2. Concept Exploration
This initial stage of the ICM development (and systems engineering) process is used to perform a high-level feasibility assessment of Integrated Corridor Management and the potential of its application. Once the determination has been made that ICM will likely provide benefits and is therefore worth pursuing, the effort focuses on the institutions and people involved. Concept exploration results in an ICM stakeholder group and a preliminary identification of key corridors and their boundaries.
Identify the Need for Corridor Management
System engineering is often referred to as a "requirements-driven development process," and these requirements must be based on needs. The most important reason to develop and implement ICM is that one or more corridors have operational problems, and ICM can meet some (and hopefully many) of these operational needs. In this step, the decision to pursue integrated corridor management either as an actual system or as a series of operational procedures is made.
In general, transportation management and operations, and the supporting ITS-based systems, have been applied in a "stovepipe" fashion; for example, State DOTs and toll/tunnel authorities implementing freeway management systems, local jurisdictions implementing arterial traffic signal control systems, and transit agencies implementing their own systems for tracking and managing bus and rail service Public safety entities (e.g., police, emergency service providers) have also implemented their own computer aided dispatching and related systems. These agency-specific systems have provided benefits in the context of their individual networks, but coordination is often lacking. What has too often been missing from this collection of independent transportation management systems is a corridor-wide focus involving the operational, technical, and institutional integration of the individual networks that compose the corridor.
A primary objective of ICM is to make significant improvements in the efficient movement of people and goods through the proactive management of both the corridor as a whole and the transportation assets that make up the corridor. The decision to implement an ICMS should be based on a clear understanding and commitment by stakeholders that integrated corridor management is needed; that the transportation networks and the cross-network connections comprising a corridor should operate as a unified and integrated transportation system. Stakeholders should recognize that ICM can provide benefits beyond the operations of a particular network or agency. Through the systems engineering process, the corridor stakeholders identify the need for integrated corridor management and establish ICM as a shared objective committing to the necessary coordination and collaboration.
Like many of the activities and analyses discussed within this ICM Implementation Guidance, the identification of corridor needs is a continuing and iterative process, starting at a high level and moving through subsequent levels of greater detail and refinement. This exploratory "needs analysis" represents an initial (and mostly qualitative) review of the corridors and their respective networks, current and projected operational problems within the corridor, deployed ITS systems and future ITS deployments, and integration opportunities within the corridor; followed by an initial assessment of whether ICM can improve travel within one or more corridors. The impetus for focusing on corridor-wide operations and potential ICM solutions may also come from needs identified during a special event or major incident. Regardless, subsequent (and more detailed) needs analyses will determine the required operational strategies and the amount of integration and coordination needed for corridor management.
Identify Corridor Stakeholders
The basic institutional fabric of the surface transportation network is multi-agency, multi-functional, and multi-modal. Successful management and operation of a corridor (vis-á-vis ICM) requires that the perspectives and concerns of these different constituencies, or stakeholders, be considered. Stakeholders include any person or group with a direct interest (a "stake," as it were) in the integrated operation of the corridor and the associated networks and cross-network linkages.
Stakeholders are sources of the corridor vision, goals and objectives, operational approaches and strategies, and requirements. It is the stakeholders who must ultimately agree on ICM concepts and policies; the development and approval of ICM operational response plans and procedures (including the agency-specific responsibilities for implementing and monitoring the plans); the ICMS architecture and system designs; and the on-going operation, maintenance, evaluation, and improvement of the ICMS. The various participants will also address and finalize the corridor boundaries (which, should the boundaries change during the process, may alter stakeholder participants).
The number of stakeholders in a corridor where ICMS is implemented will be based upon the transportation networks and operational area of the corridor. The Regional ITS Architecture Guidance Document (Reference 8) provides an extensive list of the range of stakeholders that have participated in regional ITS architecture development efforts around the country. Summarized in Table 2-1 is a checklist of possible stakeholders who may be involved in the Integrated Corridor Management.
All appropriate stakeholders need to be brought into the picture early on to make sure their needs are considered, and to determine how they will be involved in the process to plan and develop an ICMS. Bringing together all the stakeholders throughout this process can serve to heighten awareness of the importance and need for integrated corridor management, and to cultivate an interest in coordinated operations and corridor solutions. Moreover, it allows each entity (e.g., network owner/operator) to understand the specific functions and perspectives of their partner agencies, as well as their respective institutional constraints and barriers, thereby making the collaborations more productive.
For those corridors where a Regional ITS Architecture has been developed, the corridor stakeholders will have already worked together on several of the issues that need to be addressed during development of the ICMS. As such, any existing regional ITS committees and groups can serve as a natural forum to kick-off the ICMS development. In fact, it is doubtful if any additional stakeholders will be needed (i.e., required for corridor management, but not included in the regional ITS architecture), although the relative interest and level of involvement on the part of stakeholders, and the actual stakeholder representatives, may differ.
Transportation Agencies (Roadway)
|
Transit/Multi-Modal Agencies
|
Fleet Operators
|
Public Safety Agencies
|
Travelers
|
Private Sector
|
Planning Organizations
|
Activity Centers
|
Other Agencies
|
Other Agency Departments
|
As with any multi-jurisdictional initiative, "champions" are essential to take the lead in the ICM endeavor, to arrange and organize inter-agency meetings, to continuously promote the need for ICM, and to show the individual network stakeholders the benefits that can accrue from integrated corridor management on both a corridor and individual network basis. The champions must also have the authority, ability, and credibility to influence decisions within all agencies and groups. Outreach to policy makers is a key part of building support at the political level.
Identifying a lead agency may also be useful. It may be the MPO, a "regional" transportation agency, or a State DOT. Obviously, the ICM champion or lead agency must function as an advocate and help guide the ICM development process. At the same time, however, any lead agency must be careful that it is not viewed by the other entities as using the ICM concept as a means to expand its own influence and control.
Identify Corridors And Initial Boundaries
The range and variability of potential corridor characteristics (e.g., operational, institutional, technical, and the physical layout of corridor networks) is so vast that there can be very few hard and fast rules concerning the identification and delineation of corridor boundaries. Rather, there are several guidelines and concepts, mostly operational and physical in nature (Table 2-2), that need to be considered by the stakeholders when determining corridor boundaries. Moreover, corridor boundaries may not even be fixed; the size of a corridor may expand and contract depending on the operational situation necessitating the implementation of ICM strategies.
This initial corridor identification and boundary delineation is primarily conceptual and qualitative in nature, relying on local knowledge (and possibly a high-level review of any available data on travel patterns and markets) combined with engineering judgment (considering the various guidelines listed in Table 2-2) to develop a "first draft" of corridor boundaries. The intent of this initial activity is to ferret out the rough impact area of the corridor (e.g., drawing elongated ovals or rectangles on a map of the metropolitan area or region), identifying the corridor networks, cross-network linkages and junctions, the major trip ends, and the primary and alternate routes and modes that serve them.
More detailed analyses of corridor boundaries are addressed in subsequent steps. Moreover, it is emphasized that a corridor's boundaries are never truly "final." During the "Evaluation, Operation, and Maintenance" stage of the ICMS life-cycle, the operation of the corridor as a whole is evaluated using ICM performance measures, and adjustments to the ICMS are made as appropriate. Such refinements may be operational, technical, or institutional in nature, and they may include changes to the corridor boundaries as well, which may require additional conceptual and detailed analyses.
|