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.

14 In this initial stage, transportation decisionmakers need to first identify the transportation problem that the corridor is experiencing and diagnose the underlying causes of the problem. What Is the Main Problem We Are Trying to Address? Is it Related to Improving Mobility, Reliability, Safety or Other? A busy modern transportation system is inherently a dynamic entity. It never exists in pure equilibrium and is in a state of perpetual change at multiple temporal wavelengths: minute- to-minute, hour-to-hour, peak-to-non-peak, day-to-day, seasonally, and year-to-year. A time- dynamic view of the network informs a fundamental element of transportations systems man- agement, namely, that system management is essentially a task of managing change. As a result, it is crucial for ICM stakeholders to define operational conditions rigorously using observed data to help create a consensus view on patterns of corridor congestion. The transportation system is a collection of facilities, modes, fleets, infrastructure, and trip- making users that interact with each other. Under successful ICM, system performance is striv- ing to be optimized and become better than non-integrated and not managed conditions. When defining the system it can be useful to examine boundaries of the following types: • Geographic – Any transportation system is always influenced by its neighbors. There is no such thing as treating a subset of the transportation system as an independent element. • Temporal – Under specific conditions or at times associated with particular events, many stakeholders may be trying to improve the performance of the transportation system. • Jurisdictional – Even within a geographic boundary, many organizations may play a critical role in influencing the transportation system. • Functional – The system can be defined by where and when managers have functional control as well as by the limitations of these controls. Functional boundaries can also be identified considering how data flow to and from entities associated with a transportation system. In some cases, data-related boundaries may limit the capability of the system manager to understand the state of the system or neighboring systems. • Modal – A transportation system may contain interacting subsystems associated with differ- ent transportation modes (e.g., transit, freight, high-occupancy vehicle [HOV] lanes, pedes- trian networks, and bike lanes). A systems definition must recognize the interactions among these transportation modes. With the advent of more continuous data available, the ability to characterize dynamic corridor performance has improved. These conditions can be within a day (e.g., the rise and fall of congestion in a peak period) or over many days (e.g., the variation in travel times between a C H A P T E R 2 Identify & Diagnose Problem

Identify & Diagnose Problem 15 specific origin and destination departing at a specific time each day over a full year). Likewise, there is a fundamental need to develop more effective condition-specific corridor management responses integrating, among others, transit, freight, incident management stakeholders, and non-motorized roadway users. For ICM to be successful, vague notions of recurrent and non- recurrent congestion (convenient in a relatively data-scarce environment) are giving way to a more informed, data-driven approach that systematically classifies a wide range of operational conditions based on underlying causes (e.g., weather, incident, and demand patterns) as well as profiles of system performance (e.g., travel time, bottleneck throughput, and delay patterns). Current ICM best practices use a data-driven method to identify multiple distinct opera- tional conditions to better characterize transportation system dynamics. This set of operational conditions is a more effective and useful basis for comparing potential ICM response plans and is a foundational element of any effort to improve corridor performance. Figure 6 illustrates that, in order to support the development and evaluation of complex, condition-dependent ICM response plans, a systematic analysis of data to identify a practical set of representative operational conditions is required. The characterization of a broad, accurate set of operational conditions includes special attention to outlier “bad days.” These conditions feature the highest travel times and are the conditions that make routine travel in the corridor unreliable. These conditions are particu- larly important to freight stakeholders who value on-time performance within the strictures of lean supply chain management, to transit stakeholders who value traveler connection pro- tection and ridership confidence that the system will not strand them in the network, to non- motorized stakeholders who may be concerned about traffic diversion onto local streets, and incident response stakeholders who must effectively triage resources on the worst days with multiple interacting incidents. How Do We Diagnose and Characterize the Problem? An operational conditions analysis ingests several months of contemporaneous, time- dynamic travel time, bottleneck throughput, weather, incident, and travel demand data to create mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets of similar conditions – and their frequency of occurrence. For example, an analysis of a corridor identified 30 distinct operational conditions, depicted in Figure 7. The figure organizes the 30 conditions spatially based on increasing travel demand (along the x-axis) and disruptions to roadway supply (along the y-axis). Each condition is a Source: Federal Highway Administration Figure 6. Various operational conditions.

16 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders collection of 4 or more actual days, and the total size of the box representing the condition reflects its frequency of occurrence. ICM focuses on various multimodal travel scenarios under varying operational conditions, in particular both recurrent and non-recurrent traffic congestion. A corridor’s non-recurrent congestion scenarios entail combinations of demand increases and capacity decreases. The overall premise is that key ICM impacts may be lost if only “normal” travel conditions are considered. The ICM scenarios take into account both average and high-travel demand within the corridor, with and without incidents. The relative frequency of non-recurrent operational conditions (i.e., incidents or other significant non-recurrent operational conditions that affect corridor performance such as work zones, special events, and weather) is also important to estimate (based on archived traffic conditions) in this process. Although ICM is designed to address both recurrent and non-recurrent events, the post-deployment evaluation of the two demonstration sites (Dallas and San Diego) focused solely on incident- or congestion-related events. The potential ICM deployment-related alternatives were identified using cluster analysis that grouped incidents or congestion events that occurred under operational conditions (e.g., time of day, direction of traffic, length of time until the incident was cleared, etc.) which were more similar to each other than to those in other groups (clusters). These clusters were then prioritized based on total delay impact. Data and tools can be brought together to provide increasingly robust and quantitative measures of system performance. Some useful measures of system products over some period (e.g., a peak period, or a day, or a month) may include reliably completed trips and total value of goods delivered. These may be hard to measure directly. However, using time-variant travel time data and supporting estimates of ridership and volume data, travel reliability analysis can be conducted that is a key first step in the measurement of system product. Reliability data are a key element in characterizing trip-making given that, if a trip takes much longer than expected, the disbenefits associated with disrupting travel plans outweigh the benefits. This is particularly true for goods movement within a supply chain, but the same basic principles Source: Federal Highway Administration Figure 7. Visualizing operational conditions in the Seattle I-5 Corridor.

