Integrated Corridor Management (ICM)

1. IntegratedCorridor Management (ICM) Brian P. Cronin, P.E.

2. What is ICM? • ICM is a promising tool in the congestion management toolbox that combines advanced technologies and innovative practices. • ICM is the proactive, joint, multimodal management of transportation infrastructure assets along a corridor by transportation system operators and managers. • ICM seeks to optimize the use of existing infrastructure assets, making transportation investments go farther. • With ICM, the corridor is managed as a system—rather than the more traditional approach of managing individual assets.

3. Example ICM Corridor Local Jurisdiction 1 — Traffic Signal System Regional Rail Agency — Train Management System State DOT — Freeway Management System Bus Company — AVL System Local Jurisdiction 2 — Traffic Signal System

4. Integrated Corridor Management System An ICMS is the set of procedures, processes, and information systems that support transportation system managers in making coordinated decisions involving the optimal performance of all transportation networks in a corridor.

5. Corridor Networks Today Freeway Systems Arterial Signal Systems Rail Systems Bus Systems

6. With ICM Managing All Corridor Capacity Significant Congestion ICM Systems

7. ICMS Context “ICM is about management of a corridor. Management implies more than monitoring. Management implies planning for, and responding to what is happening.” Operational Objectives – Provide the Tools To: • Optimize performance at a corridor level • Improve utilization of existing infrastructure • Reduce travel delays • Achieve load balancing across the networks • Facilitate mode shifts • Facilitate route shifts • Facilitate departure/arrival shifts • Respond to events with coordinated multi-agency actions

8. ICM AMS Focus: Integrated Performance Measures Improved Corridor Management Short-term prediction

9. Eight USDOT ICM Pioneer Sites • 3 Stages for the Pioneer Sites: • Stage 1 – Concept of Operations, Sample Data, and Requirements • Stage 2 – Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation • Stage 3 – Demonstration and Evaluation Seattle Minneapolis Montgomery County Oakland San Diego Dallas San Antonio Houston

10. High-Level ICM Program Plan FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 Stakeholder Working Group Phase 1:Foundational Research Phase 2: Corridor Tools, Strategies & Integration Phase 3: Stage 1 - ICM Pioneer Site Concept of Operations and Requirements Phase 3: Stage 2 -Analysis, Modeling & Simulation of Selected Pioneer Sites Phase 3:Stage 3 - Pioneer Demonstration Projects Site Applications Feasibility Site Development Feasibility Development Feasibility Phase 4: ICM Operations Concept Knowledge and Technology Transfer Standards Completion and Deployment September 2005 March 2008 July 2009

11. A Systems Engineering Approach 11

12. Concept of Operations Development

13. The Goals of a Concept of Operations • Describe the system characteristics • Operational perspective • Show how the users, user organizations, and the system will achieve mission goals • Facilitate understanding of system goals • Form a basis for long-range operations planning • Provide guidance and information • To develop subsequent requirements specifications • To develop interface specifications.

14. The Generic ICMS • Get information • Process information • Store information • Send information to Operators, Agencies & Public • Analyze situations • Recommend actions • Execute required actions

15. Sample ICMS Concept

16. Systems Requirements

17. Requirements Specification • Developed after CONOPS is Complete • Document Identifies • Functions • Quantity • Quality • Document Organization • Introduction • System Description • Requirements • Requirements are not System Design

18. What have we learned so far in CONOPS and Requirements development… • Involve the Right people from the Start • Develop a Clear Concept • Go slow to go fast • The need for Needs • A Picture = A Thousand Words • Technical gaps will exist • Word Choices is Important • Build the right thing and build it right

19. ICM Transit and Arterial Data Gap Overview

20. Data Needs Analysis ICMS introduces needs that were not present when we were only dealing with one network at a time. • Data collection needs time stamps so data from different sources can be aligned • Data granularity is different for ICMS (we need finer spatial and temporal detail) • Data latencies that were acceptable for reporting will not work for operational modeling and control • Decisions about how to respond to current situations should not be based on data that is days or weeks old. • Observational data needs to be collected often enough to represent the current situation. • Observational data needs to be available quick enough to facilitate a useful response • Challenges: Data sharing limitations: proprietary data, agency policies, incompatible data systems

21. ICM Data Requirements • Transit Networks - We need data that represents the current situation • Vehicle location and speed every 30-120 seconds • Vehicle passenger count every pull-out • Arterial Networks – We need data that represents what is happening at the lane level • Vehicle volumes, by approach lane, collected every 1-5 seconds & reported every 30-300 seconds • Signal phase data, by approach lane, collected every 1-5 seconds & reported every 30-300 seconds • Link volumes and average speeds every 30-300 seconds

22. Data Types and Performance Measures Arterial Performance Measures • Vehicle speed • Link speeds • Intersection approach volumes • Ramp queues • Link and ramp capacity Transit Performance Measures • Schedule adherence • Speed/travel time • Transit capacity utilization • Parking space utilization Associated Corridor Performance Measures • Travel time • Travel delay time and predictability • Incident duration and frequency • Fuel consumption and pollution reduction • Corridor capacity utilization (vehicle & traveler throughput)

23. Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS)

24. Multi-level Analysis Tools Provide Comprehensive Insight Traffic control strategies such as ramp metering and arterial traffic signal control Regional patterns and mode shift; Transit analysis capability Traveler information, HOT lanes, congestion pricing and regional diversion patterns 24 24

25. Test Corridor Analysis Provides Preliminary Insights and Enabled Modeling of Discrete Strategies Macro-Level Meso-Level Micro-Level 25

26. Three AMS Sites San Diego, CA Dallas, TX Minneapolis, MN • Busy commuter corridor • Limited expansion capacity • Major construction planned • Major employers • No ability to expand • Surrounding construction planned • Popular freight, tourist and commuter corridor • Lengthening peak travel periods ICM Strategies • Integrated management • Coordinated incident management • Integrated operational systems • Increased park and ride capacity • HOV • Integrated management • Coordinated incident management • Multi-agency data exchange • Managed lanes • Transit signal priority • Signal timing • Integrated management • Coordinated incident management • Dynamic ramp metering • Reversible HOT lanes • Increased transit ridership • Congestion avoidance rewards

27. San Diego, California San Diego’s Rancho Bernardo Transit Center before ICM… …With ICM 1 Main Lanes 2 Managed Lanes 4 3 Drop Ramps 6 2 4 5 4 Park-and-Ride 3 3 5 BRT Station Direct Access Road to Arterial 1 1 6 27

28. ICM Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT)

29. ICM KTT Mission Equip corridor managers and operators across the country to implement and use ICM.

30. Searchable/Browseable: “ICM Knowledgebase” • Resources Available Now in the ICM Knowledgebase: • Pioneer site CONOPs and Requirements Documents • AMS Resources and Findings • Technical Integration/Data Gap Technical Resources • Lessons-Learned from ICM Pioneer Sites • KTT Resources Coming Soon: • Pioneer Site Webinars and peer exchanges • New fact sheets • Resource guidance documents

31. Next Steps • Present Analysis, Modeling and Simulation results from 3 Pioneer Sites • Further investigate ICM data needs • Select demonstration sites • Conduct demonstration and evaluation

32. Questions? Search “ICM, USDOT” Brian Cronin, RITA brian.cronin@dot.gov202-366-8841 Steve Mortensen, FTAsteven.mortensen@dot.gov202-493-0459 Dale Thompson, FHWA dale.thompson@dot.gov202-493-3420 Bob Sheehan, FHWArobert.sheehan@dot.gov 32