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.

43 Craft effective pitches to management and non-traditional stakeholders by articulating the benefits of integration and operational opportunities in the ICM approach. What Are the Benefits to This Stakeholder Group for Getting Involved? What Are the Benefits to Transportation Agencies for Getting This Stakeholder Group Involved? As congestion and the number of incidents steadily increase in urban areas nationwide, the occasional collaboration and interaction among transportation agencies within a corridor is no longer sufficient to address the transportation needs of the traveling public. Although engaging additional groups of stakeholders is not easy, doing so ensures that ICM strategies are designed with all roadway users in mind. Communicating the benefits of integration may be among the most effective approaches to encourage participation in ICM projects. ICM leaders must build a compelling case to incorpo- rate non-traditional stakeholder groups in ICM projects by understanding the benefits to cor- ridor operators and to the stakeholder groups themselves. Through collaboration, both corridor operators and freight stakeholders can gain insight into ICM strategies that they might not have otherwise considered. This section presents the benefits of incorporating non-traditional stake- holder groups into ICM planning into three subsections for each stakeholder group: (1) benefits for the stakeholder group themselves; (2) benefits for the transportation agencies leading the ICM project; and (3) a successful collaboration case study (provided as Exhibits 4 through 7). Freight Stakeholders Many urban area freight corridors are being examined as potential ICM corridors, making freight an essential ICM stakeholder. FHWA’s Integrated Corridor Management and Freight Opportunities report15 synthesizes the following benefits that the freight community can expect to experience if they are integrated into ICM projects. Benefits for Freight Stakeholders On a typical corridor, work zones or congestion management strategies are not planned, executed, or communicated in an integrated fashion. The information available to the public often resides on disparate channels, making it difficult to see the complete picture. In an ICM C H A P T E R 7 Engage Potential Partners 15 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management and Freight Opportunities. FHWA-HOP-15-018, December 2015. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15018/fhwahop15018.pdf.

44 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders 16Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) Impact Assessment: Final Report. FHWA-JPO-16-225. January 25, 2016. In 2012, the Federal Highway Administration and Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Of�ice initiated the Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) project to test information technologies that would optimize the movement of containers between intermodal terminals and various inland shipping points at three different U.S. locations: Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, and South Florida. The FRATIS technologies included real-time information exchange with trading partners involving arrival, departure, and status information related to current or pending container movements. The centerpiece of the FRATIS prototypes was software that included an optimization algorithm to analyze daily container movement orders, driver information, and traf�ic conditions and create optimal dispatching plans. The involvement of numerous public- and private-sector stakeholders in the FRATIS tests was important to what was achieved, and the relationships and cooperation established are likely to continue well beyond FRATIS to the bene�it of each region. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the development contractors expended considerable effort at the beginning of the FRATIS program to bring together drayage companies, terminal operators, port of�icials, and various public-sector agencies. The FRATIS prototype tests were useful proofs of concepts that advanced the technologies. However, further enhancement (e.g., ease of use, automation, quantitative performance measurement) is needed before the prototype would be considered for continued operational use. Two additional pilot projects that will expand use of the FRATIS technologies are currently moving forward. The �irst involves providing incident, delay, and impact-related traveler information along the I-35 corridor in Texas to participating trucking �irms that will use that information to optimize truck trips along the corridor with real-time road conditions taken into account.16 The second, Los Angeles FRATIS Phase II, looks to implement a �lexible mobile application version of FRATIS, which also incorporates Connected Vehicle/Applications for the Environment: Real-Time Information Synthesis (CV/AERIS) strategies. Exhibit 4. Case study: Freight advanced traveler information system pilot projects enhance public- and private-sector information exchange. At the beginning of the Dallas Demonstration Site ICM project, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) was the natural choice to lead the ICM coordination—it was the regional agency that managed the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on the U.S. 75 corridor, as well as the 511 system and it had full staf�ing at the DalTrans TMC. One of the TMC staff was allocated to be the full-time ICM coordinator. The Dallas site ICM program centered on the transit offerings of the DART system. The U.S. 75 corridor study area spans 28 miles and contains DART’s Red Line, which expands into the Cities of Richardson and Plano and passes next to the Cities of Highland Park and University Park. In addition, the Blue Line operates near downtown Dallas and extends along the eastern edge of the corridor boundary. By providing improved multimodal traveler information, such as light-rail transit (LRT) passenger loads, LRT vehicle locations, and Red Line park-and-ride utilization on their new 511 system, U.S. 75 corridor travelers were encouraged to switch to transit during major incidents on the freeway. DART’s involvement with the ICM project revealed the potential for major bene�its to transit. Historically, DART has not shared information across different transit modes (e.g., light rail, buses, and commuter rail). The U.S. 75 ICM project has sparked interest in transit data exchange. DART is now trying to take the ICM concept and develop automated response plans for situations when rail service experiences a disruption by automatically sharing information across the entire organization using a web-based tool.17 17Interview with Todd Plesko of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, conducted on November 21, 2016 along with content from Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 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. Exhibit 5. Case study: Dallas area rapid transit leads coordination of Dallas U.S. 75 ICM project. corridor, freight stakeholders can receive regular, validated information updates (e.g., travel times, incidents, work zones, road closures, suggested alternate routes, etc.) from operating agencies along the corridor. This provides truck operators and dispatchers with improved situ- ational awareness of conditions on the corridor, which is especially critical as the cost of conges- tion is felt throughout the supply chain and eventually passed on to consumers themselves in the form of higher prices on goods and products. By becoming involved in the ICM planning process, freight stakeholders may be able to request additional information that they would like

Engage Potential Partners 45 to receive through the ICM platform, such as information on truck-specific travel times, truck parking availability, and truck restrictions on proposed alternate routes. With insight into accurate, up-to-date conditions along the corridor, freight operators and dispatchers can be more proactive, instead of reactive, in selecting routes, timing deliveries, and managing truck driver hours of service and available equipment. Selecting alternate routes with less congestion can also result in reduced operational costs, through fuel, driver, and equip- ment savings. The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Greater Rochester region of New York, has incorporated TIM into its planning efforts by creating an ITS strategic plan that recognizes TIM as a means of combating the region’s congestion challenges. The seeds of coordination and adoption of TIM as a strategic priority were planted when New York State DOT Region 4 Operations, Monroe County DOT, and a New York State Police station were co-located in the Regional Traf�ic Operations Center (RTOC) in 2002. These responder and traf�ic operations communities quickly realized that collaboration would result in a more complete detection and response capability for both the daily routine of traf�ic as well as TIM. As a result of working together, regional stakeholders have identi�ied ways to expand and improve upon their success with the assistance and support of the MPO, which has identi�ied multi-agency training and education targeted to local �irst responders as a strategic objective. This training will provide them with better information regarding the RTOC and its capabilities, reinforce the Uni�ied Incident Command structure, help local �irst responders better understand the downstream impacts and safety risks associated with highway incident management activities, and educate responders on ways to minimize unnecessary disruption to the transportation system without compromising safety. Operators and responders also quickly realized the value of different kinds of technologies. GTC has identi�ied coordinated traf�ic signal timing adjustments, the installation of new highway advisory radio beacons, the addition of portable dynamic message signs, and further integration with the proposed statewide 511 system as strategic priorities to increase dissemination of traf�ic incident information to the general public so that drivers can avoid incident-related congestion.18 18Genesee Transportation Council, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Plan, February 2011. http://www.gtcmpo.org/Docs/PlansStudies/ITS_StrategicPlanUpdate.pdf. Exhibit 6. Case study: Genesee transportation council fosters traffic incident management as a strategic priority. Phoenix, like many other communities, is working with school of�icials and parents to develop walking route maps to provide young students guidance on the safest routes to walk to and from school. The program makes the school trip safer by identifying the safest routes and involves a comprehensive review of the walking routes by school of�icials and parents to identify problem areas. The walking route plan helps identify where improvements are needed and where to place crosswalks, stop signs, and adult school crossing guards. The ultimate purpose of the walking routes is to encourage more children to walk to school and discourage parents from driving their children to school. The school provides the walking attendance boundary map and parent volunteers review and develop the walking routes. The City provides aerial photographs, quarter-section maps, and guidelines for parents and school of�icials on how to conduct their reviews. The process requires parent volunteers or school of�icials to review the entire walking route and to identify the most desirable walking route to serve each household within the walking attendance boundary. This exercise may also involve a revision of the walking attendance boundary, if safe routes can be identi�ied or created to serve more students. Once the walking route maps are completed, traf�ic of�icials review the areas of concern and work with school of�icials to ensure the right number and placement of adult school crossing guards. The City provides �inal versions of the maps and maintains the computer �iles for the walking routes. The school of�icials are responsible for distributing the walking route plans to the parents at the start of the school year and when new students enroll at the school. School walking route maps are reviewed annually to identify if there are any changes to or within the school walking attendance boundary.19 19Safe Routes to School Guide. http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/case_studies/engineering.cfm. Exhibit 7. Case study: Developing a safe routes to school walking route map.

