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.

31 Understanding the objectives and needs of non-traditional stakeholder groups helps to build compelling arguments for incorporating them into ICM planning. Do We Share the Same Objectives? What Are the Main Objectives of Each Stakeholder Group? Table 4 lists the main goals and objectives by non-traditional stakeholder group. For the freight community, travel time, a common objective of motorists, is missing from the list. The freight community is much more conscientious of travel time reliability, which is critical for on-time deliveries and pick-ups, because truck operators ultimately answer to beneficial cargo owners and other clients. Cargo type, such as perishable items, is another critical factor that depends on travel time reliability. As with freight stakeholders, travel time reliability is of utmost importance to transit stakeholders. One of the easiest ways to lose ridership is through regu- lar schedule delays. Although safety is included on the list of goals and objectives for freight and transit stakeholders, operational processes are not as heavily dictated by this objective as they are for incident responders. Incident responder stakeholders will sacrifice mobility goals in order to protect onsite responders from harm and provide the necessary aid to incident victims. As the most physically vulnerable of the non-traditional stakeholder groups, safety is the main concern for non-motorized roadway users. One of the core strategies employed in ICM involves diverting freeway traffic to parallel arterials or to other modes when accidents, construction, or other non-recurrent obstacles degrade freeway performance. These diversions, no matter how well managed, can create high volumes of traffic at arterial intersections and/or transit stations and park-and-ride lots. Given that there is a correlation between the volume of travel through an intersection and pedestrian and bicycle safety, these additional diversions may require improvements to better protect pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, traffic planning for impacted intersections may need to mitigate the impacts on pedestrian and bicycle wait times crossing in the perpendicular direction of arterial flows. Involving non-motorized roadway users in ICM planning provides opportunities to balance the transportation needs of all roadway users. Use Table 4 to design ICM strategies that position non-traditional stake- holders to receive benefits addressing their unique goals and objectives. What Are the Major Concerns This Stakeholder Group Has in Getting Involved in ICM? This section highlights the top priorities or concerns of each non-traditional stakeholder group regarding ICM, as reported through stakeholder interviews. These key points highlight the most significant constraints and considerations associated with this stakeholder group as C H A P T E R 5 Assess Potential Partners’ Needs

32 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Table 4. Goals and objectives of non-traditional stakeholders. Non- Traditional Stakeholder Group Main Goals and Objectives Description Freight Stakeholders Reliability Freight partners are not as concerned about congestion levels as the rest of the public is. They care much more about reliability, which is needed for on-time deliveries and pick-ups, rather than speed. Navigability Economic Efficiency, Productivity, and Competitiveness Reducing the cost to transport and warehouse materials increases the profit the company earns from every client. Reducing energy costs can be accomplished by consolidating shipments or maximizing transportation routes. Quality Customer Service The goal of providing customers with outstanding customer service involves the ability to handle a business’ transportation and logistics needs in an efficient manner that enhances the logistic firm’s reputation in the industry. Safety Reduce rates of crashes, fatalities and injuries associated with freight movements on the designated freight network. Transit Stakeholders Reliability In order to maintain a loyal customer base, transit providers need to ensure reliable service. Passengers need to trust that their trip will be predictable or on-time. System Efficiency Transit agencies want to use their resources as efficiently as possible by minimizing non-revenue miles and evolving to user needs. Safety As with all other transportation agencies, safety and security of the system is a major priority for public transit providers. Affordability Transit providers need to ensure that their services are priced affordably for their customer base. Accessibility What types of transit services are available and where stations are located have a major impact on how frequently transit is used. Services must also be accessible for travelers with disabilities. Incident Response Stakeholders Responder Safety Safe, Quick Incident Clearance Prompt, Reliable, Interoperable Communications Non-Motorized Roadway Users Safety Accessibility Non-motorized roadway users often walk or bike as part of a multimodal trip, so accessibility to bike racks and transit stations are major deciding factors in mode choice. Connectivity Non-motorized roadway users desire a network of convenient, safe, and well-designed bicycle and pedestrian facilities that link all local and regional systems and community destinations. Equity Transportation needs of all motorists and non-motorists need to be balanced, otherwise pedestrians and bicyclists may experience significant delays at crosswalks. Source: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/goals-objectives-logistics-company-25541.html; https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16036/fhwahop16036.pdf; and http://www.respondersafety.com/About-Us/Key-Initiatives/National-Unified-Goal.aspx. Drivers should be required to move over and slow down when approaching traffic incident response vehicles and traffic incident responders on the roadway. When drivers learn the proper protocols when encountering emergencies on the roadway, it helps to prevent secondary incidents, including incident responder injuries and deaths. All traffic incident responders should receive prompt, reliable notification of incidents to which they are expected to respond. TIM partners actively partner with news media and information service providers to provide prompt, reliable incident information to the public. TIM partners encourage the development of more prompt and reliable traveler information systems that will enable drivers to make travel decisions to reduce the impacts of emergency incidents on traffic flow. Safety is the main concern of non-motorized roadway users who are especially vulnerable in traffic incidents. Increasing the visibility of facility intersections, road and rail crossings; providing a buffer between side paths and vehicular traffic; enforcing speed limits and pedestrian rights in crosswalks; adding user- or motion-activated signalization can increase safety for non-motorized roadway users. Height restrictions, inadequate shoulder widths, inadequate turning path templates, etc., create physical accessibility barriers for trucks on truck routes and alternate routes. Traffic Incident Management (TIM) partners at the state, regional and local levels are committed to achieving goals for traffic incident response and clearance times.

