In This Issue:

• Top Story: USDOT Selects Dallas, TX and San Diego, CA to Demonstrate ICM
• ICM Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and ICM System Requirements Specifications Development—Introduction and Pioneer Site Lessons-Learned
• RSS Feeds Now Available on the ICM Web Site!
• Look for ICM on Twitter!
• ICM AMS Pioneer Sites Featured at the Integrated Corridor System Management Modeling Best Practices Workshop
• Defining Performance Measures with ICM: ITS World Congress Presentation
• Knowledgebase Updates
• Upcoming Events and ICM Initiative Updates

USDOT Selects Dallas, TX and San Diego, CA to Demonstrate ICM

On December 7, 2009, USDOT announced the selection of Dallas, TX and San Diego, CA pioneer sites to demonstrate their ICM systems (read the press release).  The goals of the demonstration phase are (1) to conduct and document successful ICMS demonstration projects that show the benefits of ICM through improvement in corridor performance using realistic and useful metrics and (2) to provide the documentation necessary to transfer the ICM concepts from successful ICMS deployments to future ICM adopters.  Data from the demonstrations will be used to refine the AMS models and methodology.

Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation Results Expected in Mid-2010

The AMS sites (Dallas, TX, Minneapolis, MN, and San Diego, CA) are completing their model validation and calibration and are starting to conduct alternatives analysis.  Results from the three AMS sites are expected mid-2010.  Stay tuned for more updates!

ICM Initiative Progress

The ICM Initiative is occurring in four phases.  USDOT and the ICM Pioneer Sites are currently completing Stage 2 of Phase 3 (Analysis, Modeling and Simulation).  Figure 2 depicts the ICM Initiative Timeline. 

Phase 1: Foundational Research—This phase included research into the current state of corridor management in the United States as well as leading examples of ICM-like practices around the world; initial feasibility research; and the development of technical guidance documents, including the general concept of operations for ICM designed to help sites in the development of their own ICM CONOPS.

Phase 2: Corridor Tools, Strategies and Integration—USDOT developed a framework to model, simulate and analyze ICM strategies. It is working with the Pioneer Sites to deploy and test various ICM components such as standards, interfaces and management schemes.

Phase 3: Corridor Site Development, Analysis and Demonstration—USDOT selected three Pioneer Sites (Dallas, TX; Minneapolis, MN; and San Diego, CA) to analyze and model their ICM strategies, results are expected late Spring 2010. 

Two Pioneer Sites— Dallas and San Diego—have been selected to demonstrate their ICM strategies in FY 11-12 (see the press release).  The Department will evaluate the results of implementation of ICM at these two sites and share findings and lessons-learned with corridor managers across the country through Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) channels (See Phase 4).  The demonstrations will build on past findings about ICM to provide a first-hand evaluation of the real-world impact. 

Phase 4: Outreach and KTT—USDOT is packaging the knowledge and materials developed throughout the USDOT’s ICM Initiative into a suite of useful multimedia resources designed to equip transportation practitioners in corridors around the country to implement ICM. The Department is also planning to initiate a practitioner-oriented ICM Coalition to provide a practitioner-oriented forum to support deployment of ICM by corridors across the country.  KTT resources include a searchable/browseable Knowledgebase; fact sheets; peer-to-peer training programs; webinars and other knowledge exchange forums; and implementation guidance—designed to equip practitioners in corridors around the country to implement ICM. USDOT is also developing outreach materials that can be tailored by regions around the country to raise awareness about ICM.

ICM Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and ICM System Requirements Specifications Development—Introduction and Pioneer Site Lessons-Learned

As part of Phase 3 of the Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative, each of the eight Pioneer Sites developed a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that describes the operational concept for their ICM System (ICMS) in their selected corridor (Figure 1 depicts the ICM Initiative).  Each Pioneer Site also developed System Requirements Specifications based on their CONOPS. These two documents will guide ICMS design.  

