Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A P P E N D I X G Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-1 While ICM projects are centered on stakeholder coordination, the ICM system (ICMS) provides the backbone that enables centralized data collection, incident detection, response plan implementation and automatic information dissemination. Each ICMS is designed to address the specific needs of the ICM corridor at hand. Various levels of integration and automation can be built in, depending on the assets and funding available. This appendix presents details of three ICMSs: 1. Dallas U.S.-75 ICMS—System is based on a set of preapproved response plans. 2. San Diego I-15 ICMS—System allows for the dynamic generation of response plans. 3. Kansas City I-35 ICMS—System is under development. Dallas (U.S.-75) Integrated Corridor Management System Simulation for the U.S-75 Corridor in Dallas, Texas Post-Deployment Report19, as well as the Development of TEARS Incident Signal Timing Plans technical memorandum developed by Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., dated March 25, 2014. For reference, the following strategies were included in the Dallas U.S.-75 ICM deployment: Providing improved multimodal traveler information (pretrip, en-route), such as: New 511 system (real-time information, including traffic incident information, construction information, traffic speeds, light rail transit (LRT) passenger loads, LRT vehicle locations, Red Line park-and-ride utilization). My511 e-mail alerts. ICM dynamic message signs (DMS) messages. Social media. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) data feeds for third-party application development. Implementing a parking management system at Red Line park-and-ride facilities. Developing preapproved ICMS response plans. Developing a Decision Support System to support ICM strategy identification and selection. 19 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation for the U.S.-75 Corridor in Dallas, Texas Post Deployment Assessment Report. FHWA-JPO-16-396, November 2016. Available at: https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/60000/60400/60490/FHWA-JPO-16-396.pdf. information, traffic speeds, light rail transit (LRT) passenger loads, LRT vehicle locations, Red Line park-and-ride utilization). The details presented here on the Dallas U.S.-75 ICMS are based on FHWA’s ICM Analysis, Modeling, and

G-2 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Increasing utilization of Red Line capacity with the potential of additional train cars or decreased headways. The Dallas U.S.-75 ICMS integrated various regional and municipal systems and operations using a decentralized approach. Through wireless and web-based alerts, as well as dynamic message signs, travelers received increased access to real-time information on traffic conditions, travel times, public transit schedules, and parking availability, which can help them plan their routes and make adjustments as needed in response to changing conditions. One component of the process was to deploy adjusted traffic signal timing as a means of mitigating congestion when on-freeway incidents cause traffic to divert to the arterial street network. Freeway incidents occur at various locations, directions and times of the day. Incidents have widely differing severity, duration and resulting impact on traffic. In order to determine the incident types most in need of having pre-developed signal timing adjustment strategies, Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) performed a clustering method of historical traffic events along U.S.-75 within the project area. This analysis used parameters such as crash severity (e.g., number of lanes affected and duration), direction, time of day, weather, and U.S.-75 traffic demand. TTI also modeled the probable traffic shifts that would occur because of these frequently occurring incident types using Dynamic Intermodal Routing Environment for Control and Telematics (DIRECT), the ICM mesoscopic model developed by Southern Methodist University (SMU). Targeted Event Accelerated Response System (TEARS) is the U.S.-75 ICM component that includes the implementation of traffic signal timing changes to mitigate specific incident types. TEARS signal timing plans were developed using the time-of-day dependent clusters (i.e., AM, mid-day, PM periods) resulting from TTI’s analysis, which were prioritized based on their delay impact on U.S.-75 and the surrounding roadway network. The plans were tuned with help from AMS in the form of probable traffic volume changes modeled by SMU’s DIRECT model. The expert rules outlined in TABLE G.1 serve as a filtering mechanism to select the appropriate response plan from the set number of preapproved response plans. The values used for implementation were determined based on the consensus of the operational stakeholders. At the time these criteria were developed it was recognized that “Established criteria values can be subject to change based on experience and post-implementation analysis.” Many crashes will never meet all of the conditions required to recommend a multiagency action plan. Once a crash meets the criteria for coordinated action across agencies, a recommendation is sent to the ICM Coordinator and the affected agencies, and the ICM Coordinator initiates field implementation, as appropriate. For example, an incident is classified as a minor incident with short diversion to frontage road if it affects one or more general purpose and/or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and has a queue length between 0.5 mile to 0.99 mile; defined as average speed of the consecutive U.S.-75 links upstream of incident (same direction) greater than 30 miles per hour, and the average speed of the frontage road links (same direction) between first available on-ramp downstream of incident to one-mile upstream of the incident is greater than 20 miles per hour, and prediction measures of performance (MOPs) is <0% for U.S.-75 (same direction) and <2% for the entire network. However, if the U.S.-75 queue length is > one-mile and all other conditions are the same then it is classified as a major incident with long diversion to frontage road. Diverting traffic to key frontage roads and arterials (Greenville Ave.) with coordinated and responsive traffic signal control. Encouraging travelers to use transit during major incidents on the freeway.

