4. ICM System Operational Concept

Overview — This chapter of the Con Ops describes the ICMS operational concept for the subject corridor. The proposed ICMS concept explains how things are expected to work once the ICM program and system are in operation, and identifies the responsibilities of the various stakeholders for making this happen. Information to be included in this chapter include the ICM goals and objectives, the operational approaches and strategies to be implemented in response to the corridor problems and needs, proposed changes to the current technical, operational, and institutional situation within the corridor (in essence, de facto "requirements") providing a sense of the overall scope for the ICMS concept, alignment of the ICMS with the Regional ITS Architecture, and corridor performance measures and metrics. The system concept must also address the key system implementation issues including how they may be resolved. An initial mapping (i.e., traceability) of each selected ICM strategy to the goal(s) and the corresponding need(s) it addresses is also developed.

4.1 Corridor Goals and Objectives

Guidance — This section defines the corridor goals and objectives, which are formulated to address the current corridor conditions, deficiencies, and needs, and to help achieve the long-term vision.

The vision statement for the Generic Corridor includes such key terms and phrases as "seamless," "predictable," "conveniently shift," "readily access traveler information," and "improve corridor performance." Using the vision statement as a starting point, and with due consideration of the Generic Corridor conditions, deficiencies, and needs, the corridor stakeholders developed the goals and associated objectives described in Table 4-1. These goals and objectives are interrelated such that activities and strategies oriented towards attaining one of the goals will likely impact (usually in a complementary fashion, but not always) the attainment of other goals and objectives.

**Table 4-1. Generic Corridor Goals and Objectives for ICMS**
Goals	Objectives
Corridor Perspective – A corridor perspective must be established among all the entities in the corridor. A single network's goals and objectives cannot take precedence over the other combined networks' goals and objectives. A corridor perspective will be established through institutional integration and the development of common performance measures. All entities will take on appropriate responsibilities and share levels of control.	Develop an organizational and communications model to enhance "corridor" collaboration. Create a funding structure for ICMS deployment, improvements, operations, and maintenance. Adopt ITS standards (e.g., sharing of data, video, operational control). Create and implement a plan for public outreach regarding ICM.Institute corridor-based performance monitoring.
Corridor Mobility and Reliability¹ – The transportation agencies within the corridor have done much to increase the mobility and reliability of their individual networks, and will continue to do so. The integrated corridor perspective builds on these network initiatives, managing delays on a corridor basis, utilizing any spare capacity within the corridor, and coordinating the junctions and interfaces between networks, thereby providing a multi-modal transportation system that adequately meets customer expectations for travel time predictability.	Reduce overall trip and person travel time through the corridor. Improve travel predictability. Increase transit ridership, with minimal increase in transit operating costs. Maximize the efficient use of any spare corridor capacity, such that delays on other saturated networks may be reduced. Facilitate intermodal transfers and route and mode shifts. Improve commercial vehicle operations through and around the corridor.
Corridor Traveler Information – Travelers must be provided with a holistic view of the corridor and its operation through the delivery of timely, accurate and reliable multimodal information, which then allows travelers to make informed choices regarding departure time, mode and route of travel. In some instances, the information will "instruct" travelers to utilize a specific mode or network.	Obtain accurate real-time information on the current operational status of all networks and cross-network connections and facilities within the corridor. Expand the types of information gathered on corridor conditions (e.g., weather, air quality). Combine network-collected information with data from other sources (e.g., construction, public safety), providing a complete ATIS database. Expand coverage and availability of ATIS devices (e.g., in advance of potential modal or route "shift points" in the corridor, web, and links to private information providers). Provide traveler information in a consistent manner (e.g., display formats, terms and their meanings), including a single graphical display of the corridor and all networks as appropriate.
Corridor Event and Incident Management – Provide a corridor-wide and integrated approach to the management of incidents, events, and emergencies that occur within the corridor or that otherwise impact the operation of the corridor, including planning, detection and verification, response and information sharing, such that the corridor returns back to "normal conditions" as quickly as possible.	Provide/expand means for communicating consistent and accurate information regarding incidents and events between corridor networks and public safety agencies. Improve pre-planning (e.g., developing response plans) for incidents, events, and emergencies that have corridor and regional implications. Provide an integrated and coordinated response during major incidents and emergencies, including joint-use and sharing of response assets and resources among stakeholders, and development of a common command structure. Develop a comprehensive and on-going training program involving all corridor networks and public safety entities for corridor event and incident management.
¹ Mobility is defined here as the ability and knowledge to travel from one location to another using a multimodal approach; while reliability addresses how much the ease of movement varies from day to day, and the extent to which the traveler can predict these temporal variations.

These corridor-wide goals and objectives recognize that the traveler's (i.e., "customer's") perspective is that there is only one surface transportation system; and that the public generally does not care which jurisdiction or agency is responsible for the road or transit network on which they are currently traveling. As taxpayers and fare/toll payers, they want and deserve a safe and reliable trip — one that provides a consistent level-of-service with minimal congestion, and is predictable in terms of travel time. They also deserve accurate and timely information so that they can make informed decisions before and during trips. Table 4-2 maps these goals against the various corridor needs (as discussed in Chapter 3).

**Table 4-2. Relationship Between Corridor Goals and Needs**
Problems and Needs (Refer to Chapter 3)	Corridor Perspective	Corridor Mobility & Reliability	Corridor Traveler Information	Event & Incident Management
Poor freeway LOS during peak (recurring)	◊	•	◊
Poor arterial LOS during peak (recurring)	◊	•	◊
Bus operations along arterials (schedule variations)	◊	•	◊	◊
Better utilization of spare capacity (regional rail)	◊	•	◊	◊
Impact of incidents, events, emergencies (non-recurring)	◊	◊	◊	•
Corridor-wide/multi-modal view	•	◊	◊	◊
Improved coordination &integration between stakeholders	•	◊	•	•
Inter-agency information sharing/connectivity	•	◊	•	•
Information clearinghouse (real-time ATIS)	•	◊	•	•
Consistent presentation of traveler information	◊	◊	•
Standards for system integration &interoperability	•		◊
Accurate corridor simulation models	•	◊	◊	◊
Joint-use of resources and ITS infrastructure	•	◊	•	•
Coordinated response to incidents/events/emergencies	◊	◊	◊	•
Information linkages between first responders " TMCs	•		◊	•
Commercial vehicle operations within/ through corridor	•	•	◊
Public outreach regarding corridor management	•		◊
Funding for corridor initiatives, including O & M	•	◊	◊	◊
Performance measures	•	◊	◊	◊
Legend: • = Goal Directly Addresses Need ◊ = Goal Indirectly Addresses Need.

4.2 Application of ICM Approaches and Strategies

Guidance — This section identifies the proposed ICM approaches and strategies, and how they satisfy the subject corridor's goal and objectives. The results of this section will be a list of those ICM approaches and strategies that will likely be part of the ICM program and system.

To determine possible ICM approaches and strategies for the generic corridor, a "Corridor Type"/"ICM Approach & Strategy" analysis was initially conducted based on the guidance and screening matrices provided by the U.S. DOT. Specific findings and parameters in this regard included:

The Generic Corridor's "type" is Roadway with Managed Lanes (HOV) and Transit (In Both Roadway ROW and Separate ROW).
Various types and events requiring ICM, including recurring congestion, roadway incident, transit incident, planned event, and emergency (evacuation).
Each of these types of incidents/events encompasses a wide range of potential durations (both short and long-term) and severities.
Available spare capacity does exist in the corridor.

Using the ICM screening matrices available from US DOT, an initial list of potential ICMS strategies were identified for the Generic Corridor. The corridor stakeholders then participated in a workshop and discussed and evaluated each of these candidate strategies with respect to their potential effectiveness in achieving the corridor goals and objectives, and the associated operational, technical, and institutional integration issues. As the analysis evolved, the corridor stakeholders also identified the following six scenarios the ICMS would need to address:

Daily Operations (recurring congestion)
Scheduled event – work zone
Roadway incident (major and minor)
Transit incident (major and minor)
Major scheduled event
Evacuation

These scenarios also guided the selection of ICMS strategies, the results of which are shown in Table 4-3. (Note: Table 4-3 is organized by the ICM "approaches" identified in the ICM materials developed by US DOT).

