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.

2020 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 899 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Vassili Alexiadis Alice Chu Ron Basile Cambridge SyStematiCS, inC. Oakland, CA Karl Wunderlich nobliS Gaithersburg, MD Shelley Row Shelley row aSSoCiateS, llC Annapolis, MD Subscriber Categories Motor Carriers • Operations and Traffic Management • Passenger Transportation Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta- tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high- way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- ment No. 693JJ31950003. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.nationalacademies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 899 Project 03-121 ISSN 2572-3766 (Print) ISSN 2572-3774 (Online) ISBN 978-0-309-48161-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2020938539 © 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 899 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs William C. Rogers, Senior Program Officer Jarrel McAfee, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications NCHRP PROJECT 03-121 PANEL Field of Traffic—Area of Operations and Control Matthew A. Coogan, New England Transportation Institute, White River Junction, VT (Chair) Gary Scott Arnold, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Ingrid L. Birenbaum, Moffat & Nichol, Fort Lauderdale, FL Rebecca M. Brewster, American Transportation Research Institute, Marietta, GA Kevin D. Feldt, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, TX Donald C. Gedge, Tennessee DOT, Nashville, TN Richard E. “Rick” Kreider, Jr., Kansas DOT, Topeka, KS Walt Stringer, Mineta Transportation Institute, Carlsbad, CA Jennifer A. Stults, Florida DOT, Ocoee, FL Robert J. Sheehan, FHWA Liaison Patricia Kathleen DiJoseph, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Liaison Alan L. Rao, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work presented herein was conducted as part of NCHRP Project 03-121, “Incorporating Freight, Transit, and Incident Response Stakeholders into Integrated Corridor Management (ICM): Processes and Strategies for Implementation,” with funding provided through NCHRP. The purpose of this project was to develop guidance for transportation decisionmakers to incorporate freight, transit, incident response, and non-motorized stakeholders into the ICM process. This report was prepared by Cambridge System- atics, Inc., and Noblis under the guidance of an NCHRP panel. The members of the project team included the following: Vassili Alexiadis, Cambridge Systematics (Principal Investigator); Alice Chu, Cambridge System- atics; Ron Basile, Cambridge Systematics; Karl Wunderlich, Noblis; and Shelley Row, Shelley Row Associates, LLC. (continued on page vi)

NCHRP Research Report 899 addresses a broad range of operational and efficiency issues that are critical to bringing non-traditional (freight, transit, incident response, and non- motorized) stakeholders into the integrated corridor management (ICM) process. The guidance is based on documented lessons-learned from agencies that have implemented ICM, and includes institutional, technical, and organizational approaches such as: coop- erative procedures and agreements, operational constraints and opportunities, potential ICM strategies, evaluation methodologies, and performance measures related to success- fully incorporating freight, transit, incident response, and non-motorized transportation into ICM. ICM is a relatively new congestion management approach that has been gaining interest for its potential to mitigate congestion with few changes to the existing transportation infra- structure. The primary objective of any ICM system is to coordinate the assets and expertise of multiple stakeholders rather than have each one respond to related issues independently. By integrating the management and operations of the corridor system, the complete corridor infrastructure may be better utilized, thus resulting in improved travel conditions in the target network. Under NCHRP Project 03-121, Cambridge Systematics was asked to develop guidance for transportation decisionmakers to incorporate freight, transit, incident response, and non-motorized stakeholders into the ICM process. Conversely, the guidance is intended to inform the stakeholders from freight, transit, incident management, and non-motorized roadway user groups of the benefits they can expect to realize from greater integration with ICM. The guidance provides resources to (1) equip transportation decisionmakers with a systematic approach to engaging non-traditional stakeholder groups in ICM planning; (2) give transportation decisionmakers the tools to present a strong case to management on why to involve non-traditional stakeholder groups; and (3) provide transportation decisionmakers with insights on the objectives and needs of each non-traditional stake- holder group to develop win-win scenarios to engage non-traditional stakeholder groups to come on board the ICM planning process. F O R E W O R D By William C. Rogers Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (Continued) Workshop participants were as follows: • Bill Gardner, Minnesota Department of Transportation • Allen Chen, Caltrans District 7 • Susan Catlett, New Jersey Department of Transportation • Alex Estrella, San Diego Association of Governments • Ron Achelpohl, Mid-America Regional Council • Steve Gota, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Ed Alegre, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Joseph Sagal, Maryland Department of Transportation • Michael Davis, Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council Stakeholder interviews were conducted with the following individuals: • Ron Achelpohl, Mid-America Regional Council • Bill Gardner, Minnesota Department of Transportation • Michelle Mowery, Los Angeles Department of Transportation • Julia Salinas, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Chris Poe, Texas A&M Transportation Institute • Wendy Jia, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority • Ray Webb, Mid-America Regional Council • Nick Compin, Caltrans District 4 • Allen Chen, Caltrans District 7 • Caroline Mays, Texas Department of Transportation • Melissa Ackert, Florida Department of Transportation • Todd Plesko, Dallas Area Rapid Transit • Blaine Leonard, Utah Department of Transportation • Athena Hutchins, Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition • Mike Marsico, New York City Department of Transportation • Christina Casgar, San Diego Association of Governments • Scott Strelecki, San Diego Association of Governments • Elisa Arias, San Diego Association of Governments • Alex Estrella, San Diego Association of Governments • Andrew Tang, Bay Area Rapid Transit • Susan Catlett, New Jersey Department of Transportation • Herbie Huff, Los Angeles County Bike Coalition • Colin Bogart, Los Angeles County Bike Coalition • Andrew Weeks, New York City Department of Transportation

