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.

1 One area of transportation operations that has the potential for increased efficiency lies in how transportation agencies coordinate day-to-day operations along heavily traveled cor- ridors. Along most urban transportation corridors, each transportation agency within the corridor (e.g., local departments of transportation, bus operators, light rail operators, etc.) typically handles operations independently, with the exception of incidents or planned events. As road users experience increased levels of congestion, delay, and incidents, this operational model has become less effective in meeting the transportation needs of the people that rely on the corridor.1 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) is an approach to improving transportation that takes into account all elements in a corridor, such as highways, arterial roads, and transit systems. By optimizing the use of existing infrastructure assets through coordinated transportation manage- ment techniques, transportation investments can go further. Many corridors in the country have underutilized capacity (in the form of arterials, freeway travel lanes and parallel transit capacity [e.g., bus, rail, bus rapid transit, etc.]) that could benefit from ICM. The maturation of intel- ligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies, availability of supporting data, and emerging multi-agency institutional frameworks make ICM practical and feasible. Many freeway, arte- rial, and transit optimization strategies available today are already in widespread use across the United States. Most of these strategies are managed locally by individual agencies on an uncoordinated basis. Even those managed regionally are often managed in isolation (asset-by- asset) rather than in an integrated fashion across a transportation corridor. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) started the ICM Initiative in 2006 to explore and develop ICM concepts and approaches. Since then, ICM has gained traction nationwide as a way to efficiently and proactively manage the movement of people and goods in major transportation corridors. To date, improving the mobility of motor- ists has been the main focus of many ICM projects. This approach often neglects the needs of other roadway users. This report provides guidance for transportation decision makers to incorporate freight, transit, incident response, and non-motorized transportation stakeholders – collectively referred to as non-traditional stakeholders – into the ICM plan- ning process. The guidance is based on documented lessons learned from agencies that have implemented ICM. C H A P T E R 1 Introduction 1 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management and Transit and Mobility on Demand, FHWA-HOP- 16-036. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16036/fhwahop16036.pdf.

2 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Objectives of the Guidebook The biggest challenges and hurdles for agencies considering operational transportation improvements are most often institutional, cultural, and collaborative—not technological. In order to further the success of ICM initiatives nationwide, this Guidebook focuses on strategies, constraints, and opportunities for developing the institutional capabilities and arrangements to support effective ICM, rather than on specific technological components and considerations. This Guidebook provides the resources to: • Equip transportation decisionmakers with a systematic approach to engaging non-traditional stakeholder groups in ICM planning. • Give transportation decisionmakers the tools to present a strong case to management on why to involve non-traditional stakeholder groups. • Provide transportation decisionmakers with insights on the objectives and needs of each non-traditional stakeholder group to develop win-win scenarios to engage non-traditional stakeholder groups to come on board the ICM planning process. The Guidebook articulates the value of ICM, specifically the value of broadening ICM stakeholders. and the intricacies of each individual non-traditional stakeholder group (i.e., freight, transit, incident response, and non-motorized stakeholders), including key represen- tatives, objectives, constraints, and opportunities to benefit from ICM. Appendices provide more in-depth reference materials focusing on specific aspects of ICM. The appendices are described below: A. Characteristics of Recurrent and Non-Recurrent Congestion – Discusses several common methods for evaluating the extent, severity, and/or impact of recurrent and non-recurrent congestion, along with methods for analyzing their causes. B. Overview of Integrated Corridor Management – Provides a brief overview of ICM for readers who are not familiar with the topic. C. Stakeholder Interview Participants – Lists the stakeholders who were interviewed as part of this project. D. Performance Measure Guidance – Describes common performance measures used in ICM evaluation. E. Analysis Methodology, Tools, and Plan – Outlines the steps involved in ICM analysis, modeling, and simulation (AMS) and how it is used for alternatives analysis. F. Data Needs Assessment – Details the common data needs to support ICM and how to develop a plan to gather such data. G. Documentation for Integrated Corridor Management Deployments – Provides design details of real-world ICM systems, including the I-15 and U.S. 75 Demonstration Sites, as well as the smaller scale Kansas I-35 ICM project. Who Should Read This Report? The intended audience for this report includes transportation decisionmakers from state, regional, and local departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, and other agencies that may be involved in or want to embark on an ICM effort and are looking for guidance on how to incorporate freight, transit, incident response, and/or non-motorized transportation stakeholders into the ICM planning process. “ICM projects are 70% partnerships and relationship- building, and 30% technological.” – Nick Compin, Office of Strategic Development, Caltrans