**Table 4-3: Proposed ICMS Approaches and Strategies for the Generic Corridor**
Information Sharing/Distribution Manual information sharing (i.e., voice communications) Automated information sharing (real-time data and video) between all stakeholders Shared control of "passive" ITS devices, such as CCTV (i.e., camera selection, pan/tilt) Information clearing-house — Corridor agencies can access this Information Exchange Network (IEN) to enter their own information and to view information for all the participating agencies and networks. A key attribute of the IEN will be that the agency/network information is displayed on a single graphical representation of the corridor, showing all the networks and cross-network connections that comprise the corridor. This information is also processed and archived for subsequent analyses. A corridor-based advanced traveler information system (ATIS) database that provides information to travelers pre-trip (e.g., via websites and 511). Access to corridor ATIS database by Information Service Providers (ISPs) and other value-added entities. En-route traveler information devices (DMS, 511, transit public announcement systems) being used to describe current operational conditions on another network(s). A common incident reporting system and asset management (GIS) system that allows the transportation and public safety agencies to share and view incident information for the entire corridor, as well as to use the infrastructure and resources of all agencies to provide the best incident response. Improve Operational Efficiency of Network Junctions &Interfaces Signal priority for the Generic Bus Authority vehicles (e.g. extended green times to buses that are operating behind schedule) along Main Street and Broadway. Signal pre-emption/"best route" for emergency vehicles. Multi-modal (i.e., Regional Rail and Generic Bus Authority) electronic payment. Transit hub connection protection holding buses at rail stations while waiting for rail service to arrive. Multi-agency/multi-network incident response teams and service patrols, along with training exercises for various types of incidents and events. Coordinated operation between ramp meters and arterial traffic signals in close proximity. Accommodate/Promote Cross-Network Route and Modal Shifts In general, the ICMS will merely provide information to users via the information sharing strategies noted above, and accommodate any user-determined network shifts: Modify arterial signal timing to accommodate traffic shifting from freeway. Modify ramp metering rates and HOV by-pass policies to accommodate traffic, including buses, shifting from arterials to the freeway. Modify transit priority parameters to accommodate more timely bus service on Main Street, Broadway and network connectors. During major incidents and events, and if agreed to by all affected stakeholders, network shifts will be promoted as follows: Route shifts between freeway and the arterials via en-route traveler information devices (e.g., DMS, HAR, "511") advising motorists of congestion ahead, directing them to adjacent freeways/arterials. Modal shifts from roadways to the transit networks via en-route traveler information devices (e.g., DMS, HAR, "511") advising motorists of congestion ahead, directing them to rail transit and providing real-time information on the number of parking spaces available in the park and ride facility. Shifts between Regional Rail and Generic Bus services via en-route traveler information devices (e.g. station message signs and public announcements) advising riders of outages and directing them to a connecting rail or bus service. Manage Capacity – Demand Relationship Within Corridor – "Real-Time"/Short Term Cross-network shifts assume that spare capacity exists on the adjacent networks and the cross-network linkages and junctions (e.g. park and ride facilities). If not, it may be necessary to either temporally increase the capacity of these alternate networks and/or reduce the corridor demand. Lane use control (e.g., contraflow operation, convert lanes to emergency-only). Add transit capacity by adjusting headways and number of vehicles on the Regional Rail network and the Generic Bus Authority service. Add temporary new transit service (e.g., "bus bridge" around rail outage/incident). Coordinate scheduled maintenance and construction activities among corridor networks such that the total corridor capacity (i.e., the sum of the individual network capacities) is not reduced below some minimum acceptable level. In the event of an unscheduled event that further reduces capacity, this strategy may also involve (if possible) immediately stopping the maintenance/construction activity and restoring full capacity. Increase roadway capacity by opening the freeway HOV lanes/shoulders. Modify HOV restrictions (increase minimum number, make bus only). Restrict freeway ramp access (metering rates, closures). Modify transit fares to encourage ridership. Modify parking fees. Restrict/Reroute Commercial Traffic. During special events or major incidents, it may be necessary to completely restrict commercial traffic access to and within the corridor. Manage Capacity – Demand Relationship Within Corridor – Long Term Low cost infrastructure improvements to cross-network linkages and junctions, specifically additional spaces at transit station park and ride lots. Guidelines for work hours during emergencies/special events. Peak spreading and other TDM activities (i.e., promote flexible work hours/telecommuting in order to lengthen the peak hours and reduce congestion during those hours).

As previously noted, these ICM strategies were selected by the corridor stakeholders based, in part, on their contribution to achieving the goals and objectives identified for the Generic Corridor. A high-level mapping of these strategies and their contribution to the ICM goals is provided in Table 4-4. Additional considerations are discussed below.

The strategies within the "Information Sharing/Distribution" Approach will provide the informational foundation for ICM operations. This is the first step to the integration of the individual network systems. The focus on travelers is supported by the trip information services that will be implemented.

The "Improve Operational Efficiency" strategies address many of the corridor deficiencies that affect the efficiency of transit operations. These strategies will reduce travel times and increase the reliability of the Generic Bus Authority operations, as well as enhancing the convenience of rail travel. The strategies use cross-network operations to improve each individual network's performance by taking advantage of another network's functions. This, in turn, builds a foundation for a corridor perspective as well as changing the focus to the traveler's trip performance.

"Accommodating/promoting shifts" among networks makes efficient use of any spare capacity within the corridor to better manage congestion and facilitate reliability. Shifting trips among corridor networks, whether via "inform" of "instruct," is the essence of a corridor perspective and supports a traveler focus by informing corridor users of all their transportation alternatives and the conditions on each.

The "Manage Capacity-Demand Relationship (short-term)" approach provides operational strategies to increase the corridor capacity and/or reduce demand, building upon the route/mode shifts to further enhance corridor mobility and reliability. As a general rule, these strategies will be deployed only during major incidents, events, and/or emergencies.

**Table 4-4: Relationship Between ICM Operational Strategies and Corridor Goals**
ICM Strategies	Corridor Perspective	Corridor Mobility & Reliability	Corridor Traveler information	Event & Incident Management
Automated information sharing (real-time data and video)	◊	◊	•	◊
Shared control of "passive" ITS devices (CCTV)	◊	•	◊	•
Information clearing-house (IEN)/Data archiving	•	•	◊	◊
A corridor-based ATIS database access – by travelers and ISPs	◊	◊	•	◊
ATIS devices (e.g., DMS) describe conditions on other network(s)	•	◊	•	◊
Common incident reporting system &asset management (GIS)	•	◊	◊	•
Transit signal priority	•	•
Emergency vehicle signal preemption	◊			•
Multi-modal electronic payment	•	•
Transit hub connection protection	•	•
Multi-agency incident response teams and service patrols	•	◊		•
Coordinated operation between ramp meters and traffic signals	•	•		◊
Modify arterial signal timing to accommodate shifting traffic	•	•		◊
Modify ramp metering to accommodate shifting traffic	•	•		◊
Modify transit priority to accommodate more timely bus service	•	•		◊
Promote shifts (between roadways)	•	•	◊	•
Promote shifts (from roadways to transit)	•	•	◊	•
Promote shifts (between transit services)	•	•	◊	•
Lane use control (e.g., contraflow operations)	•	•		•
Adjusting transit headways and number of vehicles	•	•		•
Temporary new transit service (e.g., bus bridge)	•	•		•
Coordinate scheduled maintenance and construction activities	•	•		•
Open freeway HOV lanes/shoulders	•	•		•
Modify HOV restrictions (higher capacity vehicles)	•	•		•
Restrict freeway ramp access	•	•		•
Modify transit fares to encourage ridership	•	•		•
Modify parking fees	•	•		•
Restrict/Reroute Commercial Traffic	•	•		•
Legend: • = Strategy Directly Supports Goal. ◊ = Strategy Indirectly Supports Goal.

The "long-term Capacity-Demand Management" strategies are considered "long term" in terms of the amount of time required for developing and deploying the strategies, and / or the time required for the desired results to accrue. They are not ICM "operational strategies," per se, and are therefore not included in Table 4-4. Nevertheless, they can certainly benefit and enhance integrated corridor management and the associated strategies. This approach addresses the lack of adequate parking for the Regional Rail service and any other physical constraints that may limit integrated operations.