46 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Benefits for Transportation Agencies Additional benefits can stem from the very act of collaborating with the freight community. Gaining buy-in from freight stakeholders can help ICM project leaders make a case for ICM in a region while also providing a platform for freight stakeholders to share the unique challenges that they face from a corridor user’s perspective and provide input into the design of a system that can better meet their needs. Freight community knowledge of major route decision points can also help inform the geographic scope of dynamic message signs included in ICM strategies. Untapped data that can be shared from the freight community (e.g., truck origins and destina- tions, port turn times, etc.) will help to provide a more robust picture of traffic conditions within a corridor or region. Transit Stakeholders FHWA’s Integrated Corridor Management, Transit, and Mobility on Demand report20 states that the best way to gain buy-in and support from transit agencies is to articulate how ICM can help them achieve their transit-specific goals. Benefits for Transit Stakeholders ICM can improve the mobility, safety, security, quality, and efficient use of transit modes and services. ICM-transit integration can lead to enhanced data and information sharing between agencies, which is key to providing a more comprehensive picture of current network conditions. This increases the monitoring capabilities of both transit agencies and ICM corridor operators (in some cases, these roles may overlap) and can enable transit operators to better manage their resources for maximum system efficiency. For example, if a roadway incident causes motorists to switch to transit in order to avoid delays, then transit operators can make short-term adjust- ments in response to the incident by dispatching additional transit vehicles to accommodate the increase in demand. If long-term monitoring reveals that a certain transit route is consistently nearing maximum capacity, transit operators can make permanent changes to add additional vehicles during these recurring conditions. Transit schedules and routes can also be proactively adjusted in anticipation of planned roadway events (e.g., street closures). ICM-transit integra- tion could increase transit ridership by enabling more efficient service, faster incident response, and improved reliability. By disseminating comprehensive and validated data on current conditions (e.g., transit vehicle expected arrival times, travel times, delays, passenger occupancies, transfer options, etc.) in a coordinated manner, the end-users of the transportation network can benefit from better service and make more informed decisions about when and how they travel. By funding proj- ects which improve transit travel time or accessibility, public transportation may become a more appealing travel option for roadway users, leading to increased ridership. Increased ridership leads to secondary benefits, such as increased transit service revenue, reduced vehicular demands, lower fuel consumption, and reduced emissions. In return, transit agencies may be able to increase the affordability of transit service as a result of increased revenue from additional riders. Benefits for Transportation Agencies On a planning level, coordinated planning between agencies can help identify opportunities where various improvements can be incorporated into the same design and construction and where key infrastructure (e.g., a communication network) can be implemented to serve mul- tiple purposes and agencies. This proactive coordination can help eliminate redundancies and 20 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management, Transit, and Mobility on Demand. FHWA-HOP-16-036, March 2016. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16036/fhwahop16036.pdf.

Engage Potential Partners 47 minimize disruptions for construction which leads to significant cost savings. In addition, transit agencies that participate in a coordinated initiative like ICM may be able to make stronger arguments to secure funding for various improvements that provide direct travel-time benefits for transit along an ICM corridor, such as an AVL system for buses that feeds data into an ICM system. Transit priority signal systems on arterials, transit traveler information (e.g., transfer locations and times, accessibility), and integrated fare payment are examples of strategies that may be included in an ICM program. Incident Response Stakeholders TIM can support ICM safety and mobility objectives when incidents occur along the cor- ridor. In a reciprocal fashion, ICM is made up of tools that can help incident responders meet their objectives for responder safety, quick incident clearance, and prompt, reliable, and interoperable communications. FHWA’s Integrated Corridor Management and Traffic Incident Management: A Primer report21 describes the potential for mutual benefits resulting from ICM-TIM integration. Benefits for Incident Response Stakeholders Managing transportation infrastructure as an integrated system can benefit TIM programs in many ways. When incidents do occur, ICM strategies can be used to reroute and divert traffic from the incident scene to clear the way for incident responder vehicles to approach the inci- dent more quickly and safely, respond to those in need, and transport victims in need of service to care. Motorists can be encouraged to proceed more cautiously around incident responders on scene, thereby improving the safety of the responders. By diverting roadway traffic to other facilities or modes, incident queues are reduced, which helps to minimize the potential for secondary incidents, allowing traffic flow to be restored more quickly. Incident responder stakeholders may also benefit from the inventory of available traffic man- agement and transportation operations infrastructure, systems, and assets. For example, 511 sys- tems, which are usually managed by state and regional transportation agencies, may be an effective platform for incident responders to disseminate incident alerts. Traffic management centers may also be ideal places to co-locate TIM personnel. Doing so will enable traffic operators and incident responders to share traffic monitoring video feeds and coordinate a response immediately when an incident is detected. In areas where the TIM program may not be as well established or formalized, ICM provides a platform for collaboration among TIM partners and a proving ground for coordinated inci- dent response. Resulting relationships among TIM stakeholders can eventually be capitalized on and used to expand and formalize the TIM program beyond the ICM corridor. Benefits for Transportation Agencies As with the integration of freight and transit data, the integration of TIM data also helps pro- vide an additional facet to the comprehensive situational awareness of corridor activity. Data such as anticipated incident duration, incident and roadway clearance times, occurrence of secondary incidents, and recommended alternate routes allow for more robust ICM DSS. TIM stakeholders can inform the DSS by providing valuable insights on where motorists should be rerouted when incidents occur, or what potential corridor impacts to expect from planned special events such as sporting events, concerts, major conventions, visiting dignitaries, etc. 21 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management and Traffic Incident Management: A Primer. FHWA- HOP-16-035, January 2016. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16035/fhwahop16035.pdf.