3PL Third-party logistics AMS Analysis, modeling, and simulation APC Automated passenger counter API Application Programming Interface ATCMTD Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment ATDM Active transportation and demand management ATMS Advanced Traffic Management System ATRI American Transportation Research Institute ATTS Arterial Travel Time System AVL Automated vehicle location AWIS Automated Work Zone Information System BCO Beneficial Cargo Owners BRT Bus rapid transit C2C Center-to-center CAD Computer-aided dispatch Caltrans California Department of Transportation CB Citizens band CCTV Closed-circuit television CHP California Highway Patrol CMM Capability Maturity Mode CMS Changeable message sign CO Carbon monoxide ConOps Concept of Operations C-PeMS Corridor Performance Measurement System CPS Congestion pricing system CV Connected Vehicle CV/AERIS Connected Vehicle/Applications for the Environment: Real-Time Information Syntheses DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit DIRECT Dynamic Intermodal Routing Environment for Control and Telematics DMP Data Management Plan DMS Dynamic message signs DO Drayage operators DOT Department of Transportation EMS Emergency medical services EPA Environmental Protection Agency FRATIS Freight Advanced Traveler Information System GTC Genesee Transportation Council HAR Highway advisory radios HAZMAT Hazardous materials HOT High-occupancy toll A B B R E V I A T I O N S

HOV High-occupancy vehicle ICM Integrated Corridor Management ICMS ICM system IMTMS Intermodal Transportation Management System IRI International roughness index ITS Intelligent transportation systems LACBC Los Angeles County Bike Coalition LCS Lane Closure System LRT Light-rail transit MARC Mid-America Regional Council MOPS Measure of performance MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTO Marine terminal operator MTS Metropolitan Transit System NAS National Air Space NCTD North County Transit District NITTEC Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOx Nitrous oxides NPS Network Prediction System NVOCC Non-vessel operating common carrier NWS National Weather Service) NYCDOT New York City Department of Transportation O&M Operations and maintenance O-D Origin-destination OS/OW Oversize/overweight PeMS Performance Measurement System PMP Project Management Plan PSR Present serviceability rating RAMS Regional Arterial Management System REMS Regional Event Management System RMIS Ramp Meter Information System RTMS Regional Transit Management System RTOC Regional Traffic Operations Center RTSS Real-Time Simulation System SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SEMP Systems Engineering Management Plan SMU Southern Methodist University SOV Single-occupancy vehicle SPS Smart Parking System SR State Route (page F-2) TDM Travel Demand Modeling TEARS Targeted Event Accelerated Response System TIM Traffic incident management TMA Transportation Management Association TMC Traffic management center