Introduction 3 H. Institutional, Organizational, and Technical Arrangements – Goes into more details and examples of institutional, organizational, and technical arrangements. I. Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks – Describes potential alterna- tive frameworks that may be useful for ICM planning and deployment, particularly when it comes to engaging a diverse set of stakeholders. Value of Integrated Corridor Management Although agencies tend to measure the value of ICM through travel time savings, improve- ments in travel time reliability, and reduction of fuel and emissions, ICM also is valuable in developing interagency relationships and communication. The value of ICM is illustrated in Exhibit 1, which contrasts two Major Freeway Incident Response Plan scenarios for a major freeway incident that occurs during the afternoon peak period, causing two lanes of traffic to be blocked for 3 hours. The first scenario describes traffic operations without ICM. The second scenario demonstrates the value that ICM can add in such situations. The functionality of ICM is summarized in Figure 1. The outer circle lists the main elements of ICM, while the inner circle lists general ICM strategies. Table 1 provides an overview of the ICM strategies included in the FHWA demonstration sites’ ICM deployments so as to provide a clear picture of what may be feasible to deploy. Regional mobility and safety challenges will not be addressed through the actions of a single agency – active coordination among organizations is critical to solving these issues. The syner- gies and shared goals of the corridor operators in the scenario with ICM are clear and mutually beneficial. Without ICM Traf�ic management center (TMC) staff receive a call reporting the incident and notify highway patrol and �irst responders to clear the incident. Highway patrol closest to the incident head over and set up cones to close the two left lanes affected by the incident, causing traf�ic to back up on the remaining lanes. Watching the action on their camera feed, TMC staff change the message on the dynamic message signs (DMSs) in the impacted area, alerting travelers to slow down, merge into the right lanes, and proceed with caution. Once the incident is cleared, highway patrol noti�ies TMC staff to clear the incident noti�ication from the DMSs. With ICM TMC staff and highway patrol receive a call indicating the incident’s location. TMC staff verify the incident on the video feed from their closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and review the recommended ICM response plans speci�ied for a major freeway incident at the affected location which are generated in near-real-time by the ICM decision support system (DSS) based on the set of business rules and response postures designed for the corridor. At the same time, the incident responders use Emergency Vehicle Signal Preemption to get to the scene of the accident, shaving critical minutes off their response time. Once the incident responders close the left two lanes and assess the situation, they enter the estimated incident clearance time into the Regional Event Management System, which is automatically fed into the ICM system (ICMS). This proactive approach to traf�ic management by both the operators and incident responders enhances response and control of unexpected incidents. Once the TMC staff and stakeholders sign off on the recommended response plan, existing infrastructure is optimized to disseminate pertinent traveler information to the public. The DMSs in the affected region, as well as other traveler information sources (e.g., 511) are automatically updated to broadcast incident noti�ication, providing improved situational awareness to corridor users and advising travelers to take speci�ic alternate routes or shift to transit. If the alternate route does not support freight vehicles, the traveler information sources alert trucks to stay on the freeway. The better-informed travelers who detour off the freeway are further aided by a new signal timing plan on the alternate route (one component of the recommended response plan) that gives more green time to the �low of the detoured traf�ic, while transit operators prepare for increased volumes by adding more buses or light-rail vehicles along the impacted route. This dynamic management of supply relative to demand reduces the negative impacts to corridor performance in the event of an incident. Exhibit 1. Comparison of two scenarios for responding to a major freeway incident.