48 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders By providing real-time updates regarding incident-related delays and expected roadway clearance times, motorists can better understand the incident impacts on travel times and make the appropriate alternate route or modal choices, which can help improve corridor performance. Non-Motorized Roadway Users Non-motorized roadway users are often an overlooked stakeholder group in ICM planning. However, there are opportunities for collaboration in ICM, as safety, the utmost concern of non-motorized roadway users, is also a high-priority ICM performance metric. Benefits for Non-Motorized Roadway Users Engagement with this stakeholder group can provide insights on how they can be affected by traffic management strategies that typically prioritize motorists above all others. For example, arterial diversion routes are usually programmed to give major arterials more green time in order to maximize vehicle throughput. As a result, pedestrians and bicyclists at signalized crosswalks may experience increased levels of delay which can be exacerbated by exposure to the elements (e.g., rain, snow, vehicle exhaust). To improve equity in these situations, ICM strategies involv- ing signal coordination may be redesigned to consider pedestrian and bicyclist progression. Awareness of heavily traveled pedestrian and bicyclist routes within an ICM corridor can help inform suitable diversion routes for vehicles or pedestrians/bicyclists. Non-motorized roadway users are limited in their ability to divert long distances – even half a mile may be considered a long distance to non-motorized roadway users. Also, pedestrians and bicyclists tend not to access traveler information sources pre-trip or en route as motorists do, so it may be easier to divert motorists instead. Benefits for Transportation Agencies Several ICM projects have encountered roadblocks related to the proposed strategies that may pose additional risk to these physically vulnerable roadway users. For example, in situations of major freeway congestion, ICM strategies may temporarily route traffic onto major arterial streets – the influx of vehicles with drivers who may be unfamiliar with the alternate route can cause additional safety concerns at conflict points with pedestrians and bicyclists, who may be uninformed of the sudden increase in vehicular traffic. All jurisdictions within an ICM cor- ridor must be on board in order for an ICM project to be successful. Integrating the needs and concerns of non-motorized roadway users into ICM planning is one way to gain support from local agencies for ICM. Increasing the convenience of non-motorized roadway usage can help reduce demand for driving. Identifying accessibility and connectivity pain points of bicyclists, pedestrians, and people with disabilities helps to develop a sustainable corridor and may also help increase transit ridership. What Can the ICM Project Offer to This Stakeholder Group? Interview participants representing a diverse range of stakeholders nationwide provided the following insights into opportunities for overcoming constraints and more effectively engaging non-traditional stakeholder groups in ICM planning. Agencies and stakeholders may be more proactive and responsive about getting involved in ICM if they are positioned to receive signifi- cant benefits from the arrangement, and both understand and recognize these benefits. Use the lists below to incorporate opportunities that are feasible into strategies to entice non-traditional stakeholders to participate in ICM.

Engage Potential Partners 49 Basic levels of ICM are already occurring among various agencies. During major road- way events, some agencies (e.g., state and local DOTs) proactively coordinate with transit to evaluate how transit schedules should be adjusted in response. In other circumstances, such as major transit incidents, transit agencies sometimes coordinate with local bus agencies to provide temporary replacement service. ICM projects can further develop these types of partnerships so that transit agencies do not need to limit themselves to implementing strategies within their jurisdictions or rights-of-way. ICM Support • Advocate for Top-Down or Bottom-Up Support – Political or executive-level support for ICM can encourage cooperation and participation across all stakeholder groups. Involve- ment and support by FHWA and FTA can help encourage participation by other stakeholders. However, one agency found that, although goals set by upper management can provide direc- tion, the success of ICM and coordination depends on whether the operational staff feel invested in and recognize the importance of it. • Leverage Goals of Existing Initiatives – Internal agency initiatives associated with inter- agency collaboration and communication can be used as motivation and justification for involvement in ICM. • Establish Ongoing ICM Funding – Established sources of ongoing funds to support ICM can encourage stakeholders to commit resources and time of their own and can demonstrate that it is a long-term priority. • Use a Tiered Deployment Approach – Deploying ICM in phases can help show the stake- holders the potential of ICM and motivate them to get involved in further planning in later phases, before the full deployment is complete. • Grant ICM Budgetary Authority to DOTs (non-motorized roadway user-specific) – Granting the DOT budgetary authority for ICM implementations can allow the DOT to provide finan- cial support to the local cities for needed improvements for bicycle and pedestrian users, in a coordinated and consistent manner across the corridor. Stakeholder Participation • Bring Stakeholders to the Table – Organizing a planning workshop where various opera- tional scenarios are presented to stakeholders can help garner specific input from each group. • Involve Stakeholders Early On – Coordinating with all stakeholders while the ICM plan is being developed (e.g., for goals, objectives, and proposed strategies), rather than simply seeking input from them during a review period for a completed plan, can help them feel more engaged and invested in the product and will allow planners to more easily implement fundamental necessary design changes in response to comments from the stakeholder groups. The various stakeholder groups may also be able to provide support for grant applications. • Maintain Regular Contact – Regular meetings or conference calls (e.g., monthly, bi-monthly) can encourage involvement and identify problems early on, as can establishing a steering com- mittee with representation from each stakeholder group. The frequency of meetings should affect the day-to-day responsibilities of each stakeholder group minimally (e.g., emergency responders must give priority to emergency situations when they arise) and the specific input needed from each group should be made clear beforehand. • Share Decision-Making Responsibilities – Engaging non-traditional stakeholders and getting them to feel involved and invested may require relinquishing some influence and decision-making power to them regarding ICM. However, this also may require additional investment of time and resources from these stakeholders, such as staffing and training. • Conduct Incident Debriefs (incident response-specific) – Debriefing meetings to discuss all factors related to an incident can help improve the efficiency of incident clearance and management.

50 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Information Sharing • Refer to Successful ICM Deployments – Examples of successful collaborations, MOUs, and arrangements between agencies for ICM can be highly informative for other agencies strug- gling with how to approach it. However, there must be a balance between looking to other projects for guidance and thinking critically about specific solutions and strategies that make sense for a particular agency. • Utilize Knowledge Base of Regional Agencies – Having an MPO or countywide/regional agency in charge of information sharing and dissemination back-end systems may facilitate participation by all ICM parties, as other agencies (e.g., the DOTs, transit agencies) often focus on specific modes or aspects of corridor data only. Regional agencies are often more closely connected with local groups (e.g., bicycle, pedestrian, and freight groups) than the state DOT and are more likely to have done coordinated projects with these agencies in the past (which also facilitates ICM arrangements). • Design Comprehensive Information Sharing Platforms – Information sharing portals that include planned event information (e.g., construction closures, major corridor events) can help all stakeholders proactively prepare and plan for the impacts and add value to the ICM system. – On the operations side, integrating DOT systems with transit agency systems for more seamless communication and data sharing can encourage both to coordinate their opera- tions more often. Transit agencies can respond more flexibly and appropriately to incidents and other major roadway events if the information is provided directly to dispatchers and not just to transit vehicle operators in the field (e.g., via dynamic message signs). Real-time data can be provided to dispatchers to monitor the effects and extents of mode shift that occur during incident situations and planned roadway events, to help inform how transit schedules should be adjusted in response (e.g., dispatching additional vehicles if passenger loads are nearing capacity). Real-time transit vehicle location information and schedule adherence information can be shared with DOTs through incident management systems and public internet. – On the end-user side, information dissemination to the public through 511 systems can inform roadway users of their transit options during major incidents, such as transit vehicle capacity available. • Trade Public-Sector Data for Private-Sector Data or Functionality (freight-specific) – Mobile app developers may not be interested in taking into account truck route consider- ations when providing rerouting guidance. However, DOTs have information that these mobile app developers want (e.g., planned lane closures) that can be used for leverage. • Give Freight Stakeholders Requested Information to Demonstrate Value of ICM (freight- specific) – High-priority information dissemination needs of freight stakeholders include the following: real-time truck travel times, real-time truck parking availability, and freely accessible real-time truck incident and detour information that considers truck restrictions/ constraints. Trucks must receive incident and rerouting information far enough in advance to act on it (i.e., before major route decision points such as alternate freeways), which may mean expanding the geographic scope of dynamic message signs included in ICM. It is even more helpful to receive the information as part of pre-trip-planning information, rather than once a vehicle is already on the road. • Coordinate Alternative Routes (incident response-specific) – It can be helpful to establish acceptable detour routes and other procedures as part of an incident management plan in coordination with local cities and the DOT. These detour routes can be used in dynamic routing strategies to move traffic to other nearby routes, thereby reducing incident-related delays and secondary crashes. • Real-Time Alerts (non-motorized roadway user-specific) – Twitter, 511, and arterial dynamic message signs can be good methods for reaching bicycle and pedestrian users, but they are