TOC Transportation operations centers TSMO Transportation Systems Management and Operations TSP Transit Signal Priority TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute USDOT United States Department of Transportation V/C Volume-to-capacity VDS Vehicle detection system VMS Variable message sign VMT Vehicle miles traveled VOC Volatile organic compound VSL Variable speed limits WDOT Washington Department of Transportation

1 Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Objectives of the Guidebook 3 Value of Integrated Corridor Management 4 Value of Incorporating Non-Traditional Stakeholders 10 Integrated Corridor Management Planning Framework 12 Integrated Corridor Management Capability Maturity Model 14 Chapter 2 Identify & Diagnose Problem 14 What Is the Main Problem We Are Trying to Address? Is it Related to Improving Mobility, Reliability, Safety or Other? 15 How Do We Diagnose and Characterize the Problem? 17 Is This Problem One That is Suitable for ICM? 19 Chapter 3 Establish ICM Objectives & Scale 19 What Goals Are We Trying to Achieve in Addressing and Mitigating the Identified Problem? 19 What Measurable Objectives Should We Set in Order to Determine Whether This Project Is Successful? 20 What Are Some Tiered ICM Implementation Options if We Don’t Have the Budget to Build a Full-Scale ICM System? 23 Chapter 4 Determine Potential Partners 23 Who Will Be Directly or Indirectly Affected by This ICM Project? 26 Whom Should We Reach Out to in Each Stakeholder Group? 28 Who Is the Top Priority in Terms of Groups, Agencies, or People That We Need to Engage? 29 How Do We Identify These Entities in Our Region? 31 Chapter 5 Assess Potential Partners’ Needs 31 Do We Share the Same Objectives? What Are the Main Objectives of Each Stakeholder Group? 31 What Are the Major Concerns This Stakeholder Group Has in Getting Involved in ICM? 36 Chapter 6 Designate Performance Metrics & Data Sources 36 Which Performance Metrics Should We Use to Evaluate How Well Our ICM Project Meets Our Goals and Objectives? 38 Which Performance Metrics Are Important to This Stakeholder Group? 40 What Data Can Be Used to Measure Performance Metrics of Interest? C O N T E N T S

43 Chapter 7 Engage Potential Partners 43 What Are the Benefits to This Stakeholder Group for Getting Involved? What Are the Benefits to Transportation Agencies for Getting This Stakeholder Group Involved? 48 What Can the ICM Project Offer to This Stakeholder Group? 52 What Are the Best Channels of Communication with Our Identified Stake- holder Entities? 57 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? 64 Chapter 8 Develop ICM System Concept 64 Which ICM Strategies Will Help Us Achieve Our Goals for This ICM Project? 65 Which ICM Strategies Will Help This Stakeholder Group Achieve Their Objectives? 70 How Will This Stakeholder Group Be Involved in ICM Response Plans? 74 How Can We Analyze the Expected Impacts of the Envisioned ICM System? 74 What Resources Are Available from Successful ICM Projects? 80 Chapter 9 Initiate Formal Arrangements 80 How Do We Formulate This ICM Process So That We Can Ensure That Our Response Plans Operate Smoothly in the Long Term? 81 What Types of Arrangements Are Suitable for Our ICM Project? 82 As the Demands of Our ICM System Change Over Time, How Does Our Organizational Form Need to Adapt? 86 Chapter 10 Next Steps for Integrated Corridor Management Implementation A-1 Appendix A Characteristics of Recurrent and Non-Recurrent Congestion B-1 Appendix B Overview of Integrated Corridor Management C-1 Appendix C Stakeholder Interview Participants D-1 Appendix D Performance Measure Guidance E-1 Appendix E Analysis Methodology, Tools, and Plan F-1 Appendix F Data Needs Assessment G-1 Appendix G Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments H-1 Appendix H Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements I-1 Appendix I Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.