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-3 TABLE G.1. Expert rules for response plan recommendation. Strategies No. Affected Lanes General Purpose and HOV Main Lanes Speed FR (on Diversion Route) (mph) Speed GV (on Diversion Route) (mph) Prediction ∆ MOP Plan versus Do Nothing Park and Ride Utilization Light Rapid Transit Utilization Speed (mph) Queue Length Derived from Avg. Speed (mi.) Minor Incident: Short Diversion to FR. ≥ 1 < 30 0.5 < Q <1 > 20 N/A < 0%, < 2% N/A N/A Major Incident: Long Diversion to FR. ≥ 1 < 30 Q ≥ 1 > 20 N/A < 0%, < 2% N/A N/A Major Incident: Diversion to FR. GV. ≥ 2 < 30 Q ≥ 1 < 20 > 20 < 0%, < 2% N/A N/A Major Incident: Diversion to FR. & GV., Transit ≥ 2 < 30 Q > 4 < 20 < 20 < 0%, < 2% < 85% < 85% Major Incident: Diversion to FR. and GV., Stop Transit Diversion (No DMS action) ≥ 2 < 30 Q > 4 < 20 < 20 < 0%, < 2% > 85% > 85% Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. When an incident occurs along the Dallas U.S.-75 ICM corridor, which fulfills the criteria to recommend a DSS plan (otherwise known as an Implementable DSS Plan), the ICM Coordinator evaluates the response plan and approves it for the operating agencies to recommend. The plan consists of one or more of the following actions: dynamic message sign message (e.g., “Try Greenville Ave.”), traffic signal timing adjustment, added rail capacity, or parking utilization. Simultaneously, information regarding the incident is made available via 511, agency Web sites, social media, etc., which is also available for incidents that did not generate an Implementable DSS plan (also known as Information Only Plans). FIGURE G.1 and FIGURE G.2 provide examples of an Implementable DSS Plan and the actions required of each agency involved. Each Flex Group number corresponds to a specific signal timing scheme for a specified set of traffic signals. Each impacted city (e.g., Richardson, Plano, etc.) is responsible for activating the correct Flex Group plan and monitoring traffic every 15 minutes to determine if the response plan is clearing the congestion caused by the incident.

G-4 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders FIGURE G.1. Response plan J75N260 AM—diversion plan (Implementable Response Plans for Stage 3, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, November 18, 2013, page 84, unpublished).

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-5 FIGURE G.2. Response plan J75N260 AM—required actions. (Implementable Response Plans for Stage 3, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, November 18, 2013, page 85, unpublished). San Diego (I-15) Integrated Corridor Management System The details presented here on the San Diego I-15 ICMS are based on FHWA’s ICM Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation for the I-15 Corridor in San Diego Post-Deployment Report20. For reference, the following strategies were included in the Dallas U.S.-75 ICM deployment: Active Decision Support System (DSS). Coordinated incident management. Freeway coordinated ramp metering. Actionable traveler information (en-route and pre-trip via CMS, a new 511 app, and other commercial sources). 20 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation for the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California Post Deployment Assessment Report. FHWA-JPO-16-403, December 2016. Available at: https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/61000/61100/61131/FHWA-JPO-16-403.pdf.

