departmental processes and timelines. Most important of these will be the recognition of budget cycles, as any new resources needed for the reorganization will need to be aligned with allocations for each fiscal year. The “Road Map” shown above provides this budget cycle alignment.
Announce to staff Staff support will be crucial to the success of the reorganization and achieving the goals of corridor management. How this change is communicated will be instrumental in recruiting the best staff for the new
Page - 23
offices. The Office Chiefs and Senior TEs who already have been engaged with the reorganization have been generally supportive.
Factors to consider in the announcement include:
Source of the announcement? District Director? Operations Deputy District Director?
References to the recent SSTI report and Program Review and the need to focus on operating the highway system more efficiently and improving integration with transportation partners
Upward mobility opportunities for staff in the new offices
The fact that no other state DOT is implementing corridor management in this form. District 7 is leading the nation.
Why? What is different? How is this better? Ultimate plan?
Don’t over-promise; emphasize “pilot” nature of the reorganization
Not everyone will be directly affected; most people will continue doing their daily work as they have been
Partners and stakeholders should also be advised of the reorganization:
A detailed briefing should be given to the Operations DDDs from other districts. The DDDs from Districts 4 and 12 have already been briefed.
Partner agencies, especially METRO, should be updated.
Develop Corridor Manager and System Monitoring work plans
Work plans would outline the specific tasks, responsibilities, expectations, and goals for the Corridor Managers and System Monitoring & Evaluation offices. Interaction and inter-relationships with other functional units within the Division of Operations, with other divisions within the District, and with external stakeholders, would be defined. To the extent possible, the authority of the Corridor Managers in relation to the functional managers should be defined as well.
It will also be important at this stage to catalog the types of products that the offices will generate and the frequency with which they will be produced. For example, how often are performance reports generated? How frequently should a corridor’s Plan for Operations be refreshed?
TOMIS revisions The Caltrans Traffic Operations Program’s work activity charging system, “TOMIS” (Traffic Operations Management Information System), will need to be updated to reflect the new activities defined under the corridor management structure. While it can be argued that no explicitly new work will be created by moving to a corridor-based organizational structure, the “Corridor Manager” role aggregates a variety of tasks that would have fallen under a large number of Project IDs and sub-jobs. Consequently, it would be more efficient to be able to allocate resources and track production for a new set of Project IDs and sub-jobs specifically defined for the Corridor Manager role.
Some of the work in the newly formed offices could temporarily use the System Management and Development reporting code in conjunction with the existing project codes until staff is instructed to do otherwise.
Page - 24
(2) Staff Recruitments and Template Development
Much of the preparatory recruitment work would be performed during the prior development
of work plans. Nevertheless, the recruitment process will likely be time-consuming, and it may
be a controlling factor in how expeditiously the reorganization can be implemented. HQ and
District 7 Administration support will be needed to ensure these steps do not cause the
schedule to bog down. Ideally, the recruitments should be conducted in series so that higher-
level managers would be directly involved in the selection of subordinate staff. Each of the
recruitments will require their own approved duty statements, be advertised separately,
develop their own interview questions and have their own interview panels. Fortunately, much
of this preparatory work can be done in parallel, with the exception of the interviews and final
selections.
Duty statements would be based largely upon the previously developed work plans,
establishing expectations for accountability, relationships and interaction with other functional
units, goals, products, and schedules. A mechanism to assess the performance of the new
managers should also be described.
A review of the relevant compensable factors should be conducted to confirm that the
appropriate civil service classifications have been selected. Careful consideration should be
taken of the span of control and supervisory responsibility for each of the manager positions
and their corresponding civil service classification. Relevant sections of the Government Code
should be reviewed and the Department of Human Resources should be consulted to ensure
that the actual duties and responsibilities are consistent with the classifications and titles for
each position. Designating some of the positions as non-supervisory “Specialists” could
partially address some of the span of control issues, but may generate unintended equity
concerns with other managerial positions.
Principal TE recruitment The Principal TE position would ideally be the first vacancy filled so that he/she will have the opportunity to participate in the selection of the supervisors and staff in the new offices. If there is any delay in obtaining approval for this position, it would be possible, although less ideal, to proceed with the remaining recruitments. However, this would place additional burden on the Deputy District Director of Traffic Operations to directly oversee the newly created units while also running the rest of the division.
As with any recruitment, a duty statement would need to be developed and approved, the position would need to be advertised, an interview panel would need to be formed, interview questions would need to be developed, and interviews would have to be conducted.
Page - 25
Office Chief recruitments Two new Office Chief (Supervising TE) positions would need to be filled for the new Office of System Monitoring & Evaluation and Office of Corridor Managers. Duty statements would need to be developed and approved, based on the work plans prepared earlier. The position would need to be advertised, an interview panel would need to be formed, interview questions would need to be developed, and interviews would have to be conducted. Given the level of these positions, it is probable that there will be substantial interest from both internal candidates as well as outside of the division. Given the nature of the work, some thought should be given to whether other classifications, such as Transportation Planners, could also be considered for these positions.