Engage Potential Partners 51 not ideal for two-way communication. Mobile apps may be a better option for reaching these non-motorized roadway users. Operational Efficiencies • Formalize Response Plan Responsibilities – Formal response plans can help all stakeholders know what to expect. • Establish Dedicated Channels of Communication (freight-specific) – Although it can be impractical to have freight operations co-located with DOT operations staff, an alternative for coordination could be to establish dedicated channels of communication between the two for sharing comments and concerns. • Incorporate Freight Needs into Decision Support Systems (freight-specific) –Decision support systems for ICM would ideally consider the type of goods being carried, given that different loads can have very different priority levels or costs associated with delays (e.g., perish ables). This would be the freight analog to a decision support system that assigns dif- ferent priority levels to transit vehicles according to their current occupancy levels (e.g., tran- sit signal priority systems), where a vehicle with more occupants receives greater priority due to the calculated higher cost of delaying that vehicle based on standard value-of-time assumptions. • Provide Demand Management Incentives for Freight (freight-specific) – Given that local agencies are generally hesitant to allow freight vehicles to be rerouted onto arterial streets, incentives for off-hours freight operations can help with ICM demand management. • Share Right-of-Way Access (transit-specific) – Transit agencies seeking to implement Bus Rapid Transit, Bus-on-Shoulder, or bus-only lanes may be incentivized to make ICM plan- ning and coordination a higher priority because these types of strategies can be reliant on state DOTs to facilitate deployment and formalize operational details. • Use Interagency Assets (transit-specific) – Transit agencies are easier to incorporate into ICM planning when they already have back-end management/data systems in place and ITS infrastructure deployed in the field. • Select Mutually Beneficial Strategies (transit-specific) – Variable speed limits may improve safety at entrances to HOT lanes, where there can be a lot of traffic (including buses) attempt- ing to merge into a single entry point. Implementing transit signal priority on diversion routes during major incidents can increase person throughput and improve overall flow of diverted freeway traffic, which can encourage drivers to use local arterials instead of residential streets and collectors. • Share ITS Assets across Agencies (incident response-specific) – Incident responders are easier to incorporate into ICM planning when they already have back-end coordination/data systems in place and when the DOT has incident monitoring infrastructure deployed in the field that incident responders can benefit from. Incident responders could benefit from being allowed to control DOT cameras as needed for incident monitoring, but this could conflict with the DOT and its own needs for the closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems; therefore, read-only access may be more suitable. • Explore Co-location Benefits (incident response-specific) – Positioning DOT and incident response operations in the same facility can help foster collaboration and coordination. This can include staff from city DOTs, the state DOT, fire departments, police departments, port authorities, and medical facilities. • Reduce Incident Response Times (incident response-specific) – ICM strategies can reduce congestion in advance of incidents, thereby improving response time to incident scenes for incident responders. • Improve Responder Safety (incident response-specific) – ICM strategies can alert drivers to incidents ahead, thereby improving safety for responders on the scene and reducing the like- lihood of secondary crashes.

52 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders • Tie in Transit Improvements (non-motorized roadway user-specific) – Bicycle and pedestrian users are often interested in seeing transit improvements as well, given that they often use transit for portions of their trips. Bike-sharing stations may be at or near transit stops, which makes both modes more convenient, attractive, and accessible. • Ensure Suitable Diversion Routes (non-motorized roadway user-specific) – Separate diver- sion routes can be selected for motorists and non-motorized roadway users. In order to reduce the number of conflict points with motorists, pedestrian and bicycle activity can be shifted to lower volume streets with lower speed limits. However, if the diversion routes for non-motorized modes prove to be too far from the main route, then an ICM strategy may involve providing users with dedicated facilities (e.g., segregated bicycle lanes) on the main route to improve the safety and comfort of these vulnerable roadway users, while achieving mobility goals for motorists. Another approach would be to restrict motorist diversion routes to ones with low pedestrian and bicycle volumes. • Use Signal Phase Retiming (non-motorized roadway user-specific) – Signal coordination may be redesigned to consider pedestrian and bicyclist progression, so as not to neglect these vulnerable roadway users at busy intersections. What Are the Best Channels of Communication with Our Identified Stakeholder Entities? Once non-traditional stakeholders are engaged in the ICM planning process, Tables 10 through 13 offer additional measures collected through stakeholder interviews to help to ensure continued stakeholder involvement in ICM. The strategies are organized by the decision- maker types (end-user, operations-level, and program-level) as outlined in Task 3 in Exhibit 2: Determine Potential Partners, in a format that follows the five levels of maturity in the ICM Capability Maturity Model (CMM)22: • Level 1 Silo: Agencies do not coordinate their operations with other agencies. Agencies manage their own networks independent of neighbors. • Level 2 Centralized: Some agencies share data but operate their networks independently. Traffic or operational data may be shared either through an automated process or manually. • Level 3 Partially Integrated: Agencies share data, and some cooperative responses are done. Data is shared through an automated feed (e.g., center-to-center [C2C]) or manually. • Level 4 Multimodal Integrated: Agencies share data and implement multimodal incident response plans. Incident response uses a multimodal approach with defined detour routes. • Level 5 Multimodal Optimized: Operations are centralized for the corridor, and personnel operate the corridor cooperatively. A central system is used to coordinate operations, and personnel may be co-located or work virtually with robust communication among agencies. Decisionmaker Types • End-Users: Mainly affected through technical integration, resulting in more comprehensive information dissemination. • Operations-Level: Depend on interagency data and information sharing to improve the accuracy of decision support systems and performance measures. • Program-Level: Require formal interagency cooperation with all operating agencies. 22 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Advances in Strategies for Implementing Integrated Corridor Management (ICM), NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 12-02. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/ NCHRP20-68A_12-02.pdf.