G-6 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Upgrades to selected traffic signal systems (new traffic signal coordination timings, responsive traffic signal control). Alternate route wayfinding signs. The San Diego I-15 ICMS integrated existing systems with new or updated systems. The ICMS system design can be seen in FIGURE G.3. The ICMS consists of the following key components: 1) Data Hub— collection of external systems operated by corridor stakeholder agencies providing data to the ICMS and/or receiving control requests from the system via a standardized regional communication network called the Intermodal Transportation Management System (IMTMS); 2) Decision Support System (DSS)—tool to help system operators identify incidents and implement response plans aimed at minimizing the impacts of identified incidents on corridor operations; and 3) System Services—services to assist with data management, system management, system maintenance, and training activities (e.g., ICMS data stores, corridor performance management). FIGURE G.3. San Diego I-15 Integrated Corridor Management system design (ITS 3C Summit San Diego I-15 Integrated Corridor Management System presentation, September 16, 2014, unpublished). As shown in FIGURE G.4, the ICMS interfaces with a variety of systems (color coded based on facility type/functionality) that are managed by different agencies, including freeway systems in turquoise—Lane Closure System, Ramp Meter Information System, Advanced Traffic Management System, Congestion Pricing System, Corridor Performance Monitoring System; arterial systems in yellow—Regional Arterial Management System; transit systems in lavender—Regional Transit Management System, Smart Parking System; public safety in purple—Regional Event Management System; and advanced traveler information systems (ATIS) in orange—Arterial Travel Time System, Traveler Information Systems, Weather Information System.

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-7 FIGURE G.4. San Diego I-15 Integrated Corridor Management system inputs and outputs (San Diego I-15 Demonstration Integrated Corridor Management System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site Demonstration and Evaluation, UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-03, page 32.) The innovative element of the DSS lies in its ability to forecast and simulate corridor performance issues using near real-time simulation and continuous predictive analysis, promoting proactive courses of action for recurrent and non-recurrent conditions (e.g., bottlenecks, incidents) which are coordinated among all corridor stakeholders. While the existing IMTMS network already facilitated decision-making by enabling interagency information sharing, it did not offer the functionality needed to integrate this information into actionable traffic control strategies. The DSS filled this gap by providing improved data fusion capabilities and a new decision-making process capable of generating (automatically or semi-automatically) multimodal response plans to events affecting corridor operations. The multimodal DSS, shown in the Decision Support System component in FIGURE G.3, or the green Network Prediction System and Real- Time Simulation System in FIGURE G.4, integrates two tools: 1) iNET—an automatic traffic management system for field device monitoring and control, center-to-center data fusion, event management and response plan generation; and 2) Aimsun Online—for real-time traffic prediction and simulation-based evaluation of incident response or congestion management strategies. When responding to an event, the DSS continues to monitor travel conditions within the corridor and issues updated recommendations when necessary, allowing the DSS to account for unforeseen changes in travel patterns or other events affecting corridor operations in addition to the original event. Roles and responsibilities have been diligently defined for all agencies/entities involved (e.g., San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); City Traffic

G-8 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Divisions of San Diego, Poway, and Escondido; Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) transit agencies; California Highway Patrol (CHP); local first responders and law enforcement, county emergency services) for the following scenarios: Daily operations. Freeway incidents. Arterial incidents. Transit incidents. Special event. Disaster response scenarios. As shown in FIGURE G.5, San Diego stakeholders organized response “postures” around a combination of demand conditions on the network (light, moderate, or heavy) and predicted event impact (low, medium, or high). Within this framework, organized as a matrix, they then determined whether they would be likely to take “conservative,” “moderate” or “aggressive” measures to manage the impacts of an event. They coded their joint response plans accordingly. FIGURE G.5. I-15 Integrated Corridor Management response postures (San Diego Association of Governments, March 6, 2014). The San Diego DSS is dynamic, meaning there is no “set number” of defined response plans that could be recommended by the DSS. FIGURE G.6 and FIGURE G.7 show how a combination of subsystem action plans is used to define an individual response plan based on agreed upon response posture responsiveness. Between the 156 alternate routes, 260 local arterial intersections, 18 ramp metered interchanges, 20 changeable message signs (CMS), five bus rapid transit (BRT) stations (with six extra buses in the metro area for adding transit capacity when needed), 20 miles of Express Lanes (16 miles which are reversible using a movable barrier) and 30 miles of traffic-responsive 511 within the study area, this provides enough assets that can be combined to generate billions of different response plans. However, the DSS is limited to recommending no more than 15 response plans at any time based on asset restrictions, availability conditions, and thresholds to select “next move” relationships. It should also be noted that response plans