Senior TE recruitments Four Senior-level positions would need to be filled in the new units. It is possible that at least one, and possibly two, of these positions will be filled through reassignment of existing Seniors within the division.
As with the other new vacancies, duty statements would need to be developed and approved, the position would need to be advertised, an interview panel would need to formed, interview questions would need to be developed, and interviews would have to be conducted.
Backfill vacancies If the new management and supervisory positions are filled through promotions of existing division staff, vacancies may be created in the functional areas they vacate. In order to ensure that productivity is maintained, the recruitment process to backfill these additional vacancies must also occur quickly.
Designate Corridor Managers The appropriate classification for Corridor Managers would depend on the corridor’s operational complexity and potential for controversy. For the interim reorganization, the district has decided on I-210 and I-110 as the two priority pilot corridors. Given the anticipated effort and degree of congestion and operational problems, a Senior Transportation Engineer appears to be the appropriate classification level for the managers of these corridors.
The Corridor Manager positions could be filled through the traditional recruitment process or through voluntary or mandatory transfers. While it may be desirable to select or assign managers that already have some familiarity and experience with the corridor, the need for the Corridor Managers to possess the broad technical and team-building skill set needed should not be minimized.
Develop performance reporting template
The mechanism by which system and corridor performance is reported will need to be developed. To some extent, existing Caltrans publications can be used as a model. These include The Mile Marker, quarterly performance reports, and the annual Mobility Performance Report. However, if the goal is to be able to “tell the story” of a specific corridor to inform and influence future improvements, then more detail and background will be needed.
Development of a template that would be replicated for each corridor will ensure consistency and comparability. At a minimum, the reports should catalog the performance history of a corridor, documenting the causes and
Page - 26
congestion and magnitude, as well as the effect of changes made to corridor facilities.
Develop Plan for Operations template
The overall goals for the Plans for Operations would have been established in the work plans and would describe an evolutionary path for each corridor. The desired products could be modeled, to some extent, on Corridor System Management Plans developed throughout the state or on the Freeway Performance Initiative reports developed in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ideally, the plans would compile a prioritized list of short-term and medium-term capital projects, needed ITS infrastructure, and viable real-time active traffic management strategies.
Consolidate monitoring functions Currently, monitoring of the highway system is distributed among various units based on function. Tracking of managed lanes is handled by one unit, overall congestion monitoring in another, and safety statistics in yet another. In the preferred reorganization option, all performance monitoring functions would be consolidated into one unit, and this would ensure that all operational aspects of the system are reported on together.
(3) Training & Staff Assignments
Identify staff for new functions The selection of which staff will work in the new units should be based on a variety of factors. For the corridor management units, it would appear logical to assign staff members who are already familiar with a given corridor. For the system analysis unit, knowledge of traffic operations and analysis principles would be ideal, although that may initially be a challenge.
Whether the new units will be staffed through voluntary or mandatory transfers needs to be decided, as will whether functional managers will have input in the selection process. For some of the new functions, such as system analysis, external consultant assistance could be a means to bridge the gap in expertise until staff members are sufficiently trained to perform this task on their own.
Reassign staff to Corridor Managers and System Monitoring & Evaluation offices
A variety of logistical tasks would need to be performed when the selected staff members are assigned to the new units. Ideally, all staff in the units would be physically located together in common office areas or at least in close enough proximity to encourage collaboration. Phone numbers may need to be re-routed; business cards may need to be revised, etc.
Identify training needs A comprehensive skills assessment should be conducted to determine what training needs arise from the reorganization. While the focus would be on the new Corridor Management units, the review should encompass the entire division since duties in the functional areas may be reassigned as a result of the reorganization, as well as to prepare for the eventual migration
Page - 27
to a complete corridor-based structure.
Potential areas requiring training may include:
a) Project management b) Traffic operations (incl. ICM, incident mgmt., managed lanes) c) System analysis (incl. principles of microsimulation and multimodal
corridor analysis) d) Safety e) Performance monitoring and reporting
Provide training Several existing training programs could be utilized, including:
a) Caltrans Freeway Operations Academy b) Caltrans Safety Academy c) FHWA Capability Maturity Model d) Regional Operations Forum
Depending on the availability of the needed training courses, external assistance could be pursued. These avenues include academic or university training, or through the use of consultants.
Transition to Ultimate Corridor-Based Structure (Option 4B)
The long-term goal is to move the District Division of Traffic Operations to a corridor-based
organizational structure. However, an evaluation of Option 4A, based on the performance
goals and outcomes identified in the work plans, should be conducted before moving
forward. The Strategic Team that has guided this effort should continue to be convened
periodically to review progress.
The District does not have to move from 4A directly to 4B. For instance, if resources
dictate, the District can add a couple of corridors at a time instead of making a complete
transition. This may depend on the level of commitment from other divisions such as
Transportation Planning or Maintenance, for example.
New priority corridors can be identified through the performance assessments conducted
by the new Office of System Monitoring and Evaluation and in conjunction with partner
agencies.