Decision maker Type Level 1 Silo Level 2 Centralized Level 3 Partially Integrated Level 4 Multimodal Integrated Level 5 Multimodal Optimized End-User • Trucking association newsletters • DOT websites (for planned closures) • State Patrol websites (for incident information). • Dynamic message signs (DMSs) • Highway advisory radio. • Citizens band (CB) radio • Sirius/XM satellite radio • Social media (e.g., agency Twitter accounts) • 511 systems • Mobile apps (e.g., Google, Waze) for mode-agnostic dynamic rerouting during incidents • Self-service web portal that consolidates the most up-to- date traffic information • Mobile apps or truck management system modules integrating third- party truck GPS data (e.g., ATRI) for truck-specific flows, reliability, and speeds • Mobile apps or truck management system modules that integrate DOT- approved truck detour routes or dynamic rerouting information for common freight destinations • FRATIS applications using two-way information exchange between drayage operators (DOs) and MTOs or warehouses • Centralized information hub with location-based real-time incident, delay, and closure impacts • FRATIS applications with information exchange between DOs, MTOs/warehouses, and BCOs • Connected trucks receive optimized route guidance directly • Incorporation of destination facility wait times with roadway travel times Operations- Level • Announcements, press releases from public information officers for major events (e.g., full freeway closures, long-term closures) • Trucking association newsletters • 511 systems • State Patrol websites (for incident information) • Phone calls, emails to DOT operations staff to discuss responseplans,comments, concerns • Self-service web portal that consolidates the most up-to- date traffic information • Freight community representatives are involved with the regular updating of a static playbook of response plans • State, local DOTs broadcast manually selected response plan on agencies’ social media channels • Truck GPS data is provided on a regular basis to State, local DOTs through data dumps or Truck Management System Application Programming Interface (API) • Limited real-time data is used to inform response plan selection • State, local DOTs broadcast selected response plan on agencies’ social media channels • Integration of Truck Management Systems and DOT operations systems • Simulations of real-time truck location data and traffic conditions are used to identify the most effective response plan • Freight operations-level decisionmakers receive automatic alerts with response plan instructions • Alternate route guidance takes into consideration type of cargo carried (e.g., perishables) • Dynamic set of responseplans • Connected trucks receive response plan informationdirectly • Connected vehicle data provide insights into multimodal performance measures inreal time • Cloud-basedperformance measure dashboard accessible by freight operations-level decisionmakers and DOTs Program- Level • Attending existing freight, transit, incident responder, non-motorized roadway user association, coalition meetings • Leveraging existing relationships that other agencies have built (e.g., MPOs, chambers of commerce) • Establishing internal DOT committees and advisory groups • Developing freight, transit, incident responder, non- motorized roadway user plans as a way to build relationships and trust with the stakeholders. • Involving program-level decisionmakers in regional operations forums can help them understand the bigger ICM perspective, objectives, opportunities,andconstraints • Establishing a corridor coalition and formalizing information dissemination strategies to member agencies, emergency services, and the public • Sharing operational responsibilities in a joint TMC (e.g., NITTEC) • ICM corridor operations and maintenance costs are shared between corridor coalition member agencies Table 10. Communication strategies for freight decisionmakers.

Decision maker Type Level 1 Silo Level 2 Centralized Level 3 Partially Integrated Level 4 Multimodal Integrated Level 5 Multimodal Optimize End-User • Transit agency websites • Transit station posted schedules • DMSs • DOT websites (for planned closures) • State Patrol websites (for incident information) • Social media (e.g., agency Twitter accounts) • 511 system (incident impacts, transit options, transit vehicle capacity, etc.) • Transit station DMSs • Multimodal trip planner websites or mobile apps and transit DMSs with near- real-time departure, delay information • Mobile apps that allow transit users to report incidents in real time (e.g., ELERTS SafeTTC23) • Navigation apps (e.g., Go LA24) that recommend various combinations of modes to satisfy users’ priorities (e.g., travel time, cost, environmental impact, etc.) • Multimodal navigation apps with integrated payment Operations- Level • Announcements, press releases from public information officers for major events (e.g., full freeway closures, long-term closures) • Ad hoc phone calls from state or local DOTs to alert transit operations-level decisionmakers to expect higher ridership levels in the event of roadway incidents • Ad hoc coordination between regional and local transit agencies to provide temporary replacement service in the event of transit incidents • Transit agency representatives are involved with the regular updating of a static playbook of response plans • State, local DOTs broadcast manually selected response plan on agencies’ social media channels • Transit agencies regularly provide State, local DOTs with transit performance data, planned events and transit service disruptions • Transit operators share real- time transit vehicle location and schedule adherence information with DOTs systems and public internet • Limited real-time data is used to inform response plan selection • State, local DOTs broadcast selected response plan on agencies’ social media channels • Model uses real-time transit ridership, occupancy, and vehicle location data from centralized DOT system to inform response plan selection • Transit operations-level decisionmakers receive automatic alerts with response plan instructions • Dynamic set of response plans • Connected transit vehicles receive response plan information directly • Connected vehicle data provide insights into multimodal performance measures in real time • Cloud-based performance measure dashboard accessible by transit operations-level decisionmakers and DOTs Program- Level • Attending existing freight, transit, incident responder, non- motorized roadway user association, coalition meetings • Leveraging existing relationships that other agencies have built (e.g., MPOs, chambers of commerce) • Establishing internal DOT committees and advisory groups • Developing freight, transit, incident responder, non- motorized roadway user plans as a way to build relationships and trust with the stakeholders • Involving program-level decisionmakers in regional operations forums can help them understand the bigger ICM perspective, objectives, opportunities, and constraints • Establishing a corridor coalition and formalizing information dissemination strategies to member agencies, emergency services, and the public • Sharing operational responsibilities in a joint TMC (e.g., Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition [NITTEC]) • ICM corridor operations and maintenance costs are shared between corridor coalition member agencies 23 http://elerts.com/elerts-develops-safettc-mobile-reporting-app-toronto-transit-commission/. 24 https://gizmodo.com/la-has-invented-the-multimodal-navigation-app-of-my-dre-1756497278. through incident management Table 11. Communication strategies for transit decisionmakers.