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-9 rely on how quickly field elements can be changed (e.g., the stakeholders are required to have time to actually implement recommended signal timing plans). The San Diego ICMS is capable of changing response plans every five minutes, but it is not practical to change these so frequently since it takes approximately 20 minutes to evaluate and implement (out in the field) a response plan. Although the San Diego DSS implements response plans without requiring human intervention, it does have the ability for a transportation operator to object to a recommended response plan and prevent it from being implemented. FIGURE G.6. I-15 Decision Support System-defined subsystem action plans (San Diego Association of Governments, March 6, 2014). FIGURE G.7. I-15 Decision Support System multi-modal response plans (San Diego Association of Governments, March 6, 2014). FIGURE G.8 shows an example of a response plan which was implemented at Rancho Bernardo Rd. during the northbound afternoon peak period for an event involving major congestion levels. This response plan triggered the following CMS message: “SLOWING AT // RANCHO BERNARDO // EXPECT DELAYS”, ramp metering timing adjustments for two ramp meters, as well as traffic signal coordination timings for 15 signals in the cities of San Diego and Poway.

G-10 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders FIGURE G.8. Example response plan for northbound afternoon peak-period congestion at Rancho Bernardo Rd (I-15 ICM III—PDT Meeting #59, San Diego Association of Governments, July 15, 2015, page 28, unpublished). Kansas (I-35) Integrated Corridor Management System The details presented here on the Kansas I-35 ICM project is based on the I-35 Integrated Corridor Management Plan: Concept of Operations by Kansas Department of Transportation and Mid-America Regional Council (MARC).21 MARC is the MPO for the bistate Kansas City region. MARC serves the nine-county Kansas City metropolitan area, whose population estimate based on the 2010 Census is 2,086,771. MARC initiated the Interstate 35 ICM Planning project with the goal of maintaining a reliable travel time through 33 miles of the I-35 corridor in Kansas from the Sunflower Road interchange in Edgerton to the Missouri state line (see FIGURE G.9). This high traffic corridor is used by commuter traffic (major traffic generators include the Olathe Medical Center, the Garmin International headquarters, Sysco Food Services of Kansas City, the JC Penny Distribution Center, UPS and FedEx distribution facilities, etc.) and a large volume of commercial freight traffic produced by the BNSF Intermodal facility and the New Century Air Center.22 21 Kansas Department of Transportation and Mid-America Regional Council. I-35 Integrated Corridor Management Plan: Concept of Operations. 2017. Unpublished. 22 http://www.marc.org/Transportation/Plans-Studies/Transportation-Plans-and-Studies/Special-studies-and- projects/I-35-Integrated-Corridor-Management-Planning.

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-11 FIGURE G.9. Geographic limits of the Kansas I-35 Integrated Corridor Management project (Mid- America Regional Council). The scope of this project is to develop a Concept of Operations (“ConOps”) for the integration of transportation modes, agencies, networks and intelligent transportation systems. The I-35 ICM Concept of Operations is a “living document” that will be regularly reviewed and maintained by a designated group of stakeholders. Following the recommended next steps will enable the development of a complete Concept of Operations for integrated operations, decision making, and continued management. While MARC’s I-35 ICM project has not yet reached the implementation phase like the more widely known Dallas U.S.-75 and San Diego I-15 ICM projects, this project is an example of efforts led by a relatively small agency with a correspondingly small constituent base. In order to derive the appropriate ICM strategies for the I-35 corridor through the Kansas City metropolitan area, MARC’s planning approach consisted of the following steps: 1. Scope—Define the geographic limits for the corridor and the range of regional stakeholders to be invited to participate in Stakeholder meetings. 2. Referenced Resources—Documents for relevant studies and projects were reviewed by the project team. Stakeholder engagement was used to conduct a self-assessment of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) regarding ICM readiness in the region. In addition, a System Breakdown Structure was developed for the I-35 corridor, which will be used as the base for future System Architectures and is created to accommodate any subsystem architectures such as the Regional ITS Architecture.