Assess Potential Partners’ Needs 33 they relate to ICM. For a full list of participants, please refer to Appendix C, Stakeholder Inter- view Participants. Use this list of concerns to have more informed conversations with non- traditional stakeholders. Work around the competing objectives or operational constraints that make it difficult to become more engaged in ICM. Design ICM strategies to either address the needs of non-traditional stakeholders or mitigate their concerns. Non-traditional stake- holders will be much more inclined to engage in ICM planning and design if they see potential for ICM strategies to improve their existing situation. General Constraints These concerns are shared across all non-traditional stakeholder groups: • Funding Prioritization – Current cost-benefit project ranking methods are designed for capital improvement projects; the benefits and costs of Transportation Systems Manage- ment and Operations (TSMO) projects and ICM are not always reliably captured by these processes, making it harder to secure funding and resources for ICM at various agencies. • Project Continuity – Delays related to ICM project approval and funding awards can create additional project-related problems later, as staffing turnover occurs in the interim and other demands for staff time arise. • Access to ICM Experts – Contractor and consultant support for stakeholder engagement is limited. • Inflexible Response Plans – A predetermined set of formal response plans can limit the ability of the ICM system to respond effectively to all possible conditions and situations. Freight Stakeholders The list below highlights several freight-specific operational constraints: • Disparate Traveler Information Sources – Incident information and construction closure information is not readily available to freight users from a centralized on-demand informa- tion hub, which would be preferable. Instead, freight users must check multiple sources and then synthesize it themselves. • Inconsistent Traveler Information – Sometimes the information provided to freight is inconsistent across different sources (e.g., dynamic message signs, 511 systems, and highway advisory radio). • Lack of Timely Traveler Information – Freight stakeholders are interested in detailed real- time information about incidents, including expected clearance times, nature of the closure, and extent of current (or predicted) delays. Such information, when available, is often out- dated and inaccurate. • Data Privacy Concerns – Freight companies are reluctant to share information and data, out of concern that their competitors will use it to their advantage. • Alternate Route Limitations – Rerouting trucks off freeways during congested periods or incident occurrences as an ICM strategy may not be worthwhile to implement or may be opposed by local jurisdictions because of inadequate shoulders and the roadway damage they can cause on arterials, in addition to the added safety risk rerouting poses to non-motorized roadway users. Unless a major incident creates a complete roadway closure, it may be simpler logistically to keep trucks (particularly oversize/overweight trucks) on the main route instead of attempting to reroute them. • Reluctance to Adopt New Technologies – Freight stakeholders are generally unwilling to install additional equipment for data collection.