4 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Value of Incorporating Non-Traditional Stakeholders As congestion and the number of incidents steadily increase in urban areas nationwide, occasional collaboration and interaction among transportation agencies within a corridor are no longer sufficient to address the transportation needs of the traveling public. Although engaging additional groups of stakeholders is no easy task, doing so ensures that ICM strategies are designed with all roadway users in mind. Communicating the benefits of integration may be among the most effective approaches to encourage participation in ICM projects. ICM leaders must build a compelling case to incorpo- rate non-traditional stakeholder groups in ICM projects by understanding the benefits to cor- ridor operators and to the stakeholder groups themselves. Through collaboration, both corridor Source: Federal Highway Administration Figure 1. Functionality of Integrated Corridor Management systems. U.S. 75 ICM Strategies I-15 ICM Strategies • Providing improved multimodal traveler information (pre-trip, en-route) • Developing preapproved ICM system (ICMS) response plans • Developing a decision support system (DSS) to support ICM strategy identi�ication and selection • Diverting traf�ic to key frontage roads and arterials (Greenville Ave.) with coordinated and responsive traf�ic signal control • Encouraging travelers to use transit during major incidents on the freeway • Active DSS • Coordinated incident management • Freeway coordinated ramp metering • Actionable traveler information • Upgrades to selected traf�ic signal systems (new traf�ic signal coordination timings, responsive traf�ic signal control) • Alternate route way�inding signs Source: USDOT Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation for the U.S.-75 Corridor in Dallas, Texas Post-Deployment Assessment Report, FHWA-JPO-16-396. Available at: https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/60000/60400/60490/FHWA-JPO-16-396.pdf; USDOT Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation for the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California Post-Deployment Assessment Report, FHWA-JPO-16-403. Available at: https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/61000/61100/61131/FHWA-JPO-16-403.pdf. Table 1. Overview of strategies included in demonstration sites’ Integrated Corridor Management deployments.

Introduction 5 operators and freight stakeholders can gain insight into ICM strategies that they may not have otherwise considered. This section presents the benefits of incorporating non-traditional stake- holder groups into ICM planning into two subsections for each stakeholder group: (1) benefits for the stakeholder group themselves; and (2) benefits for the transportation agencies leading the ICM project. Freight Stakeholders Many urban area freight corridors are being examined as potential ICM corridors, making freight an essential ICM stakeholder. FHWA’s Integrated Corridor Management and Freight Opportunities report2 presents benefits that the freight community can expect to experience if they are integrated into ICM projects (see Figure 2). Benefits for Freight Stakeholders On a typical corridor, work zones or congestion management strategies are not planned, executed, or communicated in an integrated fashion. The information that is available to the public often resides on disparate channels, making it difficult to see the complete picture. In an ICM corridor, freight stakeholders can receive regular, validated information updates (e.g., travel times, incidents, work zones, road closures, suggested alternate routes, etc.) from operating agencies along the corridor. This provides truck operators and dispatchers with improved situational awareness of conditions on the corridor, which is especially critical given that the cost of congestion is felt throughout the supply chain and eventually is passed on to consumers themselves in the form of higher prices on goods and products. By becoming involved in the ICM planning process, freight stakeholders may be able to request additional Source: Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HOP-15-018 Figure 2. Benefits of integrating freight and Integrated Corridor Management. 2 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management and Freight Opportunities. FHWA-HOP-15-018, December 2015. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15018/fhwahop15018.pdf.

