National Academies Press: OpenBook

Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020)

Chapter: Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements

« Previous: Appendix G - Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H - Institutional, Organizational, and Technical 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 200

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.

H-1 A P P E N D I X H Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements This appendix describes a set of critical arrangements among ICM stakeholders, travelers, and operators required to realize a successful ICM deployment. These include both technical and non-technical arrangements developed for an ICM initial state adapted over time as the deployed system is refined and improved (see the discussion in Appendix E regarding ICM as a continuous improvement process). This appendix is primarily a discussion of the breadth and type of arrangements themselves and how they can be effectively maintained and enhanced over time; for strategies on engaging stakeholders to develop an initial set of charter arrangements, the reader should refer to the ICM Guidebook. Managing a dynamic corridor effectively requires an equally dynamic management of arrangements 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/bike) stakeholders. Successful ICM deployments over time must recognize that just as the tangible corridor assets made of concrete, asphalt, steel and silicon must be maintained 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 describing 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 ineffective, 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 refine/replace unsatisfactory aspects of the ICM system. This appendix has three sub-sections: The first sub-section provides a detailed examination of the arrangements among ICM stakeholders, including examples specifically targeting considerations of freight, transit, incident response and pedestrian/bike stakeholders. The arrangements are presented according to the following classification: Institutional arrangements, governing how ICM stakeholders determine and guide the strategic direction of the ICM deployment over time—including geographic boundaries, scope of actions, financial plan, stakeholder engagement/retention and institutional form. of the ICM system, assess the capability of the ICM to meet performance goals, and make plans to

H-2 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Organizational or operational arrangements, governing the roles, responsibilities, limitations, 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). The second sub-section 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 institutional arrangements to either create or enhance the system. The third sub-section provides 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 systematic structures. Each of the individual frameworks are provided in additional detail in Appendix I. The maturity assessment described in the second sub-section is reused to examine the pros and cons of adapting to a new organizational form as the demands on the ICM system change over time. Institutional Arrangements Institutional arrangements (see FIGURE H.1) govern how ICM stakeholders guide the strategic direction of the ICM deployment over time—including geographic boundaries, scope of actions, financial plan, stakeholder roster, and institutional form. These arrangements focus on strategic ownership and delegation of responsibilities for the ICM system. It includes a discussion of what kinds of access and control partners have, and broad decisions to integrate several separate systems in a decentralized manner, or to take a more centralized approach. Each approach has benefits and drawbacks, so arrangements must be aligned with the technical and non-technical maturity of the current ICM system and its stakeholder partners. It is important to define limits and boundaries for what an ICM system should cover (and not cover) and the nature of the actions it will take (and not take). For example, ICM is often deployed as a combination of applications and strategies specifically targeting non-recurrent congestion conditions associated with major incidents, special events, and severe weather. In these cases, the ICM system may be tightly, loosely, or simply not connected with specific stakeholders, transportation modes, information channels, or facilities (e.g., signal systems at critical junctions with pedestrian/bike routes, parking or tolling policies, and dynamic transit dispatching). Every ICM system depends on the capabilities of the participating organizations—and an appropriate shared vision of these organizations to provide and maintain assets, share data, and take coordinated actions. At the inception of the ICM effort, it may not be clear among stakeholders the nature and capabilities of each stakeholder organization—and some time may need to be set aside so that this shared level of understanding matures prior to making key decisions regarding scope, financial relationships, and FIGURE H.1. Institutional arrangements.

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-3 organizational form. While more elaborate visions of an end-state ICM are useful to provide motivation for stakeholder engagement and a collective sense of ultimate destination, near-term institutional arrangements are required dependent on a realistic assessment of what each ICM partner can provide in terms of people, assets, and capabilities. For example, intersection pedestrian detection systems may need upgrading to accommodate ICM strategies for special events, or additional transit staff may need to be trained to operate under special event policies tailored to absorb a predicted surge of pedestrian demand. New corridor- focused roles may need to be created outside of existing partner organizational structures and a process to identify and staff these positions may need to be put in place. Institutional arrangements include maintaining the ICM system scope, vision and goals over time; arrangements describing the scope, nature and duration of ICM system integration; financial and capital planning arrangements; and agreements covering organizational forms and governance policy. The type, number, and complexity of institutional arrangements are highly dependent on the organizational form/framework used by the ICM stakeholders. These organizational forms range from ad hoc informal arrangements at one end of the spectrum to formal models where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Appendix I provides six example frameworks that follow this spectrum from least to most formal. In general, the type, number, and complexity of institutional arrangements grow proportionally with the amount of formal structure inherent in the overarching organizational framework. A risk to any developing ICM concept is balancing documented arrangements with the current and forecasted needs of the ICM stakeholders. Too few or vaguely documented arrangements will deter the development of more robust, effective, integrated ICM solutions. Burdening an emerging ICM solution with too many or needlessly complex arrangements may slow progress towards initial successes needed to create momentum. In these cases, a lightweight approach to formal arrangements may serve the ICM stakeholder community well for several years as the ICM solution develops from an early to a more advanced state. Corridor Vision, Goals, and Integrated Corridor Management Concept Management Arrangements These arrangements document the most fundamental of ICM concepts: What is the corridor? How is it defined? What are the shared goals and vision of the ICM stakeholders? How is the ICM concept organized among partners? These arrangements can be as informal as short statements of shared vision and goals that are non-binding but demonstrate an intent to cooperate—often critical in gaining early momentum to bring stakeholders to the table. At the more complex end of the spectrum, these arrangements can be formal agreements that define roles, allocate responsibilities, and codify leadership arrangements among stakeholders to support ICM solutions over time. This kind of institutional arrangement is nearly always needed in some form (or even multiple forms). Lack of formal agreements early in the process can lead to delays in implementation as differences in understanding and clarifications in shared expectations were worked out “on the fly.” Most critically, these arrangements should include the capability for the periodic adaptation of these arrangements. Otherwise, they can quickly become stale and outmoded—or simply forgotten as individuals change positions. Vision and Goals. These early documents should cover key items such as corridor boundaries, scope, goals, performance measures, as well as a list of participating/observing organizations. Early vision statements, charters, MOUs and other organizational documents set the stage for more detailed documentation and support the eventual development of a corridor management Concept of Operations (ConOps). Setting Early Limits/Focus. Caltrans has four Connected Corridor projects, and each of them has a different area of emphasis. One corridor concept was defined to focus only on non-recurrent

