National Academies Press: OpenBook

Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements

« Previous: Chapter 8 - Develop ICM System Concept
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Initiate Formal Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 85

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.

80 Formalize institutional, organizational, and technical arrangements with stakeholders to ensure the long-term success of the ICM project. How Do We Formalize This ICM Process So That We Can Ensure That Our Response Plans Operate Smoothly in the Long Term? Managing a dynamic corridor effectively requires an equally dynamic management of arrange- ments among ICM system stakeholders. ICM solutions are often deployed in highly complex and dynamic transportation corridors. These complex transportation corridors have an equally complex set of stakeholders that include freight, transit, incident response, and non-traditional (pedestrian/bicyclist) stakeholders. Successful ICM deployments over time must recognize that just as the tangible corridor assets made of concrete, asphalt, steel, and silicon must be main- tained and sometimes refreshed or replaced, the arrangements binding stakeholders together must also be maintained and sometimes refreshed or replaced. As user needs and technology change, how the ICM is conceptualized, defined, operated, and financed among stakeholders must change in response. The arrangements enabling the ICM system to function must also include mechanisms so these arrangements can be adapted over time. The documents describ- ing the shared vision, roles, responsibilities, and tactical arrangements made among the ICM system stakeholders – the institutional capital of the ICM system – are arguably the most critical ICM assets to ensure long-term cohesion among stakeholders and long-term viability of the ICM deployment. If an ICM system is deployed as a static build-and-forget solution, it may soon become inef- fective, irrelevant, and eventually abandoned in favor of other more relevant solutions aligned with current issues and concerns. Technical, organizational, and institutional arrangements are bringing together ICM stakeholders to periodically reexamine corridor performance, emerging threats/issues, underlying changes in corridor traveler/user needs and demand patterns, ICM system capabilities, and the potential of emerging technologies. These periodic assessments should begin with challenging the previous purpose and nature of the ICM system; assess the capability of the ICM to meet performance goals and make plans to refine/replace unsatisfactory aspects of the ICM system. Appendix H, Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements, provides a detailed examination of the arrangements among ICM stakeholders, including examples specifically targeting considerations of freight, transit, incident response, and pedestrian/bicyclist stake- holders. The arrangements are presented according to the following classification: C H A P T E R 9 Initiate Formal Arrangements

Initiate Formal Arrangements 81 • Institutional arrangements, governing how ICM stakeholders determine and guide the strategic direction of the ICM deployment over time, including geographic boundaries, scopes of actions, financial plans, stakeholder engagement/retention, and institutional form. • Organizational or operational arrangements, governing the roles, responsibilities, limita- tions, and tactical interactions among ICM system operators engaged in real-time day-to-day decision making within the corridor. • Technical arrangements, governing the ownership and responsibility among stakeholders for the security, monitoring, maintenance, and enhancements of ICM system assets (both tangible and intangible). What Types of Arrangements Are Suitable for Our ICM Project? The second part of Appendix H, Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrange- ments provides a structured exercise for ICM stakeholders to assess the maturity of the existing ICM institutional capital and to identify the most likely technical, organizational, and institu- tional arrangements to either create or enhance. This exercise can be useful for ICM deployments in a range of deployment maturity – from early to advanced deployments. Such an exercise is recommended when the ICM solution needs to be expanded to include new stakeholders (e.g., freight, transit, incident response, and non- motorized stakeholders). Exercise Purpose – The purpose of the exercise is to collectively assess the maturity of current ICM institutional capital with respect to current or future needs and identify and prioritize the creation or updating of specific institutional, organizational, and technical arrangements. Exercise Outcomes – The expected outcomes of the exercise are to: 1. Improve the level of engagement of all stakeholders in a shared ICM vision; and 2. Create a punch list of high-priority actions to be taken in strengthening arrangements among stakeholders. When to Conduct This Exercise – This exercise (or something similar in intent) can be incor- porated into a periodic (e.g., annual) meeting of ICM stakeholders. In many cases, it may be useful as a capstone exercise after a broader discussion of corridor performance, needs, and stakeholders. If this discussion has not been facilitated, then time must be added to the exercise to provide the context of corridor vision and key next steps that will shape what is needed in terms of institutional capital. Who Should Participate – The exercise is intended for the individuals who are the cham- pions of the corridor concept. These need not necessarily be drawn from the ranks of senior leadership among stakeholder organizations. At least one participant should attend for each of the major corridor stakeholder groups. That said, the exercise will be impractical for large groups. A practical maximum of 16–20 participants with a target size of 6–12 motivated stakeholders can be used as a rough guide to help size the exercise and determine who should participate. Required Preparation and Materials – The exercise is designed to be conducted as an in-person, roundtable event. However, virtual participation by some (or even all) stakeholders can be supported, given that there is a method to collect and display information that all stake- holders can simultaneously view. A no-visual teleconference connection is not recommended for any participants. Practically, this means at a minimum a whiteboard for a purely in-person event. However, an arrangement where a computer desktop can be simultaneously viewed