ICM development and implementation follows the classic systems engineering lifecycle process, depicted in Figure 2. The CONOPS describes the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of an ICMS.  It describes the visionary goals of ICM in the transportation corridor from both the users’ and the operators’ perspectives.  It lays the foundation for subsequent institutional, operational, and technical planning, development, and implementation decisions.

ICM can help corridors more effectively leverage the following types of assets and capabilities for even greater corridor performance:

CONOPS Discussion Checklist for Institutional Partners

• What are the greatest challenges of the corridor?
• What operational scenarios would benefit most from an ICMS and how?
• What assets might your agency contribute toward the ICMS?
• In what ways could your agency contribute to an integrated approach to corridor operations?
• How could the region be different in 5 years with ICM?

• Strong multiagency partnerships, and links between planning and operations.
• A Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture.
• Co-located agency operations into a shared facility where possible.
• Center-to-Center communications between Traffic/Transportation Management Centers (TMC).
• Existing strategies that facilitate ICM such as active traffic management, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, bus rapid transit or light rail, ramp metering, etc.

The Systems Requirements Specifications build on the CONOPS to provide more detail about what the system will do.  “Well-defined needs form the basis for requirements,” which form the basis for system design, says Chris Hill, President of Mixon-Hill Associates who helped advise Pioneer Sites on development of their CONOPS.

Hill explains that there are three types of requirements:

• Functional (what the system will do).
• Performance (how well will the system operate).
• Other—including items that may constrain what the system looks like, policy limitations, physical facility limitations, etc.

Well-defined requirements meet the following criteria: they are (1) necessary, (2) clear, (3) complete, (4) correct, (5) feasible and (6) verifiable. 

“The CONOPS and requirements create traceability that allows you to move backwards through the [systems engineering] process and understand why you made decisions about your ICMS,” says Hill.  Institutional partners along a corridor work closely together to develop CONOPS and requirements for their ICMS.

Lessons Learned in CONOPS and Requirements Development

The USDOT and Pioneer Sites learned valuable lessons after developing the first ICM CONOPS and System Requirements. These experiences may help other transportation leaders interested in implementing something similar in their corridors.  Here are eight of the most valuable lessons that have been learned throughout the CONOPS and Requirements phases of the ICM lifecycle: 

Lesson #1: Involve the right people from the start

Identifying and gaining the support and commitment of the key stakeholders early in the process is paramount to the success of ICM.  The Pioneer Site experiences affirm that while ICM success depends on support from all levels within participating agencies, support from executive leaders helps to facilitate the multi-agency partnerships vital to the long-term success of ICM.  The Pioneer Sites also note that ICM requires a wider range of stakeholders than other ITS projects.  Success with ICM requires the involvement both of decision-makers as well as technical leaders who can help assure that technical issues are identified and addressed in an expeditious manner.  The investment in stakeholder relationships takes time, but pays dividends downstream.

Lesson #2: Develop a clear concept

The ICM Pioneer Sites reported that seeing examples of other CONOPS helped them. (Examples of the CONOPS and Requirements documents from all eight Pioneer Sites can be found in the Knowledgebase).

The CONOPS describes the visionary goals for the corridor from the perspective of the various users:  the transportation customers traveling through the corridor as well as the operators in the Transportation Management Center, public safety providers, and incident responders.  A well-written CONOPS clearly defines the ICM purpose, goals, objectives, and performance measures for the corridor.  The concept development process encourages partners to take a long-term view of corridor needs rather focus on short-term solutions.  The CONOPS document describes the constraints under which the system must operate, identifies operational scenarios to help illuminate needs and assumptions, and clarifies system boundaries.  Perhaps most importantly, it facilitates a shared vision among partners—and makes it actionable. 

Third Lesson: Go slow to go fast

Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither is an ICMS!  The ICM Pioneer Sites agreed that the time and energy they invested early in the development of their CONOPS helped them accomplish subsequent steps, such as the development of system requirements specifications, more efficiently.  Several sites reported updating their CONOPS while developing requirements and realizing that they needed a clearer vision for various aspects of their ICMS.  Key activities that can seem time-consuming but that provide significant benefit later in the project include:  the definition of the current corridor and system assets (both physical and data); identification of corridor needs; and the development of a common vocabulary among partners to describe existing systems and proposed capabilities.  