Decision maker Type Level 1 Silo Level 2 Centralized Level 3 Partially Integrated Level 4 Multimodal Integrated Level 5 Multimodal Optimized End-User • Interoperable voice and data networks • Broadband emergency communication systems • Social media (e.g., agency Twitter accounts) • 511 systems • Mobile apps (e.g., Google, Waze for mode-agnostic dynamic rerouting during incidents) • Alerts from crowdsourced incident data apps (e.g., Waze25, INRIX Traffic Maps & Global Positioning System [GPS]) • Apps enabling incident responders to provide data regarding real-time or planned incidents directly to citizens • Navigation apps and roadway DMSs that are updated in real- time based on incident responder activity Operations- Level • Announcements, press releases from public information officers for major events (e.g., full freeway closures, long-term closures) • State, local DOTs may elect to notify State Patrol, Border Patrol, safety agencies of incidents when they are identified on DOT-owned CCTVs • State, local DOTs may alert police departments of potential traffic diversions in the event of incidents • Incident responder representatives are involved with the regular updating of a static playbook of response plans (e.g., acceptable detour routes and other procedures) • State, local DOTs communicate response plan details directly to incident responder operations-level decisionmakers • State Patrol provides DOTs with read-only access to computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems • State, local DOTs provide incident responders with read-only access to incident monitoring infrastructure (e.g., CCTV cameras) • Limited real-time data is used to inform response plan selection • State, local DOTs communicate response plan details directly to incident responder operations-level decisionmakers • Single incident management system and command center for both state and local police departments for improved operations • Real-time data feed from crowdsourced incident data apps (e.g., Waze, INRIXTraffic Maps & GPS) provide additional inputs into simulation models • Incident responder operations-level decisionmakers receive automatic alerts with response plan instructions • Co-locate DOT and incident response operations in the same facility to help foster collaboration and coordination • Debriefing meetings to discuss all factors related to an incident to improve efficiency of incident clearance and management • Connected incident responder vehicles receive dynamic response plan information directly • Connected vehicle data provide insights into multimodal performance measures inreal time • Cloud-based performance measure dashboard accessible by incident responder operations-level decisionmakers and DOTs Program- Level • Attending existing freight, transit, incident responder, non- motorized roadway user association, coalition meetings • Leveraging existing relationships that other agencies have built (e.g., MPOs, chambers of commerce) • Establishing internal DOT committees and advisory groups • Developing freight, transit, incident responder, non- motorized roadway user plans as a way to build relationships and trust with the stakeholders • Involving program-level decisionmakers in regional operations forums can help them understand the bigger ICM perspective, objectives, opportunities, and constraints • Establishing a corridor coalition and formalizing information dissemination strategies to member agencies, emergency services, and the public • Sharingoperational responsibilities in a joint TMC (e.g., Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition [NITTEC]) • ICM corridor operations and maintenance costs are shared between corridor coalition member agencies 25 https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/05/waze-accident-data-first-responders/. Table 12. Communication strategies for incident response decisionmakers.

Decision maker Type Level 1 Silo Level 2 Centralized Level 3 Partially Integrated Level 4 Multimodal Integrated Level 5 Multimodal Optimized End-User • Arterial dynamicmessage signs (DMS) • DOT websites (for planned closures) • State Patrol websites (for incident information) • Social media (e.g., agency Twitter accounts) • 511 systems • Apps that warn non- motorized roadway users of locations with high crash risk • Audible countdown signals at intersections • Apps that provide incident locations and safe pedestrian, bicyclist detour routes • Apps that indicate real-time speed and congestion levels of vehicular traffic on arterials • Audible countdown signals at intersections that adjust for pedestrian detection • Multimodal navigation apps that integrate crowd- sourced non-motorized roadway user global positioning system (GPS) data and incident reporting • Navigation apps that offer mode-specificalternaterouting Operations- Level • Announcements, press releases from public information officers for major events (e.g., full freeway closures, long-term closures) • 511 systems • State Patrol websites (for incident information) • Phone calls, emails to DOT operations staff to discuss responseplans,comments, concerns • Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy/advisory group representativesare involved with the regularupdating of a static playbook of response plans • State, local DOTs broadcast manuallyselected response plan on agencies’ social media channels • State, local DOTs receive data feeds from mobile apps that track real-time pedestrian and bicyclist movement (e.g., LiveTrekker, Strava Metro) • Limited real-time data is used to inform response plan selection • State, local DOTs broadcast selected response plan on agencies’ social media channels • Model uses real-time non-motorized roadway user GPS data to inform response plan selection • Non-motorized roadway user operations-level decisionmakers receive automatic alerts with response plan instructions • Connected non-motorized roadway users receive dynamic response plan informationdirectly • GPS tracking from connected non-motorized roadwayusers provides insight into real-time non-motorized roadway user volumes, delays • Cloud-based performance measure dashboard accessible by non-motorized roadway user operations-leveldecisionmakers and DOTs Program- Level • Attending existing freight, transit, incident responder, non-motorized roadway user association, coalition meetings • Leveraging existing relationships that other agencies have built (e.g., MPOs, chambers of commerce) • Establishing internal DOT committees and advisory groups • Developing freight, transit, incident responder, non- motorized roadway user plans as a way to build relationships and trust with the stakeholders • Involving program-level decisionmakers in regional operations forums can help them understand the bigger ICM perspective, objectives, opportunities,andconstraints • Establishing a corridor coalition and formalizing information dissemination strategies to member agencies, emergency services, and the public • Sharingoperational responsibilities in a joint TMC (e.g., Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition [NITTEC]) • ICM corridor operations and maintenance costs are shared between corridor coalition member agencies Table 13. Communication strategies for non-motorized decisionmakers.

Engage Potential Partners 57 Take the following steps to make good use of Tables 10 through 13: 1. As the ICM leader, assess which level of maturity your communication methods with this non-traditional stakeholder group ranks now for each decisionmaker type. 2. Identify where you want your communication maturity level to be in a set period (e.g., 5 years). The maturity levels between where you are now and where you want to be are the improvements that are needed to reach your desired maturity level. 3. Start making plans for incremental growth. How Do We Use the Content in This Guidebook to Create a Strong Argument to Management and to This Stakeholder Group So They Can Be Effective Partners? Understanding the benefits of incorporating non-traditional stakeholders into ICM plan- ning is the first step. The next step is to present a strong case to management on why to involve non-traditional stakeholders in ICM planning. Once management is on board, engage non- traditional stakeholders themselves by emphasizing the win-win scenarios that can result from collaboration in the ICM approach. One method for getting the message across in a timely and effective way is to develop a 2-minute elevator pitch for each audience (i.e., management and a specific non-traditional stakeholder group). Use these guidelines to create a compelling pitch: • Answer “What’s in it for Me?” – Know what is motivating your audience. Before you can make a connection with your audience, you need to know who they are and what they care about, as it relates to your pitch. It needs to be clear to your audience what they will be getting out of this arrangement in exchange for their time and resources. If you are pitching to man- agement, they are going to care a lot about how this will help them achieve their ICM goals or other internal initiatives. If you are pitching to freight stakeholders, they are going to care about how this approach will help them streamline their operations and become more com- petitive in the industry. If you are pitching to transit stakeholders, they are going to care about how this approach will help them improve their service and attract more ridership. If you are pitching to incident response stakeholders, they are going to care about how this approach will help them improve incident response times and the safety of their responders. If you are pitching to non-motorized stakeholders, they are going to care about how this approach will help keep bicyclists and pedestrians safe on the roads and how ICM will help further their vision for a robust regional active transportation network. • Provide Statistics – The more trustworthy you can prove to be, the more likely your audi- ence is going to buy in to what you are pitching. Back up your argument with statistics on benefits from other successful collaborations. Share testimonials or a brief story of how ICM has affected other members of the freight community, transit agencies, incident responders or active transportation community. If you are listing travel time savings as a potential ben- efit, how much time have other freight stakeholders, transit agencies, or incident responders saved after adopting an ICM approach? If you are listing increased accessibility as a potential benefit, how many motorists chose to switch to non-motorized modes after adopting an ICM approach? If the benefit to management is bringing another perspective to the table, what input was provided from the freight community, transit stakeholders, incident responders, or non-motorized roadway users that you were not previously aware of? • Offer a “Clear Ask” – If your audience understands what you are specifically asking them to do, it will be easier for them to know if it is feasible for them to participate, or whether there is someone within their community who could fill the role. Are you asking them to attend regular meetings? If so, how frequent will the meetings be? Are you asking them to spend