4.3 ICM Concept Asset Requirements and Needs

Guidance — This section focuses on what is needed to implement the list of strategies that make up the ICMS concept for the subject corridor. A high-level list of asset-based "requirements" — including network systems and technologies, information, communications subsystems, as well as other attributes — for implementing the various ICM strategies should be developed and summarized in this section.

The ICMS concept for the Generic Corridor has been outlined by the selection of the approaches and strategies as identified in the previous section. This section identifies the assets that will be needed to implement and support these strategies. No consideration is given as to whether these assets already exist or are currently planned (that is discussed in the next section), only to the fact that these assets are needed for the ICMS to operate properly. Table 4-5 lists these ICMS "requirements"⁴ in the following categories:

Network Systems – These are the required network-based systems. They are identified by the National ITS Architecture nomenclature of "Market Package" for ease of reference to functionality.
Network Subsystems & Technologies – This column provides additional information on these minimum network ITS-based requirements (e.g., specific field devices, hardware, system functionality).
Information – This column lists the data and other information to be gathered by the network systems, and subsequently shared among the stakeholders and corridor travelers.
Communication Subsystems – These assets are communications-related, including the types of communications (e.g., center-to-center) as identified in the National ITS Architecture, interfaces to systems, and associated ITS standards.
Other/Performance – This column is used for other ICM-required assets that don't "fit" into the other categories, such as the few regional/multi-system market packages, institutional assets (responsibilities and policies), and support tools.

**Table 4-5. Generic Corridor Asset Requirements**
Network Systems (Market Packages)	Network Subsystems & Technologies	Information	Communication Subsystems	Other (Operational)/Performance
Network/Probe Surveillance Surface Street control Freeway Control HOV Lane Management Traffic Information Dissemination Traffic incident Management Traffic Forecast & Demand Management Emissions Monitoring / Management Parking Facility Management Reversible Lane Management Roadway Closure Management Transit Vehicle Tracking Transit Fixed Route Operations Transit Passenger and Fare Management Transit Traveler Information ISP Traveler Information (broadcast, interactive, route guidance) HAZMAT Management Emergency Call Taking and Dispatch Emergency Routing Roadway Service Patrols Transportation Infrastructure Protection Early Warning Wide Area Alert Disaster Response & Recovery Evacuation & Re-entry Management Disaster Traveler Information ITS Data Mart/WarehouseMaintenance/Construction Vehicle & Equipment Tracking Road Weather Data Collection Weather Information Processing and Distribution Work Zone Management Maintenance & Construction Activity Coordination Other (e.g., Asset Management System)	Traffic detectors/roadway surveillance/vehicle probes CCTV (video surveillance) Traffic signal control/monitoring (TOD schedule) Traffic signal control/monitoring (traffic adaptive) Ramp Meters (local control) Ramp Meters (central control) HOV by-pass DMS – roadway Internet Traveler Information Automated Incident Detection Incident Detection (call-in, other) Incident Response Plans/Guidelines/Teams Incident Reporting System (GIS, common display) Air quality sensors Road Weather Information Sensors Parking Surveillance/occupancy Transit Vehicle Location/GPS Transit Schedule Performance Monitoring Passenger Counting Equipment Electronic Fare/Parking Payment Equipment DMS – transit Transit Public Address System Transit Trip Planning System Spare transit vehicles/operators Telephone-based ATIS (511) Transit priority equipment (Intersection & Transit Vehicles) Public Safety CAD Emergency vehicle priority/preemption (Intersection/Vehicles) Service Patrol Vehicles Real-time conditions data base/common displays Maintenance Vehicle Location AVL/GPS	Roadways (Freeway, Arterial, Managed Lanes) Link congestion levels Link volumes Link occupancies Link/spot speeds Link travel times Intersection approach volumes Ramp queues Average Vehicle Occupancy Transit Transit schedules Transit vehicle location Schedule or headway status/deviation Transit vehicle headways Link Travel Times Priority requests Next Vehicle Arrival Average Waiting Time Transit Fares Average Vehicle Occupancy Equipment/Device Status Locations Surveillance/detectors DMS Other Traveler information Devices Ramp meter Traffic Signals CCTV Electronic toll/fare/parking equipment Available transit vehicles/location Other Video images/snapshots Video control Parking space availability Incident location Incident status/details Maintenance/construction events Special events Electronic payment account status Emergency vehicle location Maintenance vehicle location Parking fees Contact lists Air quality Road surface condition	Center-to-Center Center to field Roadside to vehicle Center to vehicle ITS standards for data formats and data transfer functions Video transport standards (digital, analog) Voice communications Subsystem Capacity for data distribution Subsystem Capacity for video distribution Subsystem capacity/frequencies for voice communications (including interoperability) Interfaces to network systems Interfaces to emergency service systems (CAD) Interfaces to proprietary/legacy systems Interfaces to ISPs (data and video export) Interfaces to financial transaction network Interfaces to Internet Security firewalls	Regional Traffic Control (MP) Regional Parking Management (MP) Multi-Modal Coordination (MP) Regional/Sub-regional ITS Architecture Information Exchange Network/Common displays for data entry/display Data aggregation/storage of processed data for subsequent analysis Availability of spare network capacity Corridor Models (simulation) Accuracy of data/information Vehicle location accuracy Surveillance coverage Response plans Online decision support (for selecting response plans) Definitions of responsibilities of agencies Common policies for incident reporting and response Special Event Plans Common fare collection technology Integrated back office systems Dynamic fare pricing capability Priority logic at intersections System back up/disaster recovery

These various assets are not necessarily independent or separate from one another. There are several relationships across columns; for example, the Market Package "Network/Probe Surveillance" requires one or more of the items included in the "Network Subsystems " Technologies" column (e.g., traffic detectors, CCTV, road weather sensors), which in turn provide several of the elements listed in the "Information" column (e.g., link volumes and travel times, video images, air quality). The items included in the "Communications Subsystems" column are then necessary to technically integrate all of these systems and devices into a corridor-based system, while the "Other" items support corridor integration from an operational and institutional basis. There are also dependencies within columns, particularly for the various Market Packages (as described in the National ITS Architecture documentation).

These ICM asset needs are not of equal importance or priority. For example, the assets associated with monitoring air quality are identified as a requirement in support of corridor-wide performance monitoring, whereas other surveillance devices and real time information (e.g., link travel times) are of higher priority as they may impact the selection and management of various ICM strategies within the corridor.

4.4 Comparison of ICM Concept Asset Requirements with Current and Potential Assets

Guidance — This is a continuation of the previous analysis to identify the assets needed to support the proposed ICM concept. This section looks at those assets that already exist within the corridor or soon will exist (as identified in Chapter 3) and compares these current assets with the needed ICM assets. This analysis results in an identification of ICM concept needs. Identification of these high-level asset requirements provides a sense of the proposed changes / additions to the corridor systems and operations in support of the ICM concept, and also provides a basis for the subsequent development of detailed ICMS requirements.

Using the information from Chapter 3 about current and proposed corridor assets, a comparison was performed with the list of assets needed to support the ICM concept proposed for the Generic Corridor. Table 4-5 was revised to highlight assets that are already operating within the corridor or are potential assets based on current improvement plans. The results are shown in Table 4-6 using the following code:

Bold Type – The asset is essentially deployed throughout the corridor, except for the necessary integration among the corridor stakeholders.
Italic – The asset is only partially deployed within the Generic Corridor.
None – Minimal, if any, deployment of the asset within the corridor.

There are several data and video collection systems and information needs that are partially deployed. In general, these subsystems are operating on a specific network level (e.g., freeway detectors, bus and rail vehicle AVL). Similar capabilities need to be expanded and added to other networks within the corridor, including the park and ride lots, and then integrated together. Another important source of corridor information is the Police and Fire Departments' Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System that supports emergency call taking and dispatch; although it is currently only accessible by the police and fire units.