Fourth Lesson: The need for needs

Developing actionable system requirements specifications for an ICMS requires defining a clear set of need statements.  Before proceeding with the development of an ICMS, it is essential that the stakeholders be able to describe why the proposed system is needed.  Corridor needs are described from the “transportation corridor” perspective rather than the perspective of any individual agency or system network in the corridor.  Well-defined need statements are the bridge between an ICM concept and system requirements.

Fifth Lesson: A picture = A thousand words

Visually depicting a proposed ICMS in a context diagram can help assure a shared understanding of the overall ICM concept and facilitate informed decisions among partners.  Context diagrams also stimulate further thinking and discussion from stakeholders to help assure the ICMS concept is complete. The diagrams need to be simple enough to convey the ICM concept to a wide range of stakeholders (including some who may not be experienced systems engineers).  They must also be sufficiently comprehensive to serve as a reference for systems designers.  Figure 3 provides an example of an ICMS context diagram.

Sixth Lesson: Technical gaps will exist

As with the development of any future concept, technical gaps will exist—capabilities that are needed to implement or operate the ICMS.  These gaps may include missing functionality or data to facilitate the decision support aspect of the ICMS (such as arterial and transit data).  ICM implementation can proceed in spite of such gaps–system requirement specifications can be written to accommodate the gaps in the interim, as well as address the gaps as resources become available.

Seventh Lesson: Word choice is important

Well-formed systems requirements are stated clearly and explicitly.  They are written using good ‘requirements’ grammar and include an “Actor” [The System], an “Action” [shall do/not do something to], a “Target” [the object of the action], a “Constraint” [how, how often, how many, how fast], and a “Condition/Localization” [if, when, where].  Avoid using ambiguous terms that cannot be verified such as “about,” “easily,” or at a minimum.  Writing requirements with this level of precision is intensive, but helps assure system integrity downstream by eliminating ambiguity and room for differing interpretations of the requirements.  It is especially important that the choice of words and, particularly, naming conventions for describing various systems components, be consistent throughout all the requirements documentation, including diagrams.  

Eighth Lesson: Build the right thing and build it right

ICM is a long-term investment.  It is important both to build the right system (one that delivers the envisioned capabilities and performance results), and to build the system right (correctly).  Achieving this requires methodical adherence to each step of the ICM lifecycle, though the process, like the systems engineering process, can be iterative.  While ICM teams may revisit and update the concept and the associated requirements, it is important to reflect any changes in vision in the CONOPS, and to flow those changes methodically throughout each subsequent step.  Prioritizing needs and requirements can help assure the “right” system is developed.  Developing requirements for operations and maintenance helps to assure the system functions as needed in the long term.  Equally, developing performance metrics and associated monitoring capabilities will help guarantee that the system provides the anticipated capabilities on an ongoing basis.

The lessons learned described above can help other corridors be successful with ICM. Perhaps the biggest overarching lesson to keep in mind is to keep the transportation corridor customer at the forefront of the vision for ICM.  For more detailed information on every step in the ICM lifecycle, and lessons-learned to date in the ICM Initiative, visit the ICM Knowledgebase.

RSS Feeds Now Available on the ICM Web Site!

The ICM web site now offers an RSS feed to help you conveniently stay up to date on ICM!  The RSS feed automatically delivers updated news blurbs either to a separate, dedicated folder in your email (so it does not “junk” up your main mailbox) or to a bookmarked page in your web browser.  For most browsers, you can activate the ICM RSS feed, simply by clicking on the RSS icon  by the “What’s New” section and indicate whether you want the update delivered through email or through your web browser!  It’s that simple!  And of course, you can de-activate it at any time as well!

Look for ICM on Twitter!   

Did you know the Shelley Row, Director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Programs Office (ITS JPO) tweets?  Follow the ITS JPO on twitter at https://twitter.com/ITSJPO.  Look for periodic ICM-related tweets!