G-12 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders 3. Use Cases—To scope the Concept of Operations clearly, one Use Case was selected to be thoroughly analyzed. The Use Case presents a single user’s point of view from trip origin to destination, considering decision factors, resources available, and choices made. The selected Use Case was considered in three scenarios for four conditions for a total of 12 operational views. The scenarios are Current (2016), Future (2030), and ICM. Each of the scenarios was evaluated in four conditions: Typical Commute; Unplanned Incident; Planned Construction along I-35; and One Time Event that causes major predictable delays along I-35. TABLE G.2 outlines the full set of Use Case operational conditions. Through this process, the Project Team developed a deeper understanding of the sources and types of information available, the speed with which users make decisions, and constraints that can influence a person’s trip choices. It also enlightened the Project Team’s perspective regarding key information with the most influence on a person’s trip choice, especially whether they would consider diverting or adjusting their typical trip. The Project Team realized that many people do not often change from their typical trip, even when faced with unreliable congested travel experiences. This was an important learning experience for the team, as some ICM techniques used to improve system reliability require users to change their behavior. TABLE G.2. Use case operational conditions. Scenarios Conditions Current (2016) Typical Commute Unplanned Incident Planned Construction One-Time Event Future (2030) Typical Unplanned Incident Planned Construction One-Time Event ICM Typical Unplanned Incident Planned Construction One-Time Event Source: Mid-America Regional Council. 4. User and Operational Needs—User Needs (top level needs that the system shall fulfill to meet its intended purpose) and Operational Needs (derived from the User Needs and directly relate to the ICM activities that shall fulfill the User Needs) were derived from the Current and Future Use Cases developed for this project. These needs are a result of the Use Case evaluated in its defined Scenarios and Conditions. While these needs are widely applicable to the I-35 corridor, other needs may not be represented, such as freight movement. A clear next step for the development of ICM in the region would include additional analysis of Use Cases to complete the User and subsequent Operational Needs of the ICM system. The User Needs listed in TABLE G.3 describe the expectations of the transportation system, while the Operational Needs in TABLE G.4. describe the expectations of the ICM system and regional processes.

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-13 TABLE G.3. User needs. Source: Mid-America Regional Council. Note: Text in blue must be evaluated for inclusion in I-35 ICM concept. These items were either not specifically addressed in the project development process or vetted with the system owner. ID # Title Rationale/Description UN1 Pre-departure information on travel options Transportation system users often make travel decisions before beginning a trip. Therefore, the transportation system should provide real-time, accurate information upon which users can know and compare travel options to make informed decisions before beginning their trip. UN2 En-route information on incidents or delays Travelers en-route can adjust their travel plans en-route if equipped with real- time, accurate system information. Therefore, the transportation system should provide real-time, accurate information upon which users can know and compare travel options to make informed decisions while en-route. UN3 Accurate decision input Travelers do not always trust the published travel information. Therefore, the transportation Corridor Managers should place a priority on providing timely, accurate information to the public for decision making. UN4 Access to multimodal options Multimodal transportation options are not always at the forefront of transportation system user’s minds. To enhance the knowledge and accessibility of multimodal options, the transportation Corridor Managers will work together across modal boundaries to provide a complete transportation service. UN5 Reliable travel times—highway Travel time reliability is an important factor for highway users. The transportation Corridor Managers will work together to actively manage highway system reliability by providing coordinated incident responses, proactive event management, and coordination with other system service managers. UN6 Reliable travel—arterial Travel time reliability is an important factor for arterial users. The transportation Corridor Managers will work together to actively manage arterial system reliability by providing coordinated incident responses, proactive event management, and coordination with other system service managers. UN7 Reliable travel times—transit Travel time reliability is an important factor for transit users. The transportation Corridor Managers will work together to actively manage transit system reliability by providing coordinated incident responses, proactive event management, and coordination with other system service managers. UN8 Knowledge and support of travel demand management options Travel demand management options can be powerful, cost-effective tools for travelers to avoid congested travel and support a resilient transportation system that can respond in real-time. The transportation Corridor Managers will work with regional economic entities, media connections, and others to inform, encourage, and support travel demand management options.