58 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders money on new equipment? If so, how much do you anticipate the cost to be? Are you asking them to provide data or test out a new mobile app feature? If so, what type of data or feedback do you need? • Use Emotion – Use emotion to connect with your audience. Share a story that relates to your audience in a personal way. For example, if you are campaigning for the reduction of late freight shipments, you may want to connect that to supermarkets having a low supply of milk. You may want to connect improved schedule adherence to disadvantaged communi- ties missing the bus to go to work, or faster incident response times to the number of lives lost because they did not make it to the hospital in time. If you are campaigning for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, you may want to connect that to a local high-profile bicyclist/ pedestrian incident. Freight Stakeholders Examples 1 and 2 are sample pitches to involve freight stakeholders in ICM planning and can be used as models. The content of these two examples are color-coded to map to each pitch component. Example 1: Pitch to Management – Why We Need to Involve Freight Stakeholders in ICM Planning Audience: Jane, Director of the ICM program at the State DOT Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Jane, I am here today to talk to you about establishing a freight advisory council for this department of transportation and I want you to be the Chair of the council, because of your expertise in ICM. This freight-focused council will help us collect input on the needs and con- cerns from the freight community, which are significantly different from the other motorist groups that we collaborate with. As you are well aware, we received significant backlash from the last ICM project when we provided the same alternate routes for freight vehicles, which inadvertently caused delays on the local arterial when a multi-trailer truck got stuck at an inter- section with insufficient turning radius to accommodate the vehicle. That time the negative impact was only increased delay, but I am afraid that next time something worse might happen, like collisions with bicyclists or pedestrians. National crash statistics collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that from 2015 to 2016, there was a 13% increase in the number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed in a collision with a large truck.26 By establishing this freight advisory council with you as the Chair, we are making a public statement that we want to get ahead of this problem and incorporate the needs of all stake- holder groups into the design of a comprehensive ICM approach. I do not anticipate the council meeting more than once a month and I will help recruit members of the freight community to participate. So, do I have your commitment? Example 2: Pitch to Stakeholders – Why It is Beneficial for You to Get Involved in ICM Planning Audience: Joe, CEO of ABC Trucking Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Joe, I am here today to talk to you about joining our State’s freight advisory council. We are embarking on an integrated corridor management project along this corridor and would 26 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812497. Offer a “Clear Ask” Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Provide Statistics Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask” Offer a “Clear Ask” Use Emotion

Engage Potential Partners 59 really value your input on the needs and concerns of the freight community, given that the bulk of your truck trips use this corridor. Integrated corridor management is an approach to coor- dinating day-to-day operations along heavily traveled corridors so as to increase operational efficiencies. The San Diego integrated corridor management pilot demonstration resulted in annual travel time savings of over 250,000 person hours and annual travel time variability improvements of more than 150,000 hours.27 So let me tell you how getting involved can benefit your business. I know that your com- pany was founded by your great-grandfather and has had a reputation for never having had a serious incident in its entire 122 years, until last year when one of your trucks overturned and caught fire on the highway because the detour route was not signed properly. We want to help you make sure this does not happen again so that you can maintain your reputation for safety and efficiency. By acting as a representative for the freight community and helping to spread the word on what public-sector resources are available, you will be acting as a leader and role model in the freight community. By reviewing the integrated corridor management strategies that we are considering for implementation, you can inform us if they would be useful for your drivers and dispatchers. For example, if we provide information such as planned closures or incident occurrences along this corridor, how would you use this information to ensure that your drivers minimize the time they spend sitting in traffic and have better situational awareness of incidents on their routes? What I need is for you or someone in your company who is very familiar with your internal operations to attend these monthly freight advisory council meetings and provide insight on the freight perspective along this corridor. Can I count on your participation? Transit Stakeholders Examples 3 and 4 are sample pitches to involve transit stakeholders in ICM planning and can be used as models. The content of these two examples are color-coded to map to each pitch component. Example 3: Pitch to Management – Why We Need to Involve Transit Stakeholders in ICM Planning Audience: Jane, Director of the ICM program at the State DOT Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Jane, I am here today to talk to you about reaching out to our regional transit agency, ABC Transit, as a partner for this ICM project. ABC Transit recently conducted a survey assessing transit service performance in the region. This survey revealed that riders from dis- advantaged communities listed on-time performance as the most important attribute of transit service. For 50%28 of peak-period riders, transit is their main way of getting to work. If they miss their bus or their transfer and arrive at work late, it could be grounds for termination in many blue-collar industries. ABC Transit has been brainstorming solutions to improve their schedule adherence and travel time reliability to address this issue. 27 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32035/dot_32035_DS1.pdf. 28 This is a fictional statistic for the purpose of this elevator pitch. Offer a “Clear Ask” Provide Statistics Use Emotion Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask” Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask” Offer a “Clear Ask” Provide Statistics Use Emotion

60 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Our ICM strategy currently centers on diverting freeway traffic onto major arterials in the event of a major incident. I am concerned that the major arterials will not have the capacity to support diverted freeway traffic. I believe that by bringing ABC Transit to the table, we can come up with a mutually beneficial solution. Along major diversion routes, which already con- tain underutilized park-and-ride lots, it may make sense for us to implement bus rapid transit service, bus-only lanes, or transit signal priority to incentivize mode switch. Not only would this improve schedule adherence for normal transit service, but by asking ABC Transit to share real- time data on their vehicle locations and capacities, we could also increase person throughput during major incidents or special events by notifying ABC Transit to dispatch additional vehicles as needed. So, are you open to discussing partnership opportunities with ABC Transit? Example 4: Pitch to Stakeholders – Why It is Beneficial for You to Get Involved in ICM Planning Audience: Joe, Director of ABC Transit Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Joe, I am here today to talk to you about partnering with us on an integrated corridor management project along this corridor. I see many opportunities for collaboration between our agencies. We have similar goals to provide fast, reliable transit service through this corridor on a normal basis, but especially when major events such as incidents or special events cause abnormal congestion levels on the freeway. Integrated corridor management is an approach to coordinating day-to-day operations along heavily traveled corridors so as to increase opera- tional efficiencies. The San Diego integrated corridor management pilot demonstration resulted in annual travel time savings of over 250,000 person hours and annual travel time variability improvements of more than 150,000 hours.29 We know that transit is a lifeline for many people who cannot afford to own a vehicle. Given that your agency does not own the right-of-way on this corridor, we feel partially responsible for your agency’s poor on-time performance metrics. To combat this, we are working on strategies to reduce the number of passenger vehicle trips along the corridor. To achieve this, we want to make transit a more desirable mode of transportation. We want to begin by helping you implement a solution such as bus-only lanes so that your riders will no longer miss their trans- fers or be late to work. We want to use funding from this ICM project to help you maintain your reputation as a reliable mode of transportation with travel times that are competitive with passenger vehicles. In return, I am hoping that you will be interested in helping us design a transit mode switch strategy for motorists that uses the benefits of the bus-only lane. We would require you or someone in your company who is very familiar with your internal operations and data systems to attend our ICM planning sessions, see the project through implementation, and be willing to help operate and maintain the transit elements of the ICM system. We have several potential ICM funding sources, but as a partner, you would need to be prepared to contribute a percentage of funds toward the project. Can I count on your partnership? Incident Response Stakeholders Examples 5 and 6 are sample pitches to involve incident response stakeholders in ICM plan- ning and can be used as models. The content of these two examples are color-coded to map to each pitch component. 29 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32035/dot_32035_DS1.pdf. Offer a “Clear Ask” Offer a “Clear Ask” Offer a “Clear Ask” Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Provide Statistics Use Emotion Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask”