H-4 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders congestion, after engaging neighboring jurisdictions regarding freeway-to-local street traffic diversion. Another corridor in California will focus initially on a single ICM strategy, adaptive ramp metering, as a first step towards more comprehensive corridor management in the future. The Dallas I-75 ICM solution restricted operational hours from 6 AM to 6 PM—as the need for active corridor management was not cost effective outside of this period. Example(s)/Insights: New Stakeholders? Hit the ICM Conceptual Restart Button. When an ICM concept is expanded to include new stakeholders (e.g., freight, transit, ped/bike, or incident management), a key first step is to reconsider existing vision, goals, and focus of the ICM system. Failure to do so means creating a second tier of latecomer stakeholders who will by default have a lower level of buy-in. System Integration Arrangements These arrangements document the high-level agreements among stakeholders regarding roles, responsibilities, and shared actions. Under specific conditions (e.g., an incident in location X), or a class of conditions (e.g., an incident anywhere in the corridor), there is a corresponding breakdown of key stakeholders, actions to be taken (and not taken), and the desired level of joint control. For example, in response to a major incident, stakeholders may agree to coordinate tactical actions by staff at the direction of a lead law enforcement agency. At the strategic level (away from direct proximity to the incident), stakeholders may agree to much more operational leeway to disseminate information or take mitigating actions (e.g., transit rerouting). The level of coordinated action, and the technical capability of the system to implement this are best documented in operational and technical arrangements. However, the level of system integration at a higher level is best documented in institutional arrangements that set the limits and guide development of more detailed organizational and technical arrangements. These arrangements can be combined with higher-level vision and goal statements to articulate a more detailed description of the level of integration that will be realized in an ICM deployment (initially or incrementally). A longer-term vision of full integration can still be useful as an end-state goal. However, jumping directly into such arrangements can be risky. Creating these arrangements and updating them can be useful in setting limits to the systems engineering process so that the system designed reflects the level of integration that the stakeholders are willing to put into operational practice and design of the deployed systems. A lack of these types of arrangements can lead to a game-time realization that a system has been designed (or even built) but includes a level of operational and technical integration that key stakeholders may not find acceptable. These arrangements are also useful for setting senior management expectations within larger stakeholder organizations, groups of competing stakeholders (e.g., freight operators), and other stakeholders. These arrangements ensure the intended nature of coordinated action and/or system integration is clearly explained and provides an inherent justification for the level of system integration chosen. Key Features. Define the scope, nature, and duration of system integration among coordinating ICM sub-systems. Are there special cases under which different rules should apply? Finding a Comfort Zone Between Parallel Play and Integrated Operations. Effective corridor management may not require a high level of integration everywhere and under all conditions. In some modes of operation, a general set of guidelines that shares likely responses and a willingness to communicate among stakeholders regarding actions taken can be highly cost effective. As trust is built up and the effectiveness of collaborative corridor management is observed, the locations and times where more integrated solutions are required can be identified. When this happens, the system integration arrangements can be updated to reflect the agreement among stakeholders as well as the identified need that motivated the update. Without this documentation, a change in leadership in one stakeholder group may unnecessarily result in a retreat from what had been