G-14 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders TABLE G.4. Operational needs. ID # Driving User Need ID # Title Description/Rationale ON1 UN1 UN2 Publish Information to System Users Information produced by the ICM System (ICMS) and its subsystems will be provided to system data users in a variety of data formats for travelers to use to make decisions and take actions based on real-time information. ON2 UN1 UN2 Publish Information to Third-Party Providers Information produced by ICMS and its subsystems will be provided to system data users (aka 3rd Party providers) in a variety of data formats to display information for travelers to use to make decisions and take actions based on real-time information. ON3 UN3 Collect and Process Data Data is collected from a variety of existing and planned systems that support system reporting and synthesize decision input information. A central data processing manager should be identified (could be KC Scout or MARC). These data locations and process methods are documented in Interface Control Documents, which need to be developed for existing systems and new systems as they come on line. Algorithms are needed to aggregate the data into corridor level reporting structures for the selected measures (e.g., volumes, occupancies, and speeds at multiple locations are converted to travel times). Process Data includes conversion of host system data formats, if necessary, to standard XML schema for publishing information to share across the ICMS system. ON4 UN3 Access and Store Historical Data Provide the capability to create, populate, and access a historical database that includes existing independent data and future available data to create a variety of reports on corridor operations and performance. This database should contain real-time information on corridor performance as derived from data collected under Collect and Process Data. Accessing existing historical database of KC Scout is an important function of this Operational Need. Consistent export formats for data from these historical databases would simplify corridor-wide analysis. Ad hoc reporting based on this historical data allows the system users to create a variety of reports that characterize corridor operations and performance. These reports can then be stored in the historical database. ON5 UN3 Predict Future Travel Conditions Provide the ability to use historical data fused with current data to predict the impact of travel conditions and incidents and predict the routing choices of system users. The predictions will then be used by Corridor Managers to adjust system operations as needed to respond to predictions. This system will be revisited annually to recalibrate prediction algorithms. This system will provide input to the decision support systems. ON6 UN3 Publish Information to Corridor Managers Information produced by ICMS and its subsystems will display in a variety of data formats to agency decision makers for use to visualize corridor operations, make decisions, and take actions to implement the various decision components. ON7 UN3 Coordinate Incident Responses Corridor Managers and ICM stakeholders develop potential response plans to respond to incidents that occur in locations with historically documented high incident rates. Response plans are based on the prediction of likely diversion routes and define a coordinated response by Corridor Managers.

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-15 ID # Driving User Need ID # Title Description/Rationale ON8 UN4 Access to multimodal options Provide tools for regional awareness of multimodal options, including last mile connections from transit. This would include the Transportation Hubs under development through the Ride KC effort, and third-party transportation services such as ZipCars, Uber Share, and B-Cycle facilities. The goal of this need is to broaden awareness of the suite of transportation options in the region, so travelers can have confidence that if they begin a trip outside of their personal vehicle they will be able to complete a round trip. ON9 UN5, UN6, UN7 Coordinate Public Safety and Transportation Operations Provide public safety professionals access to the multi-dimensional data inherent in transportation management systems while seeking technical solutions to extracting useful incident information from public safety Computer Aided Dispatch systems. Useful incident information can be used by Corridor Managers to identify problem areas and ways the first responders can be better supported to quickly respond and clear incidents. ON10 UN5, UN6, UN7 Interactively Conference with Corridor Agencies Corridor Managers will directly collaborate in real-time prior to, during, or after a major event in the Corridor. This will enable real- time decision making and consistent situational awareness as an event develops. A variety of voice, video and data formats will be supported for multi-site collaboration. ON11 UN5, UN6, UN7 Implement Incident Responses The Response Plan allows ICMS and Corridor Managers to use a decision tool (Expert System or table-driven) that fuses real-time data and manually entered data to determine if an incident response plan trigger has been met. Manually entered data can include that coming from the event site (e.g., KHP Traffic Officers talking to dispatchers using the KHP radio system). The response plan is then either manually or automatically generated based on the fused data input. Once a response plan is generated, the system operator can review the plan's components and make changes deemed necessary before transmitting plan components to the affected systems. The status of affected systems is then returned to the ICMS operator and logged in the historical database. ON12 UN5, UN6, UN7 Share Control of Devices Allow agencies to control selected functions of field devices remotely regardless of location or agency ownership. This will allow agencies to implement response plans and support system reliability. For this Operational Need to become real there must be interagency agreements to allow such sharing under carefully defined conditions. ON13 UN5 Reliable travel times—highway Measure and control highway travel time reliability by reporting reliability measures, evaluating the system performance, and adjusting corridor operations plans to maximize system reliability. ON14 UN6 Reliable travel times—arterial Measure and control arterial travel time reliability by reporting reliability measures, evaluating the system performance, and adjusting corridor operations plans to maximize system reliability. ON15 UN7 Reliable travel times—transit Measure and control transit travel time reliability by reporting reliability measures, evaluating the system performance, and adjusting corridor operations plans to maximize system reliability. ON16 UN8 Knowledge and support of travel demand management options Provide tools for regional awareness of travel demand management options. Target audiences for these would be economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, elected officials, and regional planners. Tools may include comprehensive recommendations such as creating a Transportation Management Association (TMA) or simply offering flexible work hours. Corridor Managers’ role in this