6 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders information that they would like to receive through the ICM platform, such as information on truck-specific travel times, truck parking availability, and truck restrictions on proposed alternate routes. With insight into accurate, current conditions along the corridor, freight operators and dis- patchers can be proactive, instead of reactive, in selecting routes, timing deliveries, and manag- ing truck driver hours of service and available equipment. Selecting alternate routes with less congestion can reduce operational costs, as a result of fuel, driver, and equipment savings. Benefits for Transportation Agencies Additional benefits can stem from the very act of collaborating with the freight community. Gaining buy-in from freight stakeholders can help ICM project leaders make a case for ICM in a region while providing a platform for freight stakeholders to share the unique challenges that they face from a corridor user’s perspective and provide input into the design of a system that can better meet their needs. Freight community knowledge of major route decision points can also help inform the geographic scope of dynamic message signs included in ICM strategies. Untapped data that can be shared from the freight community (e.g., truck origins and destina- tions, port turn times, etc.) can help to provide a more robust picture of traffic conditions within a corridor or region. Transit Stakeholders FHWA’s Integrated Corridor Management, Transit, and Mobility on Demand report3 states that the best way to gain buy-in and support from transit agencies is to articulate how ICM can help them achieve their transit-specific goals (see Figure 3). 3 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management, Transit, and Mobility on Demand. FHWA-HOP-16-036, March 2016. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16036/fhwahop16036.pdf. Figure 3. Benefits of integrating transit and Integrated Corridor Management.

Introduction 7 Benefits for Transit Stakeholders ICM can improve the mobility, safety, security, quality, and efficient use of capacity for transit modes and services. ICM-transit integration can lead to enhanced data and information sharing between agencies, which is key to providing a more comprehensive picture of current network conditions. This increases the monitoring capabilities of both transit agencies and ICM corridor operators (in some cases, these roles may overlap) and can enable transit operators to better manage their resources for maximum system efficiency. For example, if a roadway incident causes motorists to switch to transit in order to avoid delays, then transit operators can make short-term adjustments in response to the incident by dispatching additional transit vehicles to accommodate the increase in demand. If long-term monitoring reveals that a certain transit route is consistently nearing maximum capacity, transit operators can make permanent changes to add additional vehicles during these recurring conditions. Transit schedules and routes can also be proactively adjusted in anticipation of planned roadway events (e.g., street closures). ICM-transit integration has the potential to increase transit ridership by enabling more efficient service, faster incident response, and improved reliability. By disseminating comprehensive and validated data on current conditions (e.g., transit vehicle expected arrival times, travel times, delays, passenger occupancies, transfer options, etc.) in a coordinated manner, the end-users of the transportation network can benefit from better service and make more informed decisions about when and how they travel. By funding projects that improve transit travel time or accessibility, public transportation may become a more appeal- ing travel option for roadway users, leading to increased ridership. Increased ridership leads to secondary benefits, such as increased transit service revenue, reduced vehicular demands, lower fuel consumption, and reduced emissions. In return, transit agencies may be able to increase the affordability of transit service due to increased revenue from additional riders. Benefits for Transportation Agencies On a planning level, coordinated planning between agencies can help identify opportunities where various improvements can be incorporated into the same design and construction and where key infrastructure (e.g., a communication network) can be implemented to serve multiple purposes and agencies. This proactive coordination can help eliminate redundancies and mini- mize disruptions for construction, both of which lead to significant cost savings. In addition, transit agencies that participate in a coordinated initiative like ICM may be able to make stronger arguments to secure funding for various improvements that provide direct travel time benefits for transit along an ICM corridor, such as an automated vehicle location (AVL) system for buses that feeds data into an ICM system. Transit priority signal systems on arterials, transit traveler information (e.g., transfer locations and times, accessibility, etc.), and integrated fare payment are examples of strategies that may be included in an ICM program. Incident Response Stakeholders Traffic incident management (TIM) can support ICM safety and mobility objectives when incidents occur along the corridor. In a reciprocal fashion, ICM is made up of tools that can help incident responders meet their objectives for responder safety, quick incident clear- ance, and prompt, reliable, and interoperable communications. FHWA’s Integrated Corridor Management and Traffic Incident Management: A Primer report4 describes the potential for mutual benefits resulting from ICM-TIM integration (see Figure 4). 4 Federal Highway Administration, Integrated Corridor Management and Traffic Incident Management: A Primer. FHWA-HOP-16-035, January 2016. Available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16035/fhwahop16035.pdf.