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-5 previously agreed to—simply because there was no documentation to substantiate the agreement reached with prior stakeholder leadership. Example(s)/Insights: Special Considerations for Incident Management Stakeholders. Given that some aspects of incident response will include law enforcement activity, there may be a strong rationale to keep specific elements of those activities separate from corridor management actions. Incorporating language on where corridor management activities end and law enforcement activities begin can reduce confusion regarding roles and allowable actions. Financial and Capital Planning Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding ICM-specific business relationships among stakeholders, including the sources of funding for system operation, maintenance, and enhancement. These enhancements may include capital purchases. Stakeholders may be initially leery of financial arrangements in the early stages of ICM concept development. However, these considerations will be a significant element in a move to the intermediate Coordinated Operations framework model or any of the advanced frameworks documented in Appendix I. Lack of financial and capital planning arrangements can be problematic if there are joint purchases of capital equipment, shared operational costs, or compensated corridor-focused staff positions. ICM Business Planning. This type of arrangement documents the ICM business plan. This plan documents who contributes (in terms of staffing, equipment, and/or paying for operational costs) and the benefits that accrue to each of the partners. Not all contributions or benefits need to be quantified and monetized in such an analysis. It can be helpful for all stakeholders to create a give/take diagram showing the shared costs and benefits of the ICM solution. This diagram can be Mine, Theirs and Ours Capital Planning. There is a need to coordinate capital planning among diverse corridor stakeholders since each organization has its own annual or multiyear cycle planning. There is often offset among the stakeholders’ cycles and it can be difficult to mount a large coordinated capital purchasing effort. Arrangements that document the capital expenditures planned over time can help to lock in commitments to follow through according to that plan. One of the benefits of external funding is that capital timing among stakeholders can be linked to grant awards—but even in these cases, how this corridor capital is allocated among stakeholders must be documented. There may be costs to procure as well as operational and maintenance costs -- and the capital purchases must have a clear owner/purchaser. Capital expenses and allocation among stakeholders should be incorporated into ICM business planning. End-State Financial Planning. Particularly in the case where external or ICM grant funding helps to initiate an ICM concept, there is a tendency to avoid or put off thinking about long-term financial sustainability. ICM grant funding is nearly always a one-time resource infusion. Stakeholders should plan (and document) the longer-term contributions and benefits as a part of the give/take diagram showing a stable end-state for the ICM solution. Otherwise, stakeholders may be forced to come up with improvisational operations and maintenance funding—funding which can be difficult to obtain on the fly but may be locked in by agreement when these arrangements are put in place. used to inform stakeholders who may have an inflated sense of their own (or own organization’s) contributions and little understanding of the costs borne by other stakeholders.

H-6 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Example(s)/Insights: CV Pilot Financial Sustainability Planning. The Connected Vehicle (CV) Pilot Deployment Program required each deployer to complete and document financial sustainability for a post- deployment grant period of at least five years. The responses include innovations in non-traditional revenue sources (e.g., toll revenues in the Tampa deployment), and documentation of the expected contributions from all stakeholders to meet the five-year sustainability requirement. For more information, please see: https://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/ Organizational Forms and Governance Policy Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding how to organize themselves and the governance policies put in place to adapt or amend these arrangements over time. A collection of example frameworks is provided in Appendix I and discussed in additional detail with respect to corridor maturity later in this appendix. The general nature and content of these arrangements are presented in this sub-section. Often the first document of this type comes in the form of a charter, which often comprises a statement of shared vision and goals, a stakeholder roster, and an organizational framework. This may designate a lead agency or organization, or establish a more consensus-driven model. The organizational form will almost certainly need to be adapted over time, so a key element to include in any arrangement of this type are the rules all the stakeholders agree to when it is time to amend or adapt the current arrangement. Key topics that these arrangements document include: Regular Meetings and Rules of Order. Virtual or in-person, periodic meetings among stakeholders are needed to provide organizational cohesion and provide timely adaptations to organizational form when needed. Early state deployments require more frequent meetings (quarterly, monthly, or biweekly), while intermediate and advanced deployments may need to meet less frequently (quarterly, semiannually, or annually). Stakeholder Roster Changes. A clear mechanism for managing roster changes when new partners join, old partners change roles, or partners are unable to continue is critical. There may be many changes in an early-state ICM deployment. Ongoing Commitment Requirements. Provisions for requiring ongoing commitment and participation to ICM for successful operation (i.e., protections for the common investment), as well as provisions for leaving the ICM commitment if it becomes infeasible for the stakeholder to continue participating (i.e., protections for the individual stakeholders). Tiered engagements, e.g., lead/associate/observer organizations, can also be considered. Disputes. This element describes how disagreements among stakeholders are resolved. In some cases, a special study can be commissioned to ensure that all parties are working from a similar set of shared facts (see below). Amendments. Mechanisms for adapting, changing, and scoping organizational forms (e.g., charter amendments) should be included in even the earliest forms of these arrangements. Example(s)/Insights: Special Studies. One way to resolve perceived inequities in operational practice is to conduct a special study to assess benefit/disbenefit distribution. For example, a simulation study could assess

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-7 what would happen if ramp meter adjustments were included or not included in an ICM response. This would give insight into the impacts of excluding certain systems, either qualitatively or quantitatively—by facility or stakeholder group. • Minimum Thresholds for Participation. A short checklist of minimum requirements expected of all ICM organizational members can be useful to clarify and maintain commitment. These may be as simple as following through on hosting of and participation in periodic stakeholder events/meetings—and abiding by all documented agreements. Organizational (Operational) Arrangements Organizational or operational arrangements (see FIGURE H.2) govern the roles, responsibilities, limitations, and tactical interactions among ICM system operators engaged in real-time day-to-day decision- making within the corridor. Examples include common procedural arrangements for ICM (e.g., whether a set of actions will be selected based on an automated system following an optimization algorithm, or according to a predetermined list of increasingly severe strategy responses, or some other method). ICM system development following a systems engineering process will describe and develop detail associated with many of these procedures. In this case, the arrangements can either directly reference the systems engineering documentation or alternatively, operational practices and processes can be extracted to create new organizational arrangements. When the systems engineering documentation is comprehensive and maintained in an updated format, arrangements that reference these documents have the advantage of not having to keep two parallel sets of documents consistently updated. Operational Mode and Procedures Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders that establish the fundamental ground rules under which operational coordination will be carried out. These must be consistent with the roles and responsibilities laid out in the institutional arrangements (e.g., Concept Management and System Integration) and supported by the technical capabilities set forth in complementary technical arrangements. Without these arrangements in place, it may be difficult to coordinate effectively without a common understanding of system status and defined roles. A set of early operational mode and procedures arrangements may not always be highly detailed but should cover fundamental aspects such as • Operational Roles and Responsibilities. These arrangements lay out which stakeholders take on roles within operations and defines the extent and limit of their responsibilities. • Modes of Operation. These arrangements may be as simple as describing a normal, active mode versus a mode in which the ICM system is not functioning. In practice, these modes are expanded incrementally to include the specific modes under which a distinct set of tactical operations will take place (see tactical operations action planning below). This description should also identify FIGURE H.2. Organizational (operational) arrangements.