**Table 4-6. Comparison of Existing Corridor Assets with ICM Requirements**
Network Systems (Market Packages)	Network Subsystems & Technologies	Information	Communication Subsystems	Other (Operational)/ Performance
Network/Probe Surveillance Surface Street control Freeway Control HOV Lane Management Traffic Information Dissemination Traffic incident Management Traffic Forecast &Demand Management Emissions Monitoring/Management Parking Facility Management Reversible Lane Management Roadway Closure Management Transit Vehicle Tracking Transit Fixed Route Operations Transit Passenger and Fare Management Transit Traveler Information ISP Traveler Information (broadcast, interactive, route guidance) HAZMAT Management Emergency Call Taking and Dispatch Emergency Routing Roadway Service Patrols Transportation Infrastructure Protection Early Warning Wide Area Alert Disaster Response & Recovery Evacuation & Re-entry Management Disaster Traveler Information ITS Data Mart/Warehouse Maintenance/Construction Vehicle & Equipment Tracking Road Weather Data Collection Weather Information Processing and Distribution Work Zone Management Maintenance & Construction Activity Coordination Other (e.g., Asset Management System)	Traffic detectors/roadway surveillance/vehicle probes CCTV (video surveillance) Traffic signal control/monitoring (TOD schedule) Traffic signal control/monitoring (traffic adaptive) Ramp Meters (local control) Ramp Meters (central control) HOV by-pass DMS – roadway Internet Traveler Information Automated Incident Detection Incident Detection (call-in, other) Incident Response Plans/Guidelines/Teams Incident Reporting System (GIS, common display) Air quality sensors Road Weather Information Sensors Parking Surveillance/occupancy Transit Vehicle Location/GPS Transit Schedule Performance Monitoring Passenger Counting Equipment Electronic Fare/Parking Payment Equipment DMS – transit Transit Public Address System Transit Trip Planning System Spare transit vehicles/operators Telephone-based ATIS (511) Transit priority equipment (Intersection & Transit Vehicles) Public Safety CAD Emergency vehicle priority/pre-emption (Intersection/Vehicles) Service Patrol Vehicles Real-time conditions data base/common displays Maintenance Vehicle Location AVL/GPS	Roadways (Freeway, Arterial, Managed Lanes) Link congestion levels Link volumes Link occupancies Link/spot speeds Link travel times Intersection approach volumes Ramp queues Average Vehicle Occupancy Transit Transit schedules Transit vehicle location Schedule or headway status/deviation Transit vehicle headways Link Travel Times Priority requests Next Vehicle Arrival Average Waiting Time Transit Fares Average Vehicle Occupancy Equipment/Device Status Locations Surveillance/detectors DMS Other Traveler information Devices Ramp meter Traffic Signals CCTV Electronic fare/parking equipment Available transit vehicles/location Other Video images/snapshots Video control Parking space availability Incident location Incident status/details Maintenance/construction events Special events Electronic payment account status Emergency vehicle location Maintenance vehicle location Parking fees Contact lists Air quality Road surface condition	Center-to-Center Center to field Roadside to vehicle Center to vehicle ITS standards for data formats and data transfer functions Video transport standards (digital, analog) Voice communications Subsystem Capacity for data distribution Subsystem Capacity for video distribution Subsystem capacity/frequencies for voice communications (including interoperability) Interfaces to network systems Interfaces to emergency service systems (CAD) Interfaces to proprietary/legacy systems Interfaces to ISPs (data and video export) Interfaces to financial transaction network Interfaces to Internet Security firewalls	Regional Traffic Control (MP) Regional Parking Management (MP) Multi-Modal Coordination (MP) Regional/Sub-regional ITS Architecture Information Exchange Network/Common displays for data entry/display Data aggregation/storage of processed data for subsequent analysis Availability of spare network capacity Corridor Models (simulation) Accuracy of data/information Vehicle location accuracy Surveillance coverage Response plans On-line decision support (for selecting response plans) Definitions of responsibilities of agencies Common policies for incident reporting and response Special Event Plans Common fare collection technology Integrated back office systems Dynamic fare pricing capability Priority logic at intersections System back up/disaster recovery
Notes: Boldface type indicates assets deployed throughout the corridor, italics indicates assets that are partially deployed within the corridor, and plain text indicates that there is minimal, if any, deployement of the asset within the corridor

Traveler information is available within the Generic Corridor, but it is relatively sparse with respect to meeting the ICM goals and objectives for traveler information. The State DOT, the Regional Rail Agency, and the Generic Bus Authority all operate websites; but the information is network-specific, meaning travelers must go to each individual web site to get a corridor-wide (and still, incomplete) view of corridor operations. These three agencies also operate various DMS (i.e., at selected locations along the freeway, and smaller DMS at transit stations and bus stops); but as is the case with the web sites, the information displayed is limited to each agency's specific network. Moreover, additional DMS are required in advance of potential points of route and modal shifts.

Integrated operations within the Generic Corridor do occasionally occur; for example, the proposed electronic fare collection system being jointly developed by Regional Rail Agency and the Generic Bus Authority, and the various special event task forces. Otherwise, very little integrated operations exists within the Generic Corridor; for example, there is no coordination between freeway ramps and arterial signals, no transit signal priority along the major arterials, or transit "connection protection." Incident management tends to be very network-oriented, with the operating agency generally taking the lead. Coordination and active participation between transportation agencies and public safety agencies for incident and emergency management is in need of significant improvement as well.

Even for those assets bolded and highlighted in grey, the importance and effort required to integrate these assets should not be underestimated. This is evidenced by the relative lack of highlighted entries in the "Communications Subsystems" and the "Other (Operational)" columns; which is not surprising considering that the current level of coordinated operations within the Generic Corridor is minimal. In addition to the center-to-center communications linkages, specific ITS standards, system interfaces and firewall protection (particularly for the police and fire computer aided dispatch systems such that sensitive information regarding individuals is not obtained), the ICMS will also require central hardware and software for data aggregation and display, video sharing and control, internet access by travelers, access by ISP's, storage of corridor response plans, automated decision support, contact lists for incident response, calculation of performance measures, etc.

Numerous assets need to be implemented. The most significant of these proposed changes (from a field infrastructure and technical integration perspective) are summarized in Table 4-7. These and the other "missing" assets will be prioritized and accounted for when the high-level and detailed level component designs are developed as part of the systems engineering process. At the same time, the above discussion of current and proposed assets indicates that there is a strong basis from which the Generic Corridor can move forward with the development and deployment of an ICMS.

Table 4-7. Summary of Significant Changes and Additions to the Generic Corridor
Organizational Entity	Proposed Changes
State DOT	Additional surveillance (volumes, queues) on freeway off ramps Additional inbound and outbound DMS on the freeway in advance of cross-network connections Enhanced ramp metering software and communications with adjacent Atlantis signals GPS on service patrol / incident response / construction / maintenance vehicles (including system for tracking)
Atlantis	Surveillance along the entire length of Broadway and cross-network connectors, providing volumes and average speeds / travel times. Additional CCTV along Broadway, including coverage of bus stops Inbound and outbound DMS on Broadway at critical locations Transit priority and emergency preemption devices and enhanced controller firmware at signalized intersections along Broadway Enhanced controller software and communications with adjacent freeway ramp meters GPS on incident response / construction / maintenance vehicles (including subsystem for tracking)
Neptune	Surveillance along the entire length of Main Street and cross-network connectors, providing volumes and average speeds / travel times. Additional CCTV along Main Street, including coverage of bus stops Inbound and outbound DMS on Main Street at critical locations Transit priority and emergency preemption devices and enhanced controller firmware at signalized intersections along Main Street GPS on incident response / construction / maintenance vehicles (including subsystem for tracking)
Regional Rail Agency	Additional spaces at park & ride lots (Beech St. & Pine St. stations) Surveillance of park &ride lots at the three stations for real-time monitoring of parking availability Software to calculate parking availability (number of vacant spaces) Automated passenger counting technology (i.e., determine availability seating on each train)
Generic Bus Authority	On-board devices for signal transit priority, including connection to schedule adherence subsystem
Public Safety Agencies	Enhancements to Computer Aided Dispatch software to identify "best" routes Interface to CAD, including protection/security of sensitive information
Corridor-wide	Corridor simulation model Communications linkages between transportation management and emergency service centers (connect to existing subsystems) ITS standards for center-to-center communications Interfaces to existing systems, including "translators" as required Servers of information processing and aggregation, video sharing and control Decision support software (logic that continuously looks at the various and changeable network performance parameters (e.g. volumes/occupancies, travel times, transit schedule adherence, confirmed incidents/location/severity, parking lot status, scheduled events, time of day); and through a series of IF, AND, OR and THEN logical statements, will implement the most appropriate pre-planned response plan either automatically or with operator confirmation.