ICM AMS Sites Featured at the Integrated Corridor System Management Modeling Best Practices Workshop

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and the three Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation (AMS) Pioneer Sites (Dallas, Minneapolis, and San Diego) were featured at the TRB sponsored Integrated Corridor Systems Management Best Practices Workshop September 14-15, 2009 in Irvine, California.  Experts gathered to discuss challenges, limitations, lessons-learned, and next steps with ICM. Presentations from this workshop can be found here. 

Jeff Lindley, Associate Administrator, Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations, opened the workshop emphasizing the need for ICM.  In his concluding remarks, he stated “Since I’ve been working in traffic management, and part of the transportation business for twenty-five years, ICM… has been the Holy Grail … it’s almost a reality.” 

Representatives from the Dallas, Minneapolis and San Diego Pioneer Sites presented their AMS approaches and challenges faced to date.  While each site has site-specific opportunities and constraints, common challenge areas associated with AMS include:  data issues, model calibration, accurately modeling mode shift and transit services, and accounting for the impact of traveler information in the models.  These challenges are described in more detail below:

1. Data Issues

Analyzing corridor performance in order to facilitate effective real-time operational decisions requires a large amount of data from the freeway, arterials, transit services, and traffic control devices.  Challenges related to data include:

• Lack of useable data from arterial roadways relative to available freeway data. 
• Lack of transit data to support real-time operational decision-making, such as passenger loads and available parking facility capacity.
• Unusable data due to inconsistencies, errors, or failed equipment.
• Lack of standards regarding data quality, fusing data from different sources, and installing/testing of ITS equipment (i.e., sensors).

2. Model Calibration

Accurate calibration of models is necessary in order to generate meaningful and credible results from ICM AMS. Model calibration ensures that base scenarios accurately reflect conditions and assumptions, to support realistic comparisons of different ICM strategies and combinations of strategies under different scenarios.  Challenges associated with model calibration include:

• Achieving a reasonable calibration threshold when the calibration data will never perfectly match actual data, due to daily variances in traffic.
• Accounting for variances in data, both in isolation and at aggregate levels.
• Accounting for variances in temporal resolution of demand trip tables.

3. Modeling Mode Shift and Transit Services

Predicting and measuring traveler behavior, particularly when it comes to mode-shift is difficult.  Comparable travel times need to be calculated and provided to travelers by roadway network segment, and at key decision points (i.e., points at which the traveler might choose to divert to available transit options).  Specific challenges associated with modeling mode-shift to transit services include:

• Travel demand models represent transit, but are less effective at estimating accurate transit travel times.
• A transit network is a rapidly-changing environment and therefore difficult to model.
• No single model can dynamically account for traveler mode choice in real-time.

4. Account for Impacts of Traveler Information

Another challenge relates to modeling how traveler information influences pre-trip and en-route traveler route, mode and departure time choices.  Traveler information is currently disseminated by television, radio, the Internet, highway advisory radio (HAR), telephone-based traveler information (such as 511), and dynamic message signs (DMS).  Challenges modeling travelers' response to information include:

• Measuring the effect of the quality of traveler information on traveler behavior.
• Understanding and accounting for factors that influence traveler decisions to shift modes, based on traveler information in the models.
• Modeling the effects of the wide variety of traveler information sources in isolation and/or in various combinations (as well as specific messages) on traveler decisionmaking.

Next Steps for ICM AMS: AMS Results

The USDOT expects to share the AMS results from the three ICM Pioneer Sites by mid-2010.   Click here to read more about next steps with the ICM Initiative.

Defining Performance Measures with ICM: ITS World Congress Presentation

Measuring performance with ICM was a featured topic of the “Managing our cities: influencing and measuring performance of transport corridors” session during the ITS World Congress held September, 2009 in Stockholm, Sweden.  Participants learned about developing measures of effectiveness for corridor performance in order to identify the most effective ICM strategies for combating congestion, maintaining optimal mobility, active traffic management, and encouraging mode shift from Brian Cronin, Team Leader, ITS Research and Demonstration for the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Intelligent Transportation Solutions (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO). 