H-8 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders sequencing among modes of operation, that is, it may not be possible to move directly from one mode to another without first passing through an intermediate mode. Diagnostics and Monitoring. One key role for stakeholders includes observing both system performance and corridor operational conditions. Diagnostics refers to tracking the system itself to ensure the ICM capability is running as designed without error. Monitoring refers to the tracking of corridor performance and status, e.g., surveillance for incidents within the system. Changes in either a diagnostic state or corridor condition may trigger a change in operational mode. Restart and Recovery Procedures. The ICM solution may be turned off at certain times of day or week and then restarted for peak periods. Some subsystems may be acted upon independently, and how the subsystems and systems restart from an inactive model can be documented—including the step-by-step operational roles taken by individual stakeholders. Example(s)/Insights: Special Event/Incident Response Modes of Operation. Examples include general response modes, roles, and actions taken for incident management and the broad roles taken for annual special events (e.g., bike-to-work day). The CV Pilot deployment sites have documented a set of maintenance and operations plans that serve to describe and coordinate general modes and procedures for their deployments. Tactical Operations Action Planning Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding the tactical roles, responsibilities and actions to be taken in response to varying operational conditions within the corridor. Specifically, these arrangements spell out the specific roles, responsibilities and sequence of actions taken in response to observed conditions in the corridor. Rather than working from a general set of principles driving coordination among stakeholders at a broad level, these arrangements set forth specific response plans that stakeholders formulate together and agree to follow. Tactical Planning and Execution. Some responses require a detailed coordinated response. For example, a corridor ICM system may include some subelements where freight signal priority is required to assist on-time delivery at key intermodal facilities. Access to these facilities may run counter to optimal transit signal priority timing, bike lane access, pedestrian movements, and other considerations. In order to implement coordination among these competing corridor demands, detailed intersection and facility plans may be needed—far beyond informal coordination among the jurisdictions controlling the signals and the collection of stakeholders. A key element of these plans includes limiting and defining levels of authority for each stakeholder. Playbook Approaches. In complex corridors, the number of plays needed in a playbook may be large. A detailed plan may be created for a situation that occurs infrequently (or never again). At the same time, operational conditions that warrant coordinated action but are not in the playbook may be numerous. At some point, a detailed playbook may need to be replaced with a more flexible set of rules that describe general actions to be taken supported by a set of automated adaptations. Whether such a system is needed depends on the repeatability and classification of the operational conditions experienced in the corridor—and the nature of the required corridor management response. These tactical plans are the heart of the ICM playbook and response plans documented in Step 7 of the Guidebook. These arrangements will typically grow in number and detail as the ICM deployment matures and takes on more complex corridor management strategies. Without such arrangements, it may be difficult to effectively manage and coordinate corridor management actions.

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-9 Safety/Emergency Management Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding unplanned safety or emergency conditions within the corridor. These are not general incident response plans as might be scenarios within the corridor. For a freight corridor, this might be related to severe weather events or the breakdown in communications among safety-critical infrastructure elements such as variable speed limit equipment. Without such plans, the ability to respond rapidly and effectively to safety-critical scenarios may be limited. Safety Scenario Planning. This depends on the corridor but such arrangements are reserved for rare events not considered within operational conditions analysis. These may include power failure, extreme weather, unpredictable natural forces, earthquakes, wildfires, or mudslides. Rapid Response Teams. Roles and responsibilities among stakeholders may need to be radically overhauled from the more day-to-day operational roles. This may include establishing rapid- response teams, or processes to convene key leadership quickly to make decisions. A depth-chart approach may be useful in case individuals are not immediately available to respond. Example(s)/Insights: Special Considerations for Freight Stakeholders. From the WYDOT CV Pilot Deployment Safety Management Plan https://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/cv_pubs.htm abstract: The document is presented based on identifying the safety scenarios at both system-level and application level, assessing the level of risk for each scenario, and providing a safety operational concept for high/ Special Considerations for Transit Stakeholders. Transit agencies often have formalized emergency planning arrangements for their systems related to fire, technical failure, or criminal/terrorist action. A corridor-wide plan can sometimes get its start from building up from these plans—however, note that the corridor plan should be viewed as comprehensive from the emergency source (occurring anywhere in the corridor) rather than just a corridor-level response to transit system emergency operations. External Stakeholder Engagement Protocols/Procedures Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding how to communicate with the press, the public, and other stakeholders. Who is authorized to speak for the corridor? Under what conditions should stakeholders communicate with external stakeholders? Without such plans, the ability to provide a common message may be limited. Methods of Engagement. Stakeholders may agree to utilize specific forms of communication (e.g., press releases, success stories, television interviews) and decide not to collectively engage in others (e.g., social media). In each case, these types of arrangements are useful in coordinating among stakeholders so there is no duplication of effort, or worse, conflicting versions of the same story. Example(s)/Insights: Dallas and San Diego Examples. Dallas ICM playbook example, U.S.-75 optimization combined with DSS (see Appendix G) included as part of an ICM Playbook. Rather these are the arrangements made for the safety-focused medium-risk scenarios. Safety stakeholders were identified, existing safety plans were reviewed, and coordination with emergency responders was incorporated in the Safety Management Plan. The Pilot Deployment team identified and analyzed 14 potential hazard events.