4.5 Generic Corridor Concept Operational Description

Guidance — The focus of this section is to provide a general description of the corridor under ICMS operations. The section should describe how the vision translates to corridor operations in relation to operational, technical, institutional, and stakeholder points of view. This description should provide all stakeholders with a consistent picture of what is envisioned for the corridor, and provide a basis to identify roles, responsibilities, and needs. This is a general description as compared to the specific scenario descriptions in section 5.

In the future, the ICMS will provide, to the greatest extent possible, efficient and reliable travel throughout the Generic Corridor and the constituent networks, resulting in improved and consistent trip travel times. Corridor operations will be adaptable with the ability to respond to any corridor conditions. Using cross-network strategies, the Generic Corridor will capitalize on integrated network operations to manage the total capacity and demand of the system in relation to the changing corridor conditions.

The Generic Corridor consists of multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The management and operations of the corridor and the ICMS will be a joint effort involving all the stakeholders. One centralized body, representative of these stakeholders, will manage the ICMS and corridor operations, including the distribution of responsibilities, the sharing of control and related functions among the corridor agencies. This centralized body will be the decision-making body for the Generic Corridor in relation to budget development, project initiation and selection, and overall administrative and operational policy.

The daily operation of the corridor will be similar to the transportation command center model that has been used for major special events; but will now be applied on a permanent basis for day-to-day operations. This will be accomplished via a virtual Corridor Command Center (CCC) operating among the corridor agencies. This virtual corridor command center will operate the ICMS as a "sub-regional" system managing the various networks and influencing trips that use the corridor. The virtual command center will consist of agency, network, and public safety Agency/Service Operations Officers (ASOs). The ASOs will be designated by their respective organizations and approved by the corridor centralized decision-making body. Each agency/service officer will be in charge of a specific corridor network or service with respect to ICM operations and coordination. The ASOs, with approval of the central body, will also designate a Chief Corridor Operations Officer (CCOO) every 3 years. The chief operations officer responsibilities will consist of coordinating corridor operation on a daily basis and managing the response to any fluctuations in capacity and or demand.

All operations among corridor networks and agencies (e.g., activation of specific ICM strategies) will be coordinated by the corridor command center. The CCC will investigate and prepare corridor response plans for various scenarios that can be expected to occur within the Generic Corridor. The chief corridor operations officer will be responsible, with the other agency/service operations officers, for configuring the CCC with respect to its functions and staffing for all hours of operations. Staff will be assigned by the corridor stakeholders to support daily operations, develop response plans, analyze system deficiencies and needs, and general administration.

Performance measurement and monitoring will be the responsibility of the corridor command center. The agency / service operations officers, led by the chief corridor operations officer, will be accountable to the centralized decision-making body and make reports as the decision-making body designates.

Communications, systems, and system networks will be integrated to support the virtual corridor command center. Voice, data, video, information, and control will be provided to all agencies based on the adopted protocols and standards for the sharing of information and the distribution of responsibilities. The ICMS will support the virtual nature of the corridor command center by connecting the chief, agency / service operations officers, and other critical staff on a real-time basis via communications and other ITS technologies. The chief corridor operating officer, ASOs, and other CCC staff will monitor corridor travel conditions 24/7, and use the response plans, real-time information, and the implemented corridor strategies to address any conditions that present themselves.

While all the ICMS operational strategies will be available for use, it is envisioned that only a subset of these strategies will be activated at any one time, depending on the operational conditions and events within the corridor. For example, strategies involving traveler information and coordination at network junctions (e.g., transit signal priority) will be important components for all scenarios; the "inform"/accommodate any user-defined shifts will be a part of most scenarios involving roadway and transit incidents, with a more pro-active approach ("instruct") towards route and modal shifts occurring during major incidents; and the various manage demand/capacity relationship strategies also coming into play during these major incidents and special events.

The corridor command center will conduct desktop scenario sessions to prepare, train and refine response plans for incidents, special events, weather, and evacuations. All the agency/service operations officers and staff will know their respective roles and responsibilities for any of the various situations the corridor may face and will be aided, when available, by response plans and ICMS decision support software. Moreover, agency operations officers will be able and authorized to improvise as situations may dictate.

Traveler information (on 511, websites, DMS, and through the media and ISPs) will be corridor-based, providing information on corridor trip alternatives complete with current and predicted conditions. Travelers will access or be given real-time corridor information so they can plan or alter their trips in response to current or predicted corridor conditions.

Each traveler will be able to make route and modal shifts between networks easily due to integrated and real-time corridor information, integrated fare/parking payment system, and coordinated operations between networks. Using one network or another will be dependent on the preferences of the traveler, and not the nuances of each network. Travelers will be able to educate themselves about the corridor so they can identify their optimal travel alternatives and obtain the necessary tools (e.g., smart card, available parking) to facilitate their use of corridor alternatives when conditions warrant.

The Generic Corridor will be an integrated transportation system, managed collectively and operated centrally (when circumstances dictate), to maximize its utility to corridor travelers. All corridor assets will be attuned to obtain the goals and objectives of the corridor, as well as the goals of each individual traveler as there preferences prescribe. The corridor users will recognize the Generic Corridor as a seamless transportation system that provides them with multiple viable alternatives that they can select based on their specific travel circumstances and needs.

4.6 Alignment With Regional ITS Architecture

Guidance — This section compares the ICMS Concept to the Regional ITS Architecture to identify any possible issues and needs that may arise during ICMS design and deployment. Any potential revisions and or enhancements to the Regional ITS Architecture should be identified.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Regional ITS Architecture has been established. The task force, with representatives of the BWRMPO Regional ITS Architecture Committee, have conducted a high-level comparison of the Regional ITS Architecture and the Generic Corridor ICMS concept. Their findings are as follows:

Major focus areas of the Regional ITS Architecture include real-time information sharing (data, video) between all agencies, and providing a clearinghouse of real-time information covering all critical routes and modes within the region. The proposed ICMS includes these same functions (focusing on the "sub-region" as defined by Generic Corridor's boundaries), In fact, the ICMS will represent the initial implementation of the center-to-center linkages and the information sharing/storage capabilities in support of this functionality.
The Regional ITS Architecture recommends the use of "ITS Standards as adopted by US DOT" for the purpose of information sharing; but no additional details are provided. The ICMS will also utilize ITS standards for the center-center connections (i.e., NTCIP, TCIP, IEEE^{5 as appropriate)} as well as for any new center-to-field and field-to-field connections (e.g., transit signal priority). The specific standards for the ICMS will not be defined until system design.
Another function of the Regional ITS Architecture is regional coordination support between transportation agencies and public safety agencies during "major" incidents, construction activities and special events (i.e., those for which the impacts cross most of the agency boundaries). The ICMS concept includes such inter-agency coordination, but goes much farther to address the integrated operations of the corridor networks on a daily basis, including recurring congestion and minor incidents.
The Regional ITS Architecture does not include inter-agency operations or control of system components. Each organization in the region and the corridor operate independently, maintaining control of all aspects of their respective systems. The ICMS concept changes this mode of operations, providing for proactive management of cross-network operations within the Generic Corridor, particularly during major incidents and events.

The ICMS concept is consistent with the Regional ITS Architecture. There are no conflicts, per se; but the ICMS concept does include significantly more information sharing (including command and control functions) and integrated operational capabilities than provided by the Regional ITS Architecture. Moreover, the ICMS concept includes a virtual CCC, which is not addressed in the regional architecture.

The task force, with the backing of Regional ITS Architecture Committee representatives, will propose to the Regional ITS Architecture Committee that the current regional architecture be modified to include the sub-regional ICMS concept and integrated operation of corridor networks and systems. This will include the depiction of sub-regional centers such as the Generic Corridor virtual CCC. Moreover, the ICMS design team will coordinate with the Regional ITS Architecture Committee to ensure that the specific ITS standards identified for the ICMS can be used throughout the region as well.

4.7 Implementation Issues

Guidance — This section reviews and discusses corridor and ICM concept issues, including any related strategy and system implementation issues. Many of these implementation issues will involve choices that cannot be fully addressed and subsequently resolved until later stages of the systems engineering process (e.g., design, procurement, and implementation). This section should nevertheless identify these critical issues such that all the stakeholders have a joint understanding of these issues and their possible impact on the successful development and implementation of the ICM concept.

