1 / 15

Pioneer ICM site in Seattle – SoDo Corridor

Pioneer ICM site in Seattle – SoDo Corridor. Vinh Q. Dang, WSDOT. Why our site needs ICM. Geometric constraints / opportunities Compact corridor - alternate routes and modes are within 1 mile width Interchanges are adequately spaced. Why our site needs ICM.

Antony
Download Presentation

Pioneer ICM site in Seattle – SoDo Corridor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pioneer ICM site in Seattle – SoDo Corridor Vinh Q. Dang, WSDOT

  2. Why our site needs ICM • Geometric constraints / opportunitiesCompact corridor - alternate routes and modes are within 1 mile widthInterchanges are adequately spaced

  3. Why our site needs ICM • Operational challengesFlat peaks – Unstable flow on I-5Sharp peaks – Unused capacity on arterialsMajor blocking incident affects the adjacent networks

  4. Why our site needs ICM • Multiple jurisdiction operating individual networks within the corridorState – FreewaysCity of Seattle – ArterialsTransit agencies – Bus, Train

  5. Balance load Share and disseminate real time information pertaining to corridor Promote and accommodate cross network modal & route shift Manage capacity-demand relationship within corridor in real time Cross jurisdiction control – provision to assume control during off hours. How ICM will help our Site

  6. Who are our ICM Stakeholders • Washington State DOT • Washington State Patrol • City of Seattle • King County Metro Transit and Road Services • Sound Transit • Puget Sound Regional of Councils (MPO) • FHWA • FTA

  7. How our Site defined Roles and achieved Buy-in among ICM Stakeholders • Lead agency – facilitator among partners. • Agency maintain primary control of its network & assets • Agency retain it’s ownership and operation responsibility • Operational agreement to jointly operate specific ITS devices identified as critical for the corridor. • “Buy-in” takes time and effort. Working together to develop corridor goals, needs and to answer “what is in it for us”.

  8. What our proposed ICMS will look like

  9. Congestion Management Decision Support Process

  10. Incident reporting Process

  11. How our ICMS will facilitate ICM • Serves as Central Information Repository (CIR) for all networks in the corridor • Processes and disseminate corridor specific ATIS • Presents a comprehensive (transportation) system status to support / assist congestion management decision.

  12. Lessons Learned – Operational • Route shifting is always sensitive. • Need to make and prove that the alternate route is capable.

  13. Lessons Learned – Operational • Route shifting is always sensitive. • Need to make sure and prove that the alternate routes or modes are ready and capable.

  14. Lessons Learned – Technical • Developing ConOps is an iterative processBiggest huddle - from agencies wish list to corridor’s need • Constraints during the system requirements development might result in revision to ConOps. • ICD for legacy system • Some in-house application developed by the agency is on a fast (deployment) track - minimal / no documentation!

  15. Lessons Learned – Institutional • Jointly operate ITS device or share control of devices(who, what, when protocol) • Partnership, partnership, and partnershipParticipation in the regional traffic operation committee foster partnershipDiscuss ICM strategies together during “happy hours” also foster partnership 

More Related