H-10 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Managed Public Engagement. In early ICM deployments, it may not be clear who is the designated engagement lead for the corridor. However, as the ICM solution matures, a designated spokesperson who can articulate the vision, goals, actions, and successes of the corridor project can be invaluable. This ensures a consistent message and may be critical in maintaining momentum for corridor management projects. External Stakeholder Registry. Maintaining a registry of external stakeholders can prove valuable when trying to reach groups regarding upcoming corridor activity. Examples include school bus fleet managers, ride-hailing providers, city/county event planners, and work zone managers. Example(s)/Insights: List of Contacts. Even in early ICM deployments, it may be valuable to document peer-to-peer relationships among ICM stakeholders and the influencers such as local media outlets. Later, it may be useful to document the organizational structures of media contacts and maintain a contact registry. Special Considerations for Ped/Bike Stakeholders. Reaching this community effectively means more than just reaching the public. Key influencers/advocates from the community can be instrumental in creating a controlled engagement activity so that these key stakeholders can contribute to the message and the media used to convey this message to this community. Technical Arrangements Technical arrangements (see FIGURE H.3) govern the ownership and responsibility among stakeholders for the security, monitoring, maintenance, and enhancements of ICM system assets (both tangible and intangible). In addition to considering the nature of the arrangements themselves, any other related arrangements dealing with inputs/outputs of the system itself should also be considered. Every ICM system both ingests and produces data. In some cases, non-disclosure agreements may be required if the system ingests freight information. Similarly, specific elements of a stakeholder organization may need to be consulted to ensure that individuals on a transit agency network can introduce connections to external networks for data sharing with corridor users (outputs). Data Management Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding data sharing, privacy, and data ownership. Without such plans the ability to build trust among stakeholders to engage beyond simple coordination in the corridor may be limited, as complex ICM strategies often require the ingest and dissemination of significant data resources. Data management arrangements reference or are drawn from an ICM-focused Data Management Plan (DMP). These plans summarize the data that are expected to be FIGURE H.3. Technical arrangements.

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-11 produced during the project, describe the standards to be used for data (including metadata), deal with the access to and long-term storage of data, and identify the policies/licenses for access, use, and redistribution. It is critical for all ICM stakeholders to have consistent policies about data sharing, release, and redistribution—otherwise, there can be significant degradation of trust among stakeholders after “unimportant” data from one stakeholder is shared by another without permission. Conversely, if no clear policies are established, stakeholders may become unnecessarily reluctant to share data—this can work directly against goals to deepen integration among corridor stakeholders. Data Sharing Among Stakeholders. Often ICM stakeholders will focus on real-time data access and sharing. A possible sticking point to these discussions is finding standard data formats (where standards may not readily exist) to facilitate the sharing of the data. While real-time access and sharing are critical for joint agreement and documentation, comprehensive planning should include identifying which stakeholders may be responsible for maintaining data records over time. Note that both for management costs and privacy concerns it may not be advantageous to preserve all data in its most disaggregate form forever. Open Data. As opposed to data sharing among stakeholders, it may be advantageous to consider Open (public) data sharing. These arrangements can lead to innovative reuse of corridor data that can further support and promote the ICM concept. However, open data sharing must be balanced with privacy considerations (see resources below). Data Ownership. Data shared, documented and provided by the ICM system may not have a clear owner since they are likely data composites drawn from multiple stakeholders. One suggested path is to make the ICM organization the owner of these data products and establish clear rules for third- party distribution/use of these data. In some cases, the ICM system and the staff that deal with these data may handle proprietary data. Special Considerations for Freight Stakeholders. There are often concerns about sharing real-time freight movement data. These concerns can be managed using NDAs and clear rules related to data cleansing and aggregation. A useful example to consider for ICM is the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) freight performance measurement project, where ATRI acts as a trusted third party to aggregate truck position and speed to characterize nationwide freight mobility performance. http://atri- online.org/2012/02/28/freight-performance-measures/. Privacy and Liability Considerations. When data are combined into new forms, there may be privacy and liability concerns to consider. For example, detailed vehicle position data (or video) may be combined with crash data raising concerns regarding liability. Likewise, detailed information on vehicle location may have privacy implications when combined (externally) with other available data. As an example, the NYCDOT CV Data Pilot program has developed a detailed plan to balance the need to protect privacy and mitigate liability risks while still supporting performance measurement needs with an innovative data aggregation and storage process. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31727. Example(s)/Insights: Iowa State Guide to creating a Data Management Plan http://instr.iastate.libguides.com/dmp/dot. USDOT Data Sharing Guidance for Connected Vehicles: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31609. Freight Data Sharing Guidebook NCHRP 25 https://www.nap.edu/read/22569/chapter/1.