G-16 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders ID # Driving User Need ID # Title Description/Rationale is to provide accurate and timely information on available transportation systems, their performance, and peak congestion times and days so people can adjust their travel patterns. Source: Mid-America Regional Council. Note: Text in blue must be evaluated for inclusion in I-35 ICM concept. These items were either not specifically addressed in the project development process or vetted with the system owner. 5. Goals for I-35 Integrated Corridor Management—Based on the User and Operational Needs defined above, the following goals were developed for the I-35 ICM: Actively manage the corridor to provide reliable travel times for users. Coordinate jurisdictional and modal responses to recurrent and non-recurrent congestion. Actively broaden awareness of multimodal options and ways to reduce demand on our transportation system. 6. Concepts for the Proposed System—Based on the Operational Needs defined above, a set of over 50 ICM strategies was developed. These strategies were evaluated, synthesized, and refined into 11 thematic groups. The 11 groups of strategies were presented to the corridor Stakeholders for prioritization. Priorities of 1, 2, and 3 were used to group the strategies. Priority 1 are strategies that can be implemented within three years. Priority 2 are strategies that can be implemented within three to five years. Priority 3 are strategies that can be implemented in five years or longer. TABLE G.5 lists the final 11 recommended ICM strategies, narrowed down from the complete list of potential ICM strategies identified for I-35. These strategies will continue the development of ICM in the corridor and will enable continued development of the Operational Concept. These strategies are not the final comprehensive list of strategies needed for complete implementation of ICM along the I-35 corridor, but they offer a path of active steps forward. TABLE G.5. Recommended Integrated Corridor Management strategies. Strategy # Priority Topic Area Theme ICM Initiatives and Strategies Operational Needs Addressed 1 1 Institutional Travel Demand Management Encourage Telecommuting, Delayed Commuting, and Flex Time for Employers and Workers using the I-35 Corridor. ON13, ON14, ON15, ON16 2 1 Institutional Travel Demand Management Media Support of Creative Commuting. ON16 3 1 Institutional TSMO Committee Create an ICM/TSMO Committee within MARC. ON9, ON10 4 1 Institutional TSMO Committee Intensify Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Activities on the I-35 Corridor. ON7, ON9 5 1 Technical Integration Multi-Modal Develop Mobility Hubs along the I-35 Corridor. ON8, ON10, ON16

Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments G-17 Strategy # Priority Topic Area Theme ICM Initiatives and Strategies Operational Needs Addressed 6 1 Operational Arterial Integration Enhancement of the Operation Green Light Program in Kansas City. ON2, ON3, ON5, ON10, ON11, ON12, ON14 7 2 Technical Integration Multi-Modal All-Inclusive Transportation Dashboard. ON1, ON3, ON5, ON16 8 2 Technical Integration Transitional Technology Facilitate the Deployment of Connected Vehicles and Vehicle to Infrastructure Systems. ON2, ON3, ON4, ON10 9 2 Technical Integration Transitional Technology Prepare the I-35 Corridor for the Technology Shift to Autonomous Vehicles. ON2, ON3, ON4, ON10 10 3 Operational Arterial Integration Expand the use of DMS on arterials adjacent to I-35. ON1, ON9, ON10 11 3 Operational Managed Lanes Implement Dynamic Lanes/Managed Lanes on I- 35. ON13 Source: Mid-America Regional Council. 7. Implementing Recommended ICM Strategies—For each of these recommended ICM strategies, high-level roles and responsibilities have been assigned to transportation system managers (e.g., MARC, Kansas Department of Transportation, Kansas Highway Patrol, Missouri Department of Transportation, Kansas City Scout, Operation Green Light, and Kansas City Area Transportation Authority), and next steps to begin implementation of the strategy have been detailed.