8 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Benefits for Incident Response Stakeholders Managing transportation infrastructure as an integrated system can benefit TIM programs in many ways. When incidents do occur, ICM strategies can be deployed to reroute and divert traffic away from the incident scene to clear the way for incident responder vehicles to approach the incident more quickly and safely, respond to those in need, and transport victims to care. Motorists can be encouraged to proceed more cautiously around incident responders on scene, thereby improving the safety of the responders. By diverting roadway traffic to other facilities or modes, incident queues are reduced, which helps to minimize the potential for secondary incidents, thus allowing traffic flow to be restored more quickly. Incident responder stakeholders may also benefit from the inventory of available traffic management and transportation operations infrastructure, systems, and assets. For example, 511 systems, which are usually managed by state and regional transportation agencies, may be an effective platform for incident responders to disseminate incident alerts. Traffic manage- ment centers may also be ideal places to co-locate TIM personnel. This allows traffic operators and incident responders to share traffic monitoring video feeds and coordinate an immediate response when an incident is detected. In areas where the TIM program may not be as well established or formalized, ICM provides a platform for collaboration among TIM partners and a proving ground for coordinated incident response. Resulting relationships among TIM stakeholders can eventually be capitalized on and used to expand and formalize the TIM program beyond the ICM corridor. Benefits for Transportation Agencies As with the integration of freight and transit data, the integration of TIM data helps pro- vide an additional facet to the comprehensive situational awareness of corridor activity. Data such as anticipated incident duration, incident and roadway clearance times, occurrence of secondary incidents, and recommended alternate routes allow for more robust ICM DSS. TIM stake holders can inform the DSS by providing valuable insights on where motorists Figure 4. Benefits of integrating incident response and Integrated Corridor Management.

Introduction 9 should be rerouted when incidents occur, or what potential corridor effects to expect from planned special events such as sporting events, concerts, major conventions, and visiting dignitaries. By providing real-time updates about incident-related delays and expected roadway clear- ance times, motorists can better understand the incident impacts on travel times and make the appropriate alternate route or modal choices, which can help improve corridor performance. Non-Motorized Roadway Users Non-motorized roadway users are often an overlooked stakeholder group in ICM planning. However, there are opportunities for collaboration in ICM, as safety, the utmost concern of non-motorized roadway users, is also a high-priority ICM performance metric (see Figure 5). Benefits for Non-Motorized Roadway Users Engagement with this stakeholder group can provide insights on how they can be affected by traffic management strategies that typically prioritize motorists above all other users. For example, arterial diversion routes are usually programmed to give major arterials more green time to maximize vehicle throughput. As a result, pedestrians and bicyclists at signalized crosswalks may experience increased levels of delay, which can be exacerbated by exposure to the elements (e.g., rain, snow, and vehicle exhaust). To improve equity in these situations, ICM strategies involving signal coordination may be redesigned to consider pedestrian and bicyclist progression. Awareness of heavily traveled pedestrian and bicyclist routes within an ICM corridor can help inform suitable diversion routes for vehicles or pedestrians/bicyclists. Non-motorized roadway users are limited in their ability to divert long distances – even half a mile may be considered a long distance to non-motorized roadway users. Also, pedestrians and bicyclists tend not to access traveler information sources pre-trip or en route as motorists do, so it may be easier to divert motorists instead. Figure 5. Benefits of integrated non-motorized roadway users and Integrated Corridor Management.