H-12 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic Incident Management https://www.nap.edu/download/13730. USDOT Open Data Policy https://project-open-data.cio.gov/policy-memo/. FTA Open Data Policy Guidelines https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/fta-open-data- policy-guidelines-report-no-0095. Integrated Corridor Management, Transit, and Mobility on Demand Report https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16036/index.htm. Cook DuPage report: https://www.tripspark.com/customer-success/in-vehicle-technology-story- cook-dupage. Ped/Bike Data Clearinghouse https://sites.google.com/site/bikepeddata/bp-t3-data-clearinghouse, example data from Portland: http://demo.portal.its.pdx.edu/pedbike. Cyber Security Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding protecting the cybersecurity of the ICM system including the potential impacts of security breaches regarding confidentiality, integrity, and availability along with the potential threats. Without such arrangements, the ability to collectively plan on joint security and respond quickly and effectively to cybersecurity threats may be limited. Attack Surfaces. The implementation of a shared ICM system may provide significant benefits set of potential vulnerabilities is known as the attack surface of the ICM system. Often, there is a misconception that organizational private networks are necessarily secure networks. Once there is connectivity among systems, there is also a potential to launch an attack from the least secure subsystem in the connected system. Risk Management. These arrangements should address joint risk management planning, as it is not possible that a completely secure system can be maintained indefinitely. This may also include joint cybersecurity hygiene practices that each stakeholder agrees to uphold, e.g., maintaining updated security patches across all component subsystems. Where cybersecurity risks are rated high, consider periodic black hat/white hat exercises to identify weaknesses in system security. Example(s)/Insights: CV Pilot Security Management and Operations Concept development -- guidance document https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/3599. Systems Engineering Management Arrangements These arrangements document the agreements among stakeholders regarding how systems engineering for the ICM solution will be conducted and how systems engineering documentation will be managed over time. Without such arrangements, the ability to coordinate among stakeholders to implement more complex ICM strategies may be limited. Arrangements of this type can be often referenced or be directly derived from a solid Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP). but it also expands the number and type of places that hackers can launch an exploit. This increased

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-13 Maintaining Documentation. Decentralized systems engineering can be a recipe for disaster in ICM planning—and similarly, lack of a plan to maintain and enhance Concepts of Operations, Architecture, Design, and Testing documents can be both frustrating and expensive for dynamic ICM deployments. Key agreements should be made regarding the joint process for developing and maintaining these documents, and/or preserving documentation from agile development methods utilized. System Acceptance and Operational Readiness Testing. When are new capabilities deemed ready enough to be incorporated into ongoing corridor operations? Since a corridor is a shared entity, there should also be shared agreement on what constitutes sufficient acceptance and readiness testing. These kinds of considerations tend to be overlooked in the rush to initially deploy a new ICM—however, long-term arrangements are needed that define the cases in which joint testing or at least shared understanding when new capabilities are rolled out that may have an impact on the ICM system. Example(s)/Insights: Smart Columbus SEMP document https://trid.trb.org/view/1477653 . Collaboration Considerations ‘There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.’ – Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2002. The arrangements discussed so far deal with the known issues and scenarios facing ICM stakeholders, as in the “known” and “known unknown” issues articulated in the quote above. However, no set of arrangements can be ironclad against all eventual scenarios. In some cases, the ICM stakeholders must also have general collaboration considerations in place to deal with the “unknown unknowns”, that is, the things that could not be planned for but require a collective response. This section notes the following additional collaboration considerations to note when planning and deploying ICM. Some examples: Resolution of general disagreements or setting a course of action in situations that have not been specifically addressed in advance (incorporate into institutional arrangements, particularly governance policy arrangements). Mechanism for changing course of action when partner agencies encounter problems and are unable to proceed or continue (incorporate into institutional arrangements, particularly governance policy arrangements). Provisions for requiring ongoing commitment and participation to ICM for successful operation (i.e., protections for the common investment), as well as provisions for leaving the ICM commitment if it becomes infeasible for the stakeholder to continue participating (i.e., protections for the individual stakeholders). Internal and public response to worst-case corridor scenarios (disaster, loss of life, malfunction, cyber security). Specific plans need not be laid out. However, it may be useful to consider laying

H-14 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders out a general “bad news” strategy, potentially as a part of organizational arrangements dealing with safety management and external stakeholder engagement. For more discussion of institutional, organizational, and technical arrangements useful to ICM deployers, additional resources include: NCHRP 337 http://teachamerica.com/accessmanagement.info/pdf/nchrp_syn_337.pdf. ICM Knowledgebase https://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/icms/knowledgebase.htm. P3 homepage https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/. Key Arrangements for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments by Maturity Level This section 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 institutional 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 management, and ped/bike stakeholders). Exercise Purpose. The purpose of the exercise is to collectively assess the maturity of current ICM Exercise Outcomes. The expected outcomes of the exercise are to: a) Improve the level of engagement of all stakeholders in a shared ICM vision, and b) stakeholders. When to Conduct This Exercise. This exercise (or something similar in intent) can be incorporated 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 additional 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 champions 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 would 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, a virtual participation by some (or even all) stakeholders can be supported given that there is a method to collect and display information that all stakeholders 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 (by both in-person attendees and virtual attendees) is likely to be the institutional capital with respect to current or future needs and identify and prioritize the creation or updating of specific institutional, organizational and technical arrangements. Create a punch list of high-priority actions to be taken in strengthening arrangements among