With ICM, institutional partners establish performance measures to monitor transportation corridor performance in order to support continuous improvement. 

In order to do ICM, you need to know what’s going on in the corridor and in the transportation network.  To do that you will need data, situational awareness, and an understanding of what you want to measure in order to measure performance of the overall system.  In order to know how, where, when and which ICM strategies to apply, you must have identified meaningful performance measures.  Using real-time modeling will enable decisionmakers to be proactive instead of reactive.  This is the ultimate vision of ICM.  To achieve this, three things are needed:

• The right data (archived and real time).
• Performance measures.
• Modeling and simulation tools.

The ICM AMS vision includes the integration of not just physical assets (freeway, arterial, transit) but intellectual assets central to corridor management.  This vision begins with the establishment of multi-modal measures of system performance.  Data archiving strategies should focus on these multi-modal measures, and carefully monitored for data quality.  These data are the foundation for validated and trusted modeling and simulation activities supporting objective, performance-driven investment.  Predicted results from modeling and simulation are then verified by a subsequent round of measure refinement and field data analysis.  Figure 1 depicts the continuous improvement cycle for ICM AMS.  This improves both an understanding of corridor dynamics and the capability of simulation-based analyses to capture these dynamics.  Better data leads to better models leads to better investment, and so on.

Examples of ICM corridor performance measures include:

• Travel time.
• Travel delay time and predictability.
• Incident duration and frequency.
• Fuel consumption and pollution reduction.
• Corridor capacity utilization (vehicle and traveler throughput).

This presentation is available from the ICM Knowledgebase.

Knowledgebase Updates

The ICM Knowledgebase is a fully, searchable, browseable, web-based tool to help transportation practitioners successfully implement ICM in their corridors.  The ICM Knowledgebase features new resources related to conducting Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS) and how to address transit and arterial data gaps—a common challenge to many ICM sites!

What’s New in the Knowledgebase?

Performance Measurement:

• Defining Performance Measures with ICM: ITS World Congress (Powerpoint).  Measuring performance with ICM was a featured topic of the “Managing our cities: influencing and measuring performance of transport corridors” session during the ITS World Congress held September, 2009 in Stockholm, Sweden.

Addressing Data Gaps:

ICM introduces data needs that are not necessarily present when dealing with one network at a time.  The following new resources help readers anticipate and understand surveillance and detection data needs for arterial and transit networks:

• ICMS Surveillance and Detection Needs Analysis for the Arterial Data Gap (Word).  Analyzes the need for arterial data within an Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS), identifies data that is currently available and potential sources of additional data which could be used to fulfill the needs.
• ICMS Surveillance and Detection Needs Analysis for the Transit Data Gap (Word).  Analyzes the need for transit data within an Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS), identifies data that is currently available and potential sources of additional data which could be used to fulfill the needs.
• ICMS Surveillance and Detection Requirements for Arterial and Transit Networks (Word).  Provides data flows, needs, and concepts for readers to learn about how to monitor arterial and transit aspects of an ICMS and documents surveillance and detection requirements for arterial streets and transit networks to support an ICMS. 

Real-time transit data is needed to support mode shift by travelers to transit, an important ICM strategy; specifically, real-time parking space availability at park-and-ride facilities and real-time passenger loads on buses and trains.  Notes from three workshops the USDOT conducted with experts and stakeholders can make readers aware of some of the ideas and initiatives underway to narrow this gap: 

• USDOT ICM Initiative Transit Data Gaps for Bus Transit Systems Initial Planning Workshop (Word).  Provides notes from participant discussions on the issues surrounding the integration of bus transit into an integrated corridor management approach, and identifies specific data gaps for bus transit systems for ICM.
• USDOT ICM Initiative Transit Data Gaps for Rail Transit Systems Initial Planning Workshop (Word).  Provides notes from participant discussions on the issues surrounding the integration of rail transit systems into an integrated corridor management approach, and identifies specific data gaps for rail transit systems for ICM. 
• USDOT ICM Initiative Transit Data Gap Action Plan Workshop Notes (Word). Provides notes from participant discussions on an action plan concerning methods for addressing ICM transit surveillance and detection data gaps.  