10 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Benefits for Transportation Agencies Several ICM projects have encountered roadblocks related to the proposed strategies that may pose additional risk to these physically vulnerable roadway users. For example, in situa- tions of major freeway congestion, ICM strategies may temporarily route traffic onto major arterial streets – the influx of vehicle drivers who may be unfamiliar with the alternate route can cause additional safety concerns at conflict points with pedestrians and bicyclists, who may be uninformed of the sudden increase in vehicular traffic. All jurisdictions within an ICM cor- ridor must be on board in order for an ICM project to be successful. Integrating the needs and concerns of non-motorized roadway users into ICM planning is one way to gain support from local agencies for ICM. Increasing the convenience of non-motorized roadway usage can help reduce demand for driving. Identifying accessibility and connectivity pain points of bicyclists, pedestrians, and people with disabilities helps to develop a sustainable corridor and may also help increase transit ridership. Integrated Corridor Management Planning Framework This framework (see Exhibit 2) covers the main elements of the ICM planning process. It was developed to help transportation agency decisionmakers engage freight, transit, inci- dent response, and non-motorized stakeholders in an ICM project in a way that is beneficial to all parties. Chapters 2 through 9 work through this approach, providing guidance tailored to each non-traditional stakeholder group to tackle the list of critical ICM planning questions. ICM planning questions (grouped by task) are presented in Exhibit 3. Based on agency prefer- ence, the framework tasks can be done in any order, but no tasks should be skipped. Based on agency preference, the framework tasks can be done in any order, but no tasks should be skipped. Exhibit 2. Integrated Corridor Management planning framework.

Introduction 11 1. Identify & Diagnose Problem • What is the main problem we are trying to address? Is it related to improving mobility, reliability, safety or other? • How do we diagnose and characterize the problem? • Is this problem one that is suitable for ICM? 2. Establish ICM Objectives & Scale • What goals are we trying to achieve in addressing and mitigating the identi�ied problem? • What measurable objectives should we set in order to determine whether this project is successful? • What are some tiered ICM implementation options if we don’t have the budget to build a full-scale ICM system? 3. Determine Potential Partners • Who will be directly or indirectly affected by this ICM project? • Who should we reach out to in each stakeholder group? • Who are the top priority in terms of groups, agencies, or people that we need to engage? • How do we identify these entities in our region? 4. Assess Potential Partners’ Needs • Do we share the same objectives? What are the main objectives of each stakeholder group? • What are the major concerns this stakeholder group has in getting involved in ICM? 5. Designate Performance Metrics & Data Sources • Which performance metrics should we use to evaluate how well our ICM project meets our goals and objectives? • Which performance metrics are important to this stakeholder group? • What data can be used to measure performance metrics of interest? 6. Engage Potential Partners • What are the bene�its to this stakeholder group for getting involved? What are the bene�its to transportation agencies for getting this stakeholder group involved? • What can the ICM project offer to this stakeholder group? • What are the best channels of communication with our identi�ied stakeholder entities? • 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? 7. Develop ICM System Concept • Which ICM strategies will help us achieve our goals for this ICM project? • Which ICM strategies will help this stakeholder group achieve their objectives? • How will this stakeholder group be involved in ICM response plans? • How can we analyze the expected impacts of the envisioned ICM system? • What resources are available from successful ICM projects? 8. Initiate Formal Arrangements • How do we formalize this ICM process so that we can ensure that our response plans operate smoothly in the long term? • What types of arrangements are suitable for our ICM project? • As the demands of our ICM system change over time, how does our organizational form need to adapt? Based on agency preference, the framework tasks can be done in any order, but no tasks should be skipped. Exhibit 3. Integrated Corridor Management planning questions.

12 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Integrated Corridor Management Capability Maturity Model The Capability Maturity Model (see Table 2) is a tool used nationwide to evaluate the matu- rity of ICM programs and is useful for self-assessment in the ICM Planning Framework. This table provides information related to the three key areas that are critical in ICM projects: • Operational Integration – operating agencies within the corridor need a cooperative opera- tional mindset, as well as interagency data and information sharing. • Technical Integration – ITS infrastructure and technology are needed for monitoring, analytics, decision support systems, and information dissemination. • Institutional Integration – institutional partnerships (e.g., agreements/memorandums of understanding, defined roles and responsibilities, etc.) are needed among the operating agencies within the ICM corridor. Using the table, agencies can identify where their ICM project stands now and where they want to be. The levels between the current level of maturity and the end goal provide incremental steps toward achieving the desired maturity.

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 2. Integrated corridor management capability maturity model.