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-15 best solution. One individual should be assigned the role of exercise facilitator (and timekeeper) and another assigned the role of recorder/scribe for the exercise. Plan for at least a 90-minute block to conduct the exercise, split 30 – 60 between the two major steps. Specifically, plan for at least 30 minutes for the collective maturity assessment and at least 60 minutes for the deep dive on identifying specific arrangements to create or update. Prior to the event, exercise organizers should compile all current arrangements and be ready to share both a high-level list of these arrangements (needed in Step 1) and be able to display individual arrangements (needed in Step 2). Further, the list of arrangement types from earlier in this appendix can be a useful reference for participants. Step 1: Collective Maturity Assessment of Current Integrated Corridor Management Institutional Capital The first step in the exercise is to consider the maturity of the ICM system stakeholder institutional capital. Utilize the list of current arrangements (provided as a handout to all participants) and the NCHRP ICM capability maturity model (see FIGURE H.4) in this exercise to characterize the level of maturity indicated by the current collection of arrangements. This characterization should be conducted with respect to five different elements and to generate five different ratings: 1. Without respect to freight, transit, incident management, and pedestrian/bike stakeholders. 2. With respect specifically to freight stakeholders. 3. With respect specifically to transit stakeholders. 4. With respect specifically to incident management stakeholders. 5. With respect specifically to pedestrian/bike stakeholders. FIGURE H.4. NCHRP Integrated Corridor Management Capability Maturity Model (for use in exercise).

H-16 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Using the NCHRP ICM Model in Step 1. The model, while useful, is not a perfect match for assessing institutional capital. First, a structured discussion on how current arrangements line up with the horizontal elements can set the stage. Institutional Integration maps well into Institutional Arrangements, Technical Assess whether the agreements indicate maturity level from 1.0 to 5.0. Based on the current arrangements, where would an independent observer who was able only to read these documents rate the maturity of what had been documented? For the exercise, having one participant lead this discussion followed by a showing of hands around level of maturity assessed by each participant can be useful. Outlier assessments should be discussed by the group to arrive at a consensus value (or average value, if consensus cannot be reached), rated between 1.0 (least mature) and 5.0 (fully mature). Trust Relationships are Not Durable Institutional Capital. Sometimes there is a stronger “feeling of ICM coordination” than reflected in documented ICM arrangements. In this exercise, however, our collective focus is on documented arrangements. Strong trust relationships among individuals or organizations can make it feel like documenting informal arrangements is just extra work. However, much like a committed couple may feel that legal paperwork formalizing the couple’s arrangements is too much hassle or too expensive—when the underlying situation changes, trust relationships may also change. In most of these cases, however, good legal advice will often point out that if the relationship is intended to be long-term, then formalized arrangements are needed to document, preserve, and protect the long-term shared (and individual) interests of the couple over time. Less metaphorically and more specifically, this implies that trust relationships cannot be counted on to be durable over the long term for ICM solutions. In this case, the strength of the durable ICM stakeholder collective vision is only as strong and durable as the institutional arrangements that document this collective vision. Likewise, the amount of deployed equipment (e.g., sensors and controls) is not always proportional to the maturity of ICM institutional capital. Vast and complex subsystems without arrangements for their (at a minimum) coordination and (eventual) appropriate level of integration may have a very low maturity assessment level for its institutional capital. a history of integrating stakeholders from the freight, transit, incident management, and pedestrian/bike stakeholder communities. However, we are interested in the lowest of the ratings to describe ICM maturity for this exercise. Why? There may be a need to return to basics to incorporate the vision and needs of new stakeholders. A common mistake is to assume that new stakeholders can be routinely absorbed into existing organizational forms. The risk in this case is that the new stakeholders and charter stakeholders are never on the same page conceptually, technically, and organizationally. Negative impacts of ad hoc incorporation of new stakeholders can be expensive and institutionally damaging to the ICM concept—since it has an impact on shared trust, perhaps the most crucial shared resource for ICM stakeholders. Where stakeholders are considered critical but not represented in the exercise, consider conducting the exercise again in the future when these stakeholders can be invited and can participate. Classify Overall Maturity. Using the lowest of the five ratings as a guide, as a group, consider three general classifications for overall maturity using our exercise: Emerging ICM Deployments: Maturity ratings of 1 in most categories, particularly for operational and institutional integration. These deployments may be considered aspirational ICM deployments in that there is a significant motivating need for a more integrated solution to corridor management, but little institutional capital. Intermediate Deployments: Maturity ratings of at least 2-3 in most categories, particularly for institutional and operational integration. These deployments are generally representative of corridors after some initial effort at creating a comprehensive ICM solution. As the ICM system Integration into Technical Arrangements, and Operational Integration into Organizational Arrangements. Weakest Link Analysis. Note that there may be a separate higher rating for a current ICM solution without

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-17 matures, there is a need to maintain deployment momentum and create a culture of continuous improvement or risk falling back into old siloed ways with the initial project now complete. • Advanced Deployments: Maturity ratings of at least 4-5 in all categories. These deployments are generally representative of long-standing ICM capabilities now considering more formalized financial and institutional models. Step 2: Identify Critical Integrated Corridor Management Institutional Capital Needs (Create or Update) In this step, we utilize an adapted form of the ICM Implementation Guidance (see FIGURE H.5) to help characterize the gamut of issues facing the ICM deployment, and to gain insight on the highest-priority arrangements to be either created or updated. This provides structure to this step in the exercise to ensure that all issues and needs are considered, not just the most immediate and pressing concerns. Further, different institutional arrangements may be required or updated based on the type of consideration. FIGURE H.5. Adapted Integrated Corridor Management implementation process (for use in exercise). implementation guide provides a useful structure to help in our exercise. We can now examine three distinct phases within the ICM continuous improvement process when considering the need and urgency to create or update institutional, organizational, and technical arrangements: changed. What success looks like and how it is measured may need to be reexamined. The focus here is primarily on institutional arrangements. B: Build/Enhance. Investments have been identified to improve corridor performance but the plan for how to build these new capabilities into the existing system must be determined. Stakeholders must be assured the new system is well designed, maintainable, and tested before bringing new capabilities into routine operational practice. The focus here will be primarily on aspects of technical arrangements. Using the Adapted ICM Implementation Process. Rather than try to address everything all at once, the A: Conceptualize/Adapt. The current ICM concept, boundaries, scope, stakeholders or intent have