Identify & Diagnose Problem 17 hold for person-trips. For example, if a trip home from work takes so much longer than expected that changes to childcare arrangements are required, this often has direct and measurable finan- cial consequences. The purpose of building system profiles is to characterize system performance (i.e., the system is getting better or worse) and to identify what items are missing in the profile so the profile can be improved in the long term. Appendix A, Characteristics of Recurrent and Non-Recurrent Congestion, provides a review of different methods for visualizing and communicating the severity, extent (temporal or spatial), nature, and/or characteristics of congestion, such as through color-coded network diagrams, GIS maps, speed contour plots, travel time reliability charts, vehicle trajectory plots (i.e., time-space vehicle plots), cumulative count curves, and other methods. FHWA’s Scoping and Conducting Data-Driven 21st Century Transportation System Analyses is another key docu- ment related to the systematic identification of operational conditions. It is a guide on the systematic integration of data and analytic resources into transportation systems management. Is This Problem One That is Suitable for ICM? FHWA advises transportation agencies looking to pursue ICM to go through these four steps to increase their ICM “readiness”: 1. Recognize existing infrastructure and systems for each modal network and identify whether these can be effectively integrated into ICM. 2. Distinguish whether or not existing transportation systems are being fully optimized. 3. Know whether the corridor contains alternative routes and modes for travelers. 4. Verify that relevant agencies are in support of corridor operations. FHWA’s 10 Attributes of a Successful ICM Site fact sheet5 describes the importance of each attribute for effective implementation. For those not familiar with the concept of ICM, Appendix B, Overview of Integrated Corridor Management, covers ICM fundamentals and examples of ICM strategies. 5 https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/pdf/ICM_10Attributes.pdf.

18 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders 10 Attributes of a Successful ICM Site Significant Congestion and Unreliable Travel Times The most critical—and obvious—attributes of a successful ICM site are noticeably high congestion and unreliable travel times. The impact of ICM is more noticeable in areas with significant congestion and delay, as improved traffic flow in these areas can be more attributable to ICM strategy implementation than in areas that experience inconsistent congestion. Infrastructural Availabilities ICM sites must also have the appropriate infrastructure in place to support ICM, such as parallel arterials and additional transit options. For ICM to work properly, there must be alternative information and traffic data the system provides. Multimodal Capabilities ICM corridors must also have the ability to connect in a multimodal fashion. This means that the different transit organizations and agencies must be able to communicate with one another, such as bus transit, rail transit, high-occupancy- vehicle (HOV) lane management, etc. Full implementation is nearly impossible without open communication—both technologically and organizationally—between the different modes of transportation. Centralized Data Hub A localized transportation management center is critical for housing all communication and traffic data in one centralized location. This makes it easier to organize and analyze the different traffic data and information in a consolidated manner. Successful Procurement Practices The most successful ICM sites are able to identify the processes and practices that work, and the personnel needed to perform the job correctly and proficiently. For example, integrating traffic systems together requires a different set of skills and expertise than typical traffic engineering. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) experts may need to be involved in the integration process to ensure it is completed effectively, and knowing this information in advance eliminates wasted time spent on troubleshooting. Efficient ICM sites are fully aware of expertise requirements and act accordingly during the procurement and integration processes. Readily Available Alternative Transit Options Alternative transit options are a necessity for successful ICM sites. These options could include bus rapid transit, HOV lanes, alternative commuter options, commuter rail, heavy rail (e.g., subway), and light rail. Effective ICM sites already have these options in place before ICM is implemented, and therefore can more easily integrate the options together. Optimization of Existing Transportation Systems Successful ICM sites are able to determine whether the currently existing transportation systems are being fully optimized to ensure that there are no additional underlying problems with traffic networks. For example, a site must verify that roads cannot be widened any more due to surrounding infrastructure or physical location, or validate that all additional alternative routes are being utilized in a manner that cannot otherwise be improved upon without ICM. Public Engagement Keeping stakeholders and the public engaged provides the public with better understanding of expected changes and better enables them to make more informed travel choices. A dedicated public-facing website that houses all of the corridor information and serves as a one-stop shop for project information can keep the public knowledgeable of recent ICM developments. It also provides the media access to all images and videos and reminds the public that the system is still in been installed and forgotten. Open-mindedness for Change Change is not always easy. While some people are more susceptible to change, others may see it as a threat to the familiar routine and be less receptive. Successful ICM sites are able to encourage an open mind and acceptance to changing solutions for congestion and traffic. Encouraging the public to support the changes for the betterment of congestion and travel times is an extremely important —and sometimes difficult—task. Institutional Support One of the most critical pieces of successfully implementing ICM is interagency and institutional support. Without the coordination of transportation agencies and organizations, multimodal communication and coordination is extremely difficult. Deployment of the required ICM technologies can be severely delayed or even immobilized without the support of local and regional transit agencies and the ability to send information across jurisdictions. Strong leadership is also important. ICM implementation not only requires the coordination and support of external agencies and organizations, it also relies heavily on the ability to coordinate and make decisions from an internal perspective. Like most systems, ICM implementation can only fully succeed when all parties involved work together, and a strong sense of leadership is necessary to keep all of those aspects organized and the end goal on track. 10 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 place—even a‘er all physical changes and construction have means of transit to which people can shi‘ based on the