ICM Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS):

The USDOT developed the ICM AMS methodology to help transportation decision-makers identify the best ICM strategies for their needs under different conditions. 

• ICM Analysis Results for the Test Corridor (Word). Presents results from the AMS process, discusses lessons learned throughout the AMS process, and validates the relative capability of AMS to support benefit-cost assessment for the successful implementation of ICM.

Coming Soon to the Knowledgebase:

• ITS International Magazine, “Integrated Corridor Management: Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation” (HTML).  Feature article provides overview of AMS and how it supports sound decisionmaking and investment in ICM strategies.  Profiles AMS-related challenges experienced by the Pioneer Sites and lessons-learned.
• ICM Implementation Guide (Word).  Designed to walk implementers through each step of the ICM approach including developing the CONOPS and system requirements in the systems engineering process; share lessons-learned; and provide real-world examples from the Pioneer Site experiences. 
• AMS Implementation Guide (Word).  Designed to equip technical managers and practitioners to follow the recommended approach for conducting ICM AMS featuring real-world examples from the AMS Pioneer Sites; clarify the minimum level of data, knowledge, skill sets, and tools needed to be successful with AMS.  The guide will also share lessons-learned.
• ICM Deployment Coalition Concept (Word).  Coming soon to support the long-term ICM Initiative goal to establish ICM as state of the practice in transportation corridors across the country by providing:
• A forum to facilitate ICM implementation through exchange of knowledge and experiences among peers.
• Effective and efficient means of communication of ICM key concepts and knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) opportunities.
• Opportunities to engage with ICM stakeholders.

If you have comments, questions, or suggestions for materials that you think would help equip partner agencies implement ICM please let us know at ICM@dot.gov.

Upcoming Events and ICM Initiative Updates

Events

Integrated Corridor Management Workshop at the 89th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting (Sunday Session)

Four TRB committees are sponsoring this workshop that will explore Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and Active Traffic Management (ATM).  Workshop focus areas include management, data needs, collection methods, and collaboration. Leaders from the field will present their views on the future of ICM and ATM, and the major hurdles.  Breakout groups will brainstorm different approaches for overcoming hurdles through unique case examples on the themes of today, tomorrow, and future ICM and ATM deployments. 

When:
Sunday, January 10, 2010
9:00am-12:30pm

Location:
TRB Annual Meeting
Omni Shoreham, Palladian Room
2500 Calvert Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008

TRB Committees Sponsoring:

• Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations (AHB10)
• Intelligent Transportation Systems (AHB15)
• Freeway Operations (AHB20)Traffic Signal Systems (AHB25)

For more information on this workshop and the TRB 89th Annual meeting click here.

ICM Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS) Workshop

The USDOT will host an ICM AMS workshop in Spring 2010 to present results and lessons-learned from the three AMS Pioneer Sites (Dallas, Minneapolis, and San Diego) as part of the Initiative’s knowledge and technology transfer support.  The workshop will offer opportunities for extensive interaction with, and first-hand learning from, the AMS Pioneer Sites, as well as USDOT AMS experts.  The workshop will also feature presentations from the selected demonstration sites and USDOT on the upcoming activities for the ICM initiative.  Email ICM@dot.gov to express interest in attending this workshop.

To learn more about the USDOT ICM Initiative:

Brian Cronin
USDOT/Research and Innovative Technology Administration
202-366-8841
brian.cronin@dot.gov

Steve Mortensen
USDOT/Federal Transit Administration
202-493-0459
steven.mortensen@dot.gov

Bob Sheehan
USDOT/Federal Highway Administration
202-366-6817
robert.sheehan@dot.gov

Dale Thompson
USDOT/Federal Highway Administration
202-493-3420
dale.thompson@dot.gov

Visit the ICM web site to learn more about the USDOT's ICM Initiative and sign up for the optional RSS feed to be notified when updates about ICM are posted to the web site!