82 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (by both in-person attendees and virtual attendees) is likely to be the best solution. One indi- vidual should be assigned the role of exercise facilitator (and timekeeper) and another assigned the role of recorder/scribe for the exercise. Table 22 is the ICM Capability Maturity Model for use in the exercise. To use this table, follow these steps: 1. Assess where the ICM project stands now along each dimension. 2. Assess where you want to be in a certain period of time (e.g., 5 years). 3. Start making plans for incremental improvements to achieve the desired maturity level. As the Demands of Our ICM System Change Over Time, How Does Our Organizational Form Need to Adapt? Below is a high-level summary of prototypical organizational frameworks among ICM system stakeholders spanning a range of more ad hoc and informal forms to more formal and system- atic structures. Each of the individual frameworks is presented in additional detail in Appen- dix I, Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks. The maturity assessment described previously is re-used to examine the pros and cons of adapting to a new organizational form as the demands on the ICM system change over time. Ad Hoc Coordination (early model, Levels 1–2) In this early model (see Figure 13), there is no formal charter or ICM concept. However, there is corridor-level coordination that occurs informally among stakeholders because of the natural intersection of corridor issues, events, conditions, and aspects that may have brought stakeholders together in the past. In some cases, staff in one organization may have worked previously in another organization, and personal relationships act as natural bridges among corridor stakeholders. Roundtable of Champions (early model, Levels 1–3) In this early model (see Figure 14), senior leaders gather to initiate or further develop an ICM concept. In this case, creating a charter for the corridor stakeholders and establishing goals may be an early agenda item. The Roundtable of Champions model can be characterized as relatively senior management in each organization creating a roundtable of similar individuals across the ICM stakeholder spectrum and inviting participation. Peer-to-Peer Connection (early model, Levels 1–3) In this early model (see Figure 15), technical and operations staff gather to solve specific corridor issues. In this case, this is a natural extension of the Ad Hoc Coordination model but advanced to a more mature state where trust relationships among multiple individuals have evolved into trust relationships among sub-elements of individual stakeholder organizations. These connections are encouraged, and possibly authorized, by the chain of command within each participating organization. Coordinated Operations (intermediate model, Levels 3–4) In this model (see Figure 16), stakeholders have formalized an agreement to coordinate activity, either in a playbook or a set of flexible rules. In many cases, the key difference between the early models and this intermediate model is a more mature set of institutional capital.

L e v e l 1 Level 1 Silo Level 2 Centralized Level 3 Partially Integrated Level 4 Multimodal Integrated Level 5 Multimodal Optimized In st itu tio na l In te gr at io n Inter-Agency Cooperation Agencies do not coordinate their operations Some agencies share data but operate their networks independently Agencies share data, and some cooperative responses are done Agencies share data, and implement multimodal incident response plans Operations are centralized for the corridor, with personnel operating the corridor cooperatively Funding Single agency MPO tracks funding Coordinated funding through MPO Cooperatively fund deployment projects Cooperatively fund deployment and operations and maintenance projects Te ch ni ca l In te gr at io n Traveler Information Static information on corridor travel modes Static trip planning with limited real-time alerts Multimodal trip planning and account- based alerts Location-based, on-journey multimodal information Location-based, multi- modal proactive routing Data Fusion Limited or Manual Near real-time data for multiple modes Integrated multi- modal data (one-way) Integrated multimodal data (two-way) Multi-source multimodal data integrated and fused for operations O pe ra tio na l In te gr at io n Performance Measures Some ad hoc performance measure based on historical data Periodic performance measures based on historical data High-level performance measures using real-time data Detailed performance measures in real time for one or more modes Multimodal performance measures in real time Decision Support System Manual coordination of response Pre-agreed incident response plans Tool selection of pre- agreed plans Model-based selection of pre-agreed plans Model-based creation of incident response plans Source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 20-68A, Scan 12-02. Table 22. Application of the Integrated Corridor Management capability maturity model.

84 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Figure 13. Ad hoc coordination model. Figure 14. Roundtable of champions model. Figure 15. Peer-to-peer connection model. Figure 16. Coordinated operations model. Specifically, this framework requires more detailed operational and technical arrangements that spell out the specific roles and responsibilities and sequence of actions taken in response to observed conditions in the corridor. Broadly, this framework reflects the organizational form of the USDOT ICM deployment sites after deployment. Integrated Consortium (advanced model, Levels 4–5) In this advanced model (see Figure 17), corridor management roles and practices are well defined and more formal corridor-specific organizational structures are required to improve efficiency and accountability. A new corridor-level organization is formed to carry out these roles and practices, staffed by individuals drawn from stakeholder organizations. Note that there are no current examples of the Integrated Consortium framework currently deployed for the purposes of ICM. This model may be of interest for consideration but cannot be described as a proven ICM organizational model. Third-Party Operator (advanced model, Levels 4–5) In this advanced model (see Figure 18), corridor management roles and practices are well defined and more formal corridor-specific organizational structures are so well defined that a separate organization is hired or formed to carry out these roles and practices. No current examples of the Third-Party Operator framework are deployed for the purposes of ICM. This model may be of interest for consideration but cannot be described as a proven ICM organiza- tional model. These frameworks can be used to assess if a change in organizational form may be required to meet changing corridor needs – which needs may be identified in periodic strategic assessment

Initiate Formal Arrangements 85 sessions modifying key institutional arrangements. Key questions stakeholders should periodi- cally consider in joint session are as follows: • Is the corridor meeting or exceeding performance goals? • Are there new issues/stakeholders? • Are the geographic boundaries of the corridor practical and relevant? • Which days in the previous year were the most problematic? Most successful? What are the attributes of these successes and failures? Figure 18. Third-party operator model. Figure 17. Integrated consortium model.

Next: Chapter 10 - Next Steps for Integrated Corridor Management Implementation »
Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Integrated Corridor Management (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 infrastructure.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Research Report 899: Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders addresses a broad range of operational and efficiency issues that are critical to bringing non-traditional (freight, transit, incident response, and nonmotorized) stakeholders into the ICM process.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!