The ICM concept represents a significant paradigm shift for management and operations within the Generic Corridor from the current lack of any coordinated operations between corridor networks and agencies to a fully integrated and pro-active operational approach that focuses on a corridor perspective rather than a collection of individual (and relatively independent) networks. Paralleling this "corridor-based" operational perspective (and the associated issues) is the institutional framework within the Generic Corridor. This institutional structure is multi-agency, multi-functional, and multi-modal. Moreover, the authority for transportation-related decision-making is dispersed among several different agencies, including the State DOT, Neptune, Atlantis, the Regional Rail Agency, the Generic Bus Authority, Metropolis, as well as the various enforcement agencies and fire departments. A more formal institutional structure with defined processes and documented policies, plus dedicated staff with the appropriate responsibility and authority to operate the corridor as an integrated system, will be necessary for the ICMS to be a success. A proposed institutional structure to support the implementation and on-going operation of the ICM concept is presented in the next section.

Table 4-8 highlights the major implementation and integration issues facing the Generic Corridor and the proposed ICM concept. Additional discussion of some of these issues is provided below.

**Table 4-8. ICMS Implementation Issues**
Technical Issues	Operational Issues	Institutional Issues
ICMS architecture (logical and physical) Required enhancements to the individual network-based systems Expanded surveillance coverage Distribution/placement of data collection points Capabilities of additional detection technologies Data accuracy Data processing/aggregation/display Data archiving/access for future analyses Real-time calculation of available capacity, and location within the corridor Expanded video coverage Distribution/placement of video collection points Expanded coverage of ATIS devices Distribution/placement of ATIS devices Communication links/technologies between network-based systems and ICMS (C2C) Communication subsystem capacity for data and video distribution Communication subsystem for voice communications (including interoperability among all agencies) Communications subsystem configuration (including possible shared use of agency communication resources Other communication links/technologies (C2F, roadside to vehicle) Data compatibilities and center-to-center standards (e.g., NTCIP, TCIP, IEEE for incident management, ATIS) Network system interfaces (e.g., "translators" for legacy systems). Video sharing standards Video switching standards Communications to ISPs Secure back up/disaster recovery Firewall barriers for Internet based systems Common fare collection technology Real-time decision support (i.e., software-based response plan development/selection management tools) Configuration management	Development of operational response plans for numerous corridor scenarios and events Up to date data base of contact personnel and locations Updates to network operational parameters (signal timing, transit schedules) Identifying available data and other information that should and should not be shared between agencies (e.g., personal information on drivers involved in an incident as input to police CAD) Policy towards route / modal shifts (i.e., Inform vs. Instruct), and under what scenarios Procedures and protocols for identifying route/modal shifts when spare capacity exists on multiple networks Policies for implementing route/modal shifts when sufficient spare capacity is not available within the corridor Policies for implementing demand/capacity management strategies Common policies for incident response & reporting Pricing (fares, parking, tolls, HOT) strategies and policies Procedures and protocols for the shared use of resources and/or shared control of ITS devices Resolution of multiple (and conflicting) requests for the same device Priority strategy protocols between transit and emergency vehicles and control devices (traffic, transit, and emergency operations staff) Disseminating traveler information in a consistent manner across networks Video distribution/censoring policy Safety concerns Corridor modeling (e.g., evaluate impact of strategies and operating parameters) Corridor-wide performance measures and metrics Marketing and outreach Ongoing operations and maintenance of the ICMS	Identification and distribution of responsibilities (e.g., lead, support roles) for all ICMS activities Hosting of ICMS hardware Organizational and administrative framework/structure that supports ICMS operations and coordination Compatibility of ICMS technologies and standards with agency IT requirements Policy arrangements for ICMS activities and funding ICMS funding mechanisms System procurement/implementation approach Policies and procedures for data sharing, access rights, filtering, etc. Inter-agency liability Policies and arrangements with private entities (parking, ISP) Federal involvement Inter-agency agreements documenting the resolution of the various operational, technical, and institutional issues Updating the agreements
Notes: Items in bold typeface are operational issues that should be addressed by and Operations Plan and Manual prior to system implementation. Items in italic have already been addressed at a high level in the ICM Concept of Operations.

The technology issues shaded in gray have already been addressed, albeit at a high level, in this ICM Concept of Operations. As shown previously in Table 4-7, the need for additional surveillance capabilities and information (e.g., Broadway and Main Street, freeway off-ramps) additional CCTV coverage, parking lot surveillance for available spaces, GPS in maintenance and response vehicles) has been identified, as has need for additional DMS. The technical details, such as the distribution and actual location of the devices and their respective capabilities, will be addressed during the Requirements and Design stages of the ICMS project.

There are two efforts underway that need to be coordinated with in relation to technology and system compatibility issues. The first effort is the development of the electronic fare payment systems by the Regional Rail Authority and the Generic Bus Authority. Identifying fare payment technology that is expandable to support parking payment and any future toll facilities will better support ICMS implementation. The other planned effort involves the enhancements to the Atlantis and Neptune signal systems, which include Broadway and Main Street, respectively, and the various cross-network connections in the Generic Corridor. These upgraded systems need to be compatible to implement many of the cross-network strategies. They will also influence any future technology purchases for implementing ICM strategies such as transit vehicle priority and coordinated operation between the signals and adjacent ramp meters.

A major technology issue involves the adoption and implementation of ITS standards. As previously noted, the Regional ITS Architecture recommends the use of "ITS Standards as adopted by US DOT" for the purpose of information sharing; but no additional details are provided. Moreover, the Regional Architecture does not address coordinated operations or shared control. It is essential that all data elements exchanged between the network-specific systems in the Generic Corridor be defined in exactly the same way; that there be perfect understanding between the interfaced centers as to the meaning of these data — both status and control information. Several sets of ITS standards, data dictionaries, and message sets have been developed for this purpose, including:

NTCIP (National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol) suite of standards for data exchanges between centers.
TCIP (Transit Communications for ITS Profiles) family of standards for the automated exchange of information in transit applications.
IEEE family of standards for incident management communications.
ATIS standards for data exchanges to support traveler information.

It is envisioned that the deployment of the Generic Corridor ICMS will use a single, standard protocol such as NTCIP C2C XML to exchange messages from several if not all of these standard message sets as needed. There is, however, the potential issue of "semantic interoperability" between these various C2C standards; that is, are the common data elements and message sets defined in exactly the same way. It may therefore be necessary to incorporate "translators" into the ICMS design that will enable a legacy system to present a standard interface to the other systems and the CCC in the Generic Corridor. Some translation may also be needed between data elements within different standard messages, although over time, further harmonization of the standard data elements by the standards development organizations should eliminate any such need. It will also be necessary to ensure that all of the desired information and data elements necessary to support the ICM strategies are covered by these standards and their respective data dictionaries and message sets.

Based on a cursory review of various standard documents and initial discussions with individuals that have been involved in the standards development process, such "data gaps," message deficiencies, and semantic interoperability should not be major technical issues. The amount of overlap between the various C2C application areas is probably not significant, as there was a considerable degree of data harmonization effort between several of the Standard Development Organizations during their respective activities.

A related data sharing issue involves the interface to the various CAD systems used by the public safety agencies within the Generic Corridor. Many of these are proprietary systems. Moreover, regardless of how these CAD systems are integrated into the ICMS, the interfaces must include appropriate "filters" such that sensitive information is not released, shared, or otherwise compromised.

Another technical issue involves video sharing. The ICM concept for the Generic Corridor includes significant sharing of video between the corridor stakeholders and with the media / ISPs. The desire is to have "full-motion" video in this regard; although this will significantly increase the bandwidth requirements for the C2C communications subsystem.

The operational issues must be resolved prior to system implementation if the various ICMS strategies are going to be applied consistently and in a manner that improves overall corridor performance. It is recommended by this task force that a preliminary Operations Plan and Manual be developed during the system design phase. As a minimum, the Plan should address those issues presented in bold type in Table 4-8. This plan will also serve as the basis for the ICMS Operations and Maintenance Plan as described in the ICM Implementation Guidance.

Some of these operational issues have already been resolved as described herein. For example, the policy towards route and modal shifts within the Generic Corridor will generally be one of "inform"; that is, providing complete and accurate information to the travelers and letting them determine whether a shift is appropriate for them (and then changing the operational parameters) to accommodate these route and modal shifts. The "instruct" approach will generally not be used except for major incidents (e.g., closure), events, or emergencies.

