# Presentation: 578208

## ICM Houston – IH 10

**John M. Gaynor, P.E., Director**
**Transportation Management Systems **
**Texas Department of Transportation, Houston District**
**Houston TranStar**

## Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10

- The corridor is home to more than 890,000 residents in about 350,000 households
- The corridor is projected to add over 1,000,000 more residents in the next two decades.
- The corridor has over 617,000 employees and three major employment centers:
- The Energy Corridor
- The Westchase District
- The Uptown Houston/Galleria

**Notes:**
This information was gathered from HGAC.
The 20 million VMT figure is from the last available HGAC model runs available at the time of writing the ConOps.

## Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10

- Total VMT in corridor: 20 million miles per day (2002)
- Estimated 380,000 transit passenger miles per day (2002)
- AM & PM Peak Periods - IH 10 & US 290 HOVLs:
- Carry 330+ buses (per day)
- Carry 15,000+ vehicles (per day)
- Carry 43,000+ passenger trips (per day)
- 9270 parking spaces at Park & Rides on IH 10 & US 290
- 7500 daily parking utilization at Park & Rides (70-110%, avg. 80%+)

## Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10

**Major Corridor Infrastructure**
**IH 10 (HOV+ML)**
**IH 610**
**US 59**
**US 290 (HOV+ML)**
**Westpark Tollway**
**Sam Houston **
**	****(Beltway 8) Toll Road**
**State Highway 6**
**State Highway 99**
**Transit Capability**
**Rapid Transit (on HOV)**
**Express (coming soon)**
**Local**

**Notes:**
The thin blue line defines the HCDR “control area” network 
The thick wide blue line outlines complete HCDR network and WHICM Corridor
The red line outlines IH-10 Katy freeway managed lane project and IH 10 Corridor, which serves as a hurricane evacuation route. 
The yellow highlighted lines are hurricane evacuation routes in corridor 
*Harris County’s ACS Lite locations identified along SH 6 [Clay Road to W. Little York] with traffic signal icons 

Transit ridership in the corridor estimated to be 380,000 passenger miles per day within the corridor.

## Operational – Why Houston needs ICM Corridor on IH 10

-  T

-  T

-  T

- HCDR Detail Corridor

-  PR

-  PR

-  PR

-  PR

-  PR

-  PR

-  PR

-  PR

## Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10

- Significant Mainlane Congestion on  IH 10
- Solid line shows speeds eastbound (2004)
- Congested from 6 am to 8 pm

**Notes:**
Dashed line is the incident alarm trigger speed.
Even with reconstruction and the managed lanes, the facility will be stressed over the next decade as growth occurs in the corridor – it’s not just a suburb to CBD facility – it feeds those three other “downtowns” within the corridor, in addition to the CBD.

## Operational - Local/Express Bus Transit Components

- IH 10

- State Hwy 6

- Sam Houston Tollway

- Westpark Tollway

- I 610

- US 290

## Operational – How ICM will help our Site

- Currently there is good coordination between agencies.
- TranStar is a common platform for ITS data, but system is largely reactive at this time (lots of data coming in, limited capability for control, but very robust incident management capability).
- ICM will integrate more ITS data that spans modes and facilities.
- The ICM system will ultimately take the real-time transportation system ITS data, compile it for _more coordinated operational use _among the partner agencies, then disseminate a consolidated transportation system information package that crosses agencies, travel modes, and travel facilities.

**Notes:**
The links between various agency systems offer more opportunities to extend the regional ITS capability to span agencies, modes and facilities.  These opportunities exist, not a result of predefined agency positions to keep their systems separate, but as a result of each agency concentrating on their core operational responsibilities and moving towards those goals.  That is certainly not to say that the partner agencies have not achieved a great deal of integration of their systems.  TxDOT, METRO, Harris County and the City of Houston have all financially and organizationally dedicated themselves to share ITS data and information as part of a larger regional ITS operational vision through the TranStar partnership.  

## Operational – How ICM will help our Site

- Goals for the ICM System on IH 10 in Houston:
- All agencies operate with a systematic view of movement within the corridor
- consideration that an individual agency’s goals and objectives will not trump, or conflict with, the effectiveness of the combined agency ICM objectives
- Enhancement of corridor mobility and reliability
- manage delay and utilize spare capacity within the corridor by temporal, route and/or mode shifts
- Providing comprehensive traveler information in the corridor
- Personalized for all modes, in real-time
- Enhancement of incident management within the corridor
- Incidents/crashes
- Special, planned events , including construction
- Emergencies

**Notes:**
The Systematic View of Operations within the Corridor.   A corridor perspective should continue to be established among the TranStar agency partners and other stakeholders in the corridor. Coordination must take place that leads to consideration that an individual agency’s goals and objectives will not trump, or conflict with, the effectiveness of the combined agency ICM objectives.  This corridor perspective can be enhanced and encouraged through existing mechanisms (TranStar Leadership and Executive Committees) and measured using agreed-upon performance measures. All participating agencies should encumber both appropriate operational responsibilities, share some level of influence over each others ITS systems, and contribute to an ICM system funding structure, maintenance of the regional ITS architecture, use of applicable ITS standards, and development of corridor-based performance monitoring.

Enhancing Corridor Mobility and Reliability.  The TranStar partner agencies have made significant contributions over the past decade to increase the mobility and reliability of their individual networks through both capital improvements and operational enhancement (ITS).  This trend will undoubtedly continue. The ICM