H-18 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders C: Operate/Monitor. Operational practices must be updated or altered because of changes in underlying corridor demand, new user needs, the introduction of new technologies, or a change in corridor strategy. The focus in this exercise relates primarily to organizational (operational) arrangements. Exercise for Emerging (Early) Deployments The identification and prioritization activity is broken into three parts. First, we consider the current set of arrangements and their suitability for future use from the vantage points of the Conceptualize/Adapt (A), Build/Enhance (B) and Operate/Maintain (C) perspectives. A: Conceptualize/Adapt Considerations. Here, there is an aspiration either to create a new corridor community or to adapt an existing community significantly to incorporate a new set of stakeholders. The reason for this may be quite specific—sometimes because of a particularly problematic corridor experience, or the need to create a corridor concept to pursue external funding. In this exercise, however, participants are asked to think broadly regarding needs, not just a specific recent use case. Prioritize Top Corridor Needs. Stakeholders share the top five corridor issues/problems that need to be resolved. A scenario-based approach can be useful to frame this needs discussion. Discussion of common issues among corridor stakeholders. Seek to integrate needs into a comprehensive list of no more than 5 top needs. Consider whether corridor performance related to these top needs can be measured. See the ICM Guidebook for key resources. Identify Stakeholder Impact and Potential Response. For each need, determine impact and potential actions taken by stakeholders to assist as part of a coordinated response. See the ICM Guidebook for resources/considerations. Create/Update Corridor Vision, Goals, and ICM Concept Management Arrangements. Take the products of the previous two steps to create or update the corridor vision and goals. If there are limits to stakeholder integration, document this as a part of limitations for systems integration agreement language. B: Build/Enhance Considerations. Now consider what kinds of capabilities an ICM system might need to address the top five needs/use cases. Here the focus is on the technical capability of the ICM system to sense and identify current conditions—and adapt corridor management strategies on the fly. Describe New or Enhanced Applications Needed. Are new capabilities needed to realize stakeholder response? If so, create a short list of the most critical, no more than 10 in total. Note that this is in response to the complete set of needs, not for each need. Identify Gaps and Required Technical Integration. Rate each of the new capabilities as a major, Create/Update Systems Engineering Management Arrangements, Data Sharing Arrangements. Take the products of the previous two steps to note needs to create or update engineering arrangements linked to a SEMP, and data sharing agreements. minor, or no gap compared to current deployed capabilities. In each rating, note which stakeholders would need to be involved in deploying the technical solution—and if there are arrangements for coordinating an integrated solution. Second, note where data would need to be shared among stakeholders—and if arrangements are in place for supporting these data flows.

Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements H-19 C: Operate/Monitor Considerations. Now consider what kinds of operational coordination among stakeholders would be needed to realize the technical capabilities discussed in the prior step. Rate Operational Readiness. For each of the 10 critical technical capabilities, rate the readiness of stakeholders to realize this in operational form as either major, minor, or no operational gap. In each, make a note of the rationale/barrier to realizing this capability. Create/Update Operational Mode and Procedures Arrangements. Take the products of the previous two steps to note needs to create or update high-level operational arrangements. Wrap Up. Now briefly consider if there is a need to document or update other specialized elements to document in institutional, organizational, and technical arrangements. This may be as simple as noting a need to modify organizational form in the institutional arrangement, or a note regarding cybersecurity needs for technical arrangements. An output of this effort is the list of high-priority actions needed to be taken regarding arrangements among stakeholders. It may be useful while the group is assembled to further prioritize proposed actions (if needed) and assign a stakeholder lead to carry out the actions associated with creating new arrangements or updating current arrangements. Exercise for Intermediate Deployments Repeat the Early Deployment Exercise with the following modifications/additions to the three substeps. A. Conceptualize/Adapt Considerations. Additionally, address needs related to System Integration arrangements, and specifically identify Financial and Capital Planning Arrangements needed to fund the enhancements. B. Build/Enhance Considerations. Specifically call out needed updates to Operational Readiness/Acceptance Testing arrangements. C. Operate/Monitor Considerations. Note all needs to create or update a separate detailed set of Cyber Security Arrangements. Note changes to Tactical Operations Action Planning Arrangements. Exercise for Advanced Deployments Repeat the Early Deployment Exercise with the following modifications/additions to the three substeps: A. Conceptualize/Adapt Considerations. End with a step assessing the limitations of current Financial and Capital Planning arrangements and related Organizational Forms and Governance Policy arrangements. Note potential steps and possibilities of more advanced organizational forms (see next section). B. Build/Enhance Considerations. Include explicit consideration of Safety/Emergency Management Arrangement and Data Privacy Arrangements. C. Operate/Monitor Considerations. Assess need for update to External Stakeholder Engagement Protocols/Procedures Arrangements.

Next: Appendix I - Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks »
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!