34 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Transit Stakeholders The list below highlights several transit-specific operational constraints: • Making a Case for ICM – Detailed operational benefits of ICM and associated technologies (e.g., real-time vehicle occupancy counters) are not readily appreciated or well understood at transit agencies. • Potential for Negative Transit Impacts – Traffic diversion associated with ICM can nega- tively affect transit performance if not properly managed. Some agencies have decided not to pursue such strategies as a result.10 • ITS Investment Coordination – Transit agencies may struggle to understand where they fit in the ITS Architecture. Transit agencies may be unable to articulate when they need upgrades to their systems for continued ICM support, and securing funds for such ongoing investment can be particularly challenging. • Potential Interoperability Issues – Because FTA guidelines do not require the systems engineering process, not all transit projects follow the process, which can lead to design and interoperability issues. • One-directional Information Flow – During major events and incidents, the flow of infor- mation is often one-directional, from the DOT to the transit agencies. The DOT may alert transit agencies to expect more riders, which is then used for dynamic transit vehicle routing. Some DOTs have informal agreements to notify rail operators in such situations as well. • Lack of ITS Infrastructure – Better notification systems are needed to alert DOTs and local agencies when rail problems occur that will affect the roadway network (e.g., blocked road crossings, gate malfunctions). • Restricted Access to Roadway Assets – Dynamic message signs are owned and operated by other agencies (e.g., state and local DOTs), and they are often unavailable for displaying transit-related messages. • Right-of-way Constraints – Because transit agencies generally do not own the roadway right-of-way, it can be difficult for transit agencies to implement strategies given the number of jurisdictions and signal systems that must be coordinated with. Incident Response Stakeholders The list below highlights several incident response-specific operational constraints: • Lack of Coordination – State police and DOT operations staff often do not coordinate with local police departments during incident situations, apart from alerting them of potential traffic diversion. Incident response teams are largely unaware of ICM strategies and activities. • Point of Contact Complexity – Jurisdiction over incidents may vary by facility, such as bridges, tunnels, or standard freeway segments. In areas near international borders and ports of entry, it may be necessary to coordinate with border patrol staff in addition to state patrol and other emergency responders. • Procedural Conditions – Incidents involving heavy vehicles can take longer to clear due to insurance issues. Insurance companies recommend leaving the vehicle exactly where it is after an incident (if the vehicle does not block traffic), so that evidence can be collected for the official accident report and insurance claims. 10 However, this is often not a significant issue, as projects funded by the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund must conform with national ITS Architecture and applicable ITS standards, which includes using the systems engineering process. More information is available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/its_arch_imp/policy_2.htm (accessed 2-28-2017).

Assess Potential Partners’ Needs 35 Non-Motorized Roadway Users The list below highlights several non-motorized roadway user-specific operational constraints: • Competing Agency Priorities – Smaller cities tend not to have dedicated bicycle and pedes- trian staff (either planning or operations), so these responsibilities become competing priorities for city traffic engineers. • Understanding of DOT Processes and Procedures – Coordinating with bicyclists and pedestrians is complicated in that those users generally do not understand the politics and procedures of transportation planning/operations, and the bicycle and pedestrian planners that do understand these things are often unfamiliar with the real-world challenges and issues that those users face. • Competing Objectives – Bicyclists and pedestrians are often more concerned about safety than about mobility, but ICM strategies often focus on mobility performance metrics first. Traffic diversion strategies to improve mobility for motorists can negatively impact the safety of local streets for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Funding Constraints – Cities often lack the funds to invest in improvements on corridor arterials for bicycle and pedestrian users. When funding becomes short, non-motorized road- way user needs and strategies are likely to be cut from the project first. • Physical Limitations – Pedestrians and bicyclists, by the nature of these modes, cannot divert nearly as far from their original routes as motorized modes can. In addition, for ICM strategies that encourage mode switches, bicycling and pedestrian modes are often poorly suited modes for most commuters for logistical/distance reasons. • Overlooked Needs – – Bicycle and pedestrian groups may be overlooked in ICM planning because they contrib- ute relatively short-distance trips, despite the fact that they are also crucial components of transit trips as last-mile connections. – Sometimes the most outspoken bicycle and pedestrian activists do not properly convey the opinion or desires of the majority of bicycle and pedestrian users. – Many bicycle and pedestrian incidents may currently go unreported, and as such, the gravity of bicyclist and pedestrian needs may be inadequately represented. • Lack of Bicyclist/Pedestrian ITS Assets – – Signal coordination can often be provided with respect to one mode and travel speed, and the default is often to provide it to vehicles traveling at the speed limit, rather than to pedestrians at walking speed or bicyclists at cruising speed. – DOTs are unsure how to integrate historical data about bicycle and pedestrian volumes into ICM. One agency uses these data for post-incident evaluations only. – Automated technologies for measuring pedestrian and bicycle volumes are not yet available. – No known mobile apps are available that provide real-time bicycle-specific traffic alerts (such as to expect higher-than-normal arterial volumes due to a nearby freeway incident).