Engage Potential Partners 61 Example 5: Pitch to Management – Why We Need to Involve Incident Response Stakeholders in ICM Planning Audience: Jane, Director of the ICM program at the State DOT Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Jane, have you ever had a family member who needed to be rushed to the hospital and on the way there, every red light seemed to last forever? Well, I am here to talk to you today about setting up some workstations in our traffic management center for highway patrol, police department, and fire department staff as part of our ICM strategy along this corridor. Having a single command center allows us to share ITS assets such as our automatic incident detection system and CCTV video feeds for confirming incident details, establish suitable detour routes more efficiently, and ultimately reduce response times because every extra second counts. Each month, highway patrol responds to over 200 incidents along our proposed ICM cor- ridor. The likelihood of a secondary crash increases by 2.8% for each minute the primary incident continues to be a hazard, increasing the risk to driver and responder lives, and making it even more difficult for responders to get to and from the scene.30 ICM can improve the process for identifying and communicating with the appropriate points of contact at each agency in a variety of situations, as well as developing a predetermined set of procedures to be followed by each agency in a given situation as agreed on by all parties in advance. By coor- dinating operations between our department of transportation and incident responders, not only can we reduce incident-related delays, but we can improve the safety of our responders in the field and reduce the number of secondary incidents by reducing congestion around the incident location. I am asking you to set aside funding to accommodate more staff in our traffic management center and invite incident responders to the table to help develop response plans for different operational scenarios along this ICM corridor. So, do I have your commitment? Example 6: Pitch to Stakeholders – Why It is Beneficial for You to Get Involved in ICM Planning Audience: Joe, Chief of ABC Highway Patrol Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Joe, how many times have you felt unsafe at the scene of a traffic incident because the drivers passing by were too distracted by the incident to pay attention to the road? I am here today to talk to you about working with our state DOT to come up with ways to reduce response times and improve the safety of your responders, as well as other emergency responders. We are embarking on an integrated corridor management project along this corridor and see many opportunities for coordinating our operations. Integrated corridor management is an approach to coordinating day-to-day operations along heavily traveled corridors in an effort to increase operational efficiencies. The San Diego integrated corridor management pilot demon- stration resulted in annual travel time savings of over 250,000 person hours and annual travel time variability improvements of more than 150,000 hours.31 So let me tell you how getting involved can benefit the highway patrol. We can restructure our traffic management center to provide workstations for highway patrol, police department, 30 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10010/presentation.htm. 31 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32035/dot_32035_DS1.pdf. Use Emotion Provide Statistics Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask” Use Emotion Provide Statistics Answer “What’s in it for Me?”

62 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders and fire department staff. Here, your staff will have access to our automatic incident detection system and our CCTV video feeds. When an incident occurs, we will all hear about it at the same time. Being in the same room will make it easier to establish a safe route for emergency responders, while our traffic operations staff posts suitable detour routes for the traveling public on our dynamic message signs. This can help your staff shave valuable seconds off response times and give you the tools to improve the safety of your responders in the field. If you are interested in coordinated operations, I need two things from you. First, I need you to assign someone to work out of our traffic management center. Then I need you or someone on your team who is very familiar with your internal operations to collaborate on the design of our ICM system and response plans. This may require data sharing between our agencies. I will also be reaching out to other incident responders that operate along this corridor. Can I count on your participation? Non-Motorized Roadway Users Examples 7 and 8 are sample pitches to involve non-motorized roadway users in ICM plan- ning and can be used as models. The content of these two examples are color-coded to map to each pitch component. Example 7: Pitch to Management – Why We Need to Involve Non-Motorized Stakeholders in ICM Planning Audience: Jane, Director of the ICM program at the State DOT Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Jane, as you are well aware, last year was the grand opening of the transit center that con- nected two separate light rail lines for more accessible transit access throughout the region. We considered this project a huge success because of the spike in ridership experienced on both light rail lines. Unfortunately, the additional foot traffic around the transit center has resulted in a higher bicycle and pedestrian incident rate compared to our statewide averages, including that hit and run last week that ended up killing a high school student on his way home. Hit-and-run accidents, particularly those occurring in urban areas, are becoming increasingly more danger- ous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Large cities like New York City reported a 37% spike in the number of fatal hit-and-run accidents between 2014 and 2016.32 I know that this transit center will play a big role as an alternative mode for motorists in our proposed ICM system. As such, we anticipate vehicular traffic to increase in and around the center during major incidents or special events. I am concerned how this will impact the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians in the area. I am here today to talk to you about establishing a permanent bicycle and pedestrian advi- sory group for our State DOT, which we would use for this ICM project we are embarking on. This advisory group should include active transportation representatives from local agencies and metropolitan planning organizations, as well as state, regional and local bicycle/pedestrian coalitions and advocacy groups. By bringing these stakeholders to the table, they will be able to provide insight, feedback, and local context in relation to the ICM strategies we want to implement so that we can find ways to address their needs while still achieving our mobility goals. We can ask them to guide our team’s public outreach efforts to the bicycle and pedestrian community, a community that we have historically had very little collaboration with. I do not anticipate the advisory group meeting more than once a month, and I will help recruit mem- bers of the active transportation community to participate. So, do I have your commitment? 32 https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/. Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask” Use Emotion Provide Statistics Offer a “Clear Ask” Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask” Use Emotion

Engage Potential Partners 63 Example 8: Pitch to Stakeholders – Why It is Beneficial for You to Get Involved in ICM Planning Audience: Joe, President of ABC Advocacy Group Pitcher: John, Project Manager of a specific ICM project Hi Joe, I am here today to talk to you about joining our State’s newly established bicycle and pedestrian advisory group. I know that your son was a classmate of the hit-and-run victim last week and I want you to know that we want to do everything in our power to make sure that an incident like that does not happen again. We are embarking on an integrated corridor manage- ment project along this corridor and would really value your input on the needs and concerns of the active transportation community, particularly given that, since its opening, the transit center on this corridor has attracted much more foot traffic. Integrated corridor management is an approach to coordinate day-to-day operations along heavily traveled corridors in an effort to increase operational efficiencies. Although integrated corridor management pilot sites have demonstrated travel time savings and travel time variability improvements, the impacts to the safety of motorists and non-motorists are not very well understood. Improving the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians is one of our biggest objectives for the inte- grated corridor management project along this transit-centric corridor. We need input from the active transportation community so that we can design effective solutions that will make an impact that we can measure and improve on. We also want to pilot new technology that we want to develop, with members of your advocacy group, such as a mobile app that disseminates real-time alerts to bicyclists and pedestrians the way 511 does for motorists. We think that any incident involving a pedestrian or bicyclist is unacceptable. With your partnership, I know we can find a way to reduce the number of pedestrian and bicyclist inci- dents not only along this corridor, but statewide. What I need is for you and members of your affiliates to attend these monthly bicycle and pedestrian advisory group meetings and provide insight on the non-motorized roadway user perspective along this corridor. Can I count on your participation? Offer a “Clear Ask” Offer a “Clear Ask” Use Emotion Provide Statistics Answer “What’s in it for Me?” Offer a “Clear Ask”