Information dissemination is crucial to the success of the ICM concept. Some of the technical issues associated with data gathering (surveillance coverage, types of information) and aggregation have already been noted. The associated operational issue involves the presentation of the information in a consistent manner across networks such that the users can make informed decisions regarding travel decisions (e.g., route, mode, time of day). As discussed in the subsequent section on performance measures, the common convention for operations-based measures and AITS displays will likely be comparable link travel times. Consideration is also being given to the possibility of displaying travel conditions along each network and the cross-network connections (and the links that comprise these networks) on a graphic display using some sort of color code that indicates the "relative" rather than absolute levels of delays (e.g., green colored link means no delays, yellow means some delays, and red means significant delays); however the measures and criteria for what constitutes "green," "yellow," and "red" conditions along each network still need to be defined.

Another key operational issue is the development of operational response plans for numerous corridor scenarios and events, including location(s) of event, severity and impact, associated strategies (e.g., DMS messages, other traveler information displays, system operational parameters), contact personnel and locations, other resources, and implementation rules. The ICM response plans, along with the required input to the automated decision support mechanism, will be developed during ICMS implementation, and then evaluated and updated throughout the system's life.

Resolving the institutional issues is an on-going process of coordination and collaboration between corridor stakeholders. Moreover, it has already started (e.g., the establishment of the Generic Corridor Stakeholder Group and task forces, the development of this ICM Concept of Operations.) The next section describes the proposed institutional framework to support the management, operation, and administration of the ICMS for the Generic Corridor.

4.8 Generic Corridor ICM Concept Institutional Framework

Guidance — This section describes the proposed institutional framework by which the subject corridor's ICM concept will be implemented, operated, managed, and maintained. The section needs to explain how the institutional framework will be established, the responsibilities of the various units that comprise the framework (if there are more than one), the composition of leadership and staff, the distribution of decision-making authority, and how the framework will facilitate necessary external corridor interactions. The institutional framework proposed in this section must be an approach that will be implemented and backed by all the corridor stakeholders.

In developing the institutional framework, the task force considered many configurations and institutional arrangements to establish the centralized decision-making body and virtual command center. The concept presented herein represents the institutional framework endorsed by the Generic Corridor ICM Study Task Force stakeholders.

The management and operations of the corridor and the ICMS will be a joint effort involving all the stakeholders. To effectively manage and operate the ICMS concept as described in this Concept of Operations document, the task force recommends the creation of a central corridor decision-making body. This body, designated as the Generic Corridor Operations Panel (GCOP), will consist of leadership level representatives from each of the stakeholders in the Generic Corridor. The GCOP will be the central decision-making body for the corridor, managing the distribution of responsibilities, the sharing of control, and related functions among the corridor agencies. The GCOP will be responsible for establishing the necessary inter-agency and service agreements, budget development, project initiation and selection, corridor operations policies and procedures, and overall administration. It is envisioned that the GCOP will be the next generation of the Generic Corridor ICM Study Task Force. The current task force, with some personnel changes, will comprise the initial GCOP. Staff of the BWRMPO will facilitate GCOP meetings.

To support the GCOP and other future corridor operations panels, the task force recommends that the Regional ITS Architecture Committee be restructured, re-chartered, and renamed to reflect an expanded scope that includes the promotion and stewardship of corridor-based coordinated operations throughout the metropolitan region. The new committee would be chartered to continue its duties in relation to the Regional ITS Architecture, but the duties will be expanded to promote coordinated operations within the various corridors that make up the region, as well as addressing any "inter-corridor" operational issues (i.e., be the coordinator of multiple corridor operation panels and ICM systems).

The task force recommends the creation of the BWR Transportation Operations Council (BWRTOC) to restructure the Regional ITS Architecture Committee. The BWRTOC will be the regional body to identify and investigate future coordinated operations opportunities, such as deploying Integrated Corridor Management systems in other corridors within the region. The BWRTOC representation will be expanded to include all operations and service representatives that operate in the metropolitan region. A sub-committee of this council will be responsible for the Regional ITS Architecture. The BWRTOC will still report to the Elected Officials Committee and the Technical Officials Committee. The BWRTOC will coordinate all operations request for funding and present requests to the two main committees for approvals. The BWRTOC will review corridor operating procedures, policies, and technical standards in order to ensure consistency, compatibility, and compliance with the regional ITS architecture.

The GCOP will regularly report on corridor performance, and transmit budget requests to the BWRTOC and to each other agency from which they are requesting funds.

As discussed in previous Section 4.5 (Concept Operational Description), the Corridor Command Center (CCC) will handle the daily operations of the Generic Corridor. The CCC will be a virtual center capitalizing on ITS technologies to connect CCC leadership and staff. The CCC leadership will consist of Agency/Service Operations Officers (ASOs) that are nominated by their respective organizations and approved by the GCOP. Corridor Law Enforcement and Emergency Services will each provide one ASO. Each agency/service officer will be in charge of a specific corridor network or service with respect to ICM operations and coordination. Every three years the ASOs, with approval of the GCOP, will select a Chief Corridor Operations Officer (CCOO). The CCOO will be in charge of all Generic Corridor Operations. The CCOO responsibilities will include day-to-day operations, monitoring and maintaining the performance of the corridor, identifying corridor deficiencies and needs, preparing budget requests, maintaining corridor systems configuration management, and managing the use of all corridor resources.

The ASOs will be responsible for the integrated, corridor-based operations of their respective network or service, supporting the CCOO in operating the corridor. Besides the ASOs and the CCOO, there will be two additional staff positions filled by the CCOO. The first position will be the CCOO's Administrative Director who will oversee and coordinate all administrative matters including budget, finance, and administrative liaison duties with other corridor stakeholder organizations. The second position will be the CCOO's Technical Director. The Technical Director will oversee the monitoring of corridor performance, corridor traveler information, the analysis of performance and identification of needs, configuration management of the system and the development of integrated corridor response plans including response plan operations protocols. Other CCC staff will come from each agency or service as determined by the stakeholders. Each ASO will assign staff to network and service operations, administration, and technical development in support of the ICMS.

The proposed institutional framework for the Generic Corridor ICMS as described above is shown in Figure 4-1. The virtual CCC staffing is summarized in Table 4-9.

Organizational chart in which the BWR Transportation Operations Council (BWROTC) is in the highest oversight position. The Regional ITS Architecture Committee, Generic Corridor Operations Panel, and the Future Coordinated Operations Panel are subordinate to the BWROTC. The Corridor Command Center (CCC) falls under the oversight of the Generic Operations Panel (GCOP).
Figure 4-1. Institutional Framework of Generic Corridor ICMS

**Table 4-9. Corridor Command Center Staff**
Agency/Service	Responsibilities	CCC Aligned Staff
Corridor Command Center	Corridor coordinated operations Corridor Administration Corridor Performance monitoring Corridor Technical Management and Development	Chief Corridor Operations Officer Administrative Director Technical Director Staff support from other agencies/services to support coordinated ops and technical development
State DOT	Daily Operations Monitoring freeway traffic flow DMS Freeway surveillance Enact response plans Maintenance	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Bus Authority	Daily operations Monitor bus on-time levels Enact response plans	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Rail Agency	Daily operations Signal systems DMS Arterial surveillance Enact response plans	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Neptune	Daily operations Signal systems DMS Arterial surveillance Enact response plans	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Atlantis	Daily operations Signal systems DMS Arterial surveillance Enact response plans	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Metropolis	Daily operations Signal systems Enact response plans	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Law Enforcement	Coordination of law enforcement activities and incident response Integration of CAD for corridor	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff
Emergency Services	Coordination of emergency services activities and response Integration of CAD for corridor	Agency/Service Officer CCC Operations, Administration, and Technical support staff

Resources for all agency and service staff will be provided by their respective agency or service organizations, except for the CCOO's Administrative Director and Technical Director. These two positions will be jointly funded with each organization paying a portion for these positions.

ICMS procurement / implementation approaches and funding, and the individual agency responsibilities in this regard, are still being discussed by the stakeholders. Each network and agency has existing procurement policies and practices. Each procurement policy and practice has to be identified and understood in order to establish a corridor-wide procurement policy for the ICMS. The procurement policy may be a combination of policies or a policy that directs the use of the most appropriate agency practice for the item being procured. It has been determined that funding and procurement in support of corridor activities will be a joint effort with the Technical and Administrative Directors developing project, funding, and procurement scenarios (e.g., pooled funds) that take advantage of each agencies/service funding opportunities and procurement services. Recommendations will be made by the CCOO and the ASOs to the GCOP. Activities will be funded through a variety of sources. The process for each source of funding will have to be followed and all funds traced and accounted for jointly by the agency/service through which the funds are secured and the CCC.

The task force believes this is the best framework to facilitate the implementation and operations of this Generic Corridor ICMS. The task force has the endorsements of each stakeholder representative's agency/service leadership to pursue the creation of this institutional framework. As the ICMS project moves from concept to the design stage, formal inter-agency agreements will be developed and executed describing this institutional framework and structure in detail, including each agency's responsibilities.

4.9 Performance Measures and Targets

Guidance — This section identifies the performance measures and targets that will be used to evaluate ICMS operations. The information herein should address how the performance measures are related to the corridor goals and objectives, what level of each measure will indicate operational success, data collection methods and performance measure processing techniques, and the relationships between the corridor performance measures and network-specific measures.

The task force has identified a set of initial performance measures that can be used to measure the effectiveness of the ICMS strategies and operations in relation to the Generic Corridor goals and objectives. These corridor performance measures are identified in Table 4-10. However, the task force also acknowledges that as the corridor system matures and operational experience is gained, these performance measures will likely change as new collection methods and processing techniques are implemented.

**Table 4-10. Generic Corridor Performance Measures and Targets**
Goals	Performance Measures
Corridor Perspective	No quantitative measures, per se. Rather, improvements in the performance measures for the other goals will be a strong indication that the goal of a "corridor perspective" is being attained. Qualitative measures will also be reviewed as discussed below.
Corridor Mobility & Reliability	Average Travel Time per Trip for the corridor and each network Average Delay per Trip (for the corridor and each network) Travel Time Index (a ratio of travel times in the peak period or other corridor condition to a target or acceptable travel time (typically free-flow/on-schedule conditions are used). The travel time index indicates how much longer a trip will take during a peak time). Buffer Index – this measure expresses the amount of extra "buffer" time needed to be on-time 95 percent of the time (late one day per month). Travelers could multiply their average trip time by the buffer index, and then add that buffer time to their trip to ensure they will be on-time 95 percent of all trips. An advantage of expressing the reliability (or lack thereof) in this way is that a percent value is distance and time neutral. Average parking availability per facility per time of day Emissions (Number of days in exceedance of NAAGS)
Corridor Traveler Information	Customer satisfaction with corridor traveler information as obtained from traveler surveys Corridor-related ATIS website hits/511 calls Number of "cross-network" messages displayed on all DMS
Corridor Event & Incident Management	Average Delay per Trip; segregated by incident and event types (e.g., minor and major roadway incident, minor and major transit incident, weather, special event) for the corridor and each network Travel Time Indices for various event types Response/Clearance times for major incidents (involving multiple corridor stakeholders) Time required to evacuate Metropolis and environs via Generic Corridor

Each individual network will be responsible for collecting network-specific data related to each of the designated corridor performance measures and providing these network level data to the Corridor Command Center for processing and aggregation. Individual network-based performance level measures will also be tracked to assist in the identification of network and strategy interaction in relation to individual and integrated corridor performance. These data will also be archived for subsequent analyses (i.e., input to simulation models, performance trends, providing a reference for what constitutes "normal" and "typical" conditions vis-à-vis recurring congestion, updating decision support parameters).

As noted in the above Table, the "Corridor Perspective" goal does not readily lend itself to quantitative measurements. For such a goal that focuses on all the stakeholders sharing an "integrated perspective," a more qualitative approach is necessary. This will involve conducting a periodic assessment that provides the means by which the corridor transportation agencies can measure the effectiveness of their coordination and integrated operations from a high-level, institutional view. Examples of questions to be addressed include: do the corridor agencies meet regularly with one another, and with other agencies and organizations; have inter-agency agreements defining responsibilities for ICMS operation, maintenance and funding been developed and executed; are the results of coordinated operations reviewed, discussed, and acted upon, particularly following major events or activities; etc. This periodic assessment of the corridor perspective will be a group exercise, involving as many stakeholder representatives as possible, including representatives from the Generic Corridor Operations Panel (GCOP), the Regional ITS Architecture Committee, and individual agency management, along with the Agency/Service Operations Officers (ASOs) and the Chief Corridor Operations Officer (CCOO).

Taking into account the vision, goals, and current conditions within the Generic Corridor, the task force also identified "success" targets for several of the performance measures. These "Performance Measures Success Thresholds," listed in Table 4-11, provide an indication that the corridor goals have been achieved. The listed performance levels/thresholds are long-term targets that reflect the future vision of how the corridor will operate. Upon deployment of the ICMS, any movement toward the thresholds will indicate that ICMS is having the desired effect.

Table 4-11. Potential Performance Measure Targets
Performance Measure	Performance Measure Success Threshold
Average Travel Time per Trip for the corridor and each network (includes long and short trips)	Corridor – 20 minutes Freeway – 15 minutes Freeway HOV – 10 minutes Arterials – 25 minutes Rail – 20 minutes Bus – 25 minutes
Average Delay per Trip for the corridor and each network	Corridor – 10 minutes Freeway – 5 minutes Arterials – 7 minutes Rail – 5 minutes Bus – 8 minutes
Travel Time Index	Corridor daily vs. off peak – 1.2 Corridor Incident vs. peak – 1.3 Freeway daily vs. off peak – 1.1 Freeway incident vs. peak – 1.4 Arterials daily vs. off-peak – 1.3 Arterials incident vs. peak – 1.4 Rail daily vs. off peak – 1.0 Rail incident vs. peak – 1.4 Bus daily vs. off peak – 1.2 Bus arterial incident vs. peak – 1.4
Buffer Index	Corridor wide buffer index of 30 percent
Average parking availability per facility per time of day	Zero average availability at end of peak period only 90 percent of the time
Customer satisfaction as obtained from traveler surveys	80 percent overall satisfaction with corridor 80 percent satisfaction with corridor traveler information and accuracy

The performance measures and targets discussed above focus on assessing the overall effectiveness of the ICMS and corridor operations for purposes of needs identification and improvement selections. Such parameters, however, are not conducive to day-to-day assessments of alternatives by travelers and are not sensitive to quickly changing conditions within the corridor. Accordingly, additional measures of real-time operations of the corridor have been identified. CCC operators may use these measures as foundation for their selection and activation of response plans.

Corridor operations measures will provide information about the real-time performance of travel alternatives on a network link basis. They will also consist of travel times on selected comparable network links, and on a full-corridor trip and half-corridor trip basis. These measures will be disseminated to travelers through corridor information systems such as the ICMS web page, 511 and DMS.

The common convention for operations-based measures incorporates comparable link travel times, which consists of the unit travel time on each specific network link by class of travel unit (e.g., car/truck, bus, train, car HOV, bus HOV). The following corridor operations measures have been identified:

Network corridor link travel time per network travel unit, car/truck, bus, train, car HOV, bus HOV.
Network "full-corridor trip" and "half-corridor trip" travel times per network travel unit.
Real-time number of available parking spaces per facility.
Locations of capacity-reducing incidents, and their expected duration and impact on the travel times.

Data collection for the performance measures (i.e., overall assessment) and operations measures will be identical, using the information collected by each of the individual network systems. However, there respective processing will be different. Travel times and delays for bus and rail on the unit basis will be a direct collection per the bus AVL technology and train tracking technology. Freeway and arterial travel times will be an indirect measure of link speed and distance. Parking availability (number of spaces) will be collected by new parking management systems. For assessment measures, the true travel time will be calculated for all network/modes. An average parking time for driving and for bus and rail mode transfer and wait times will be added, along with the potential impact of any incidents.

An education campaign will accompany the use of the operations measures so travelers understand what the travel times represent and how to make assessments between network/mode combinations (i.e., what is and what is not accounted for in each of the measures).

⁴ In the parlance of systems engineering, the ICMS requirements will be developed in a subsequent step in the overall process, and documented in an ICMS Requirements Document. These requirements will be based on the information contained in Table 4-5 and 4-6.
⁵ NTCIP refers to the "National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol" standards; TCIP refers to the "Transit Communications for ITS Profiles" family of standards that specifies the rules and terms for the automated exchange of information in transit applications; and the IEEE family of standards focus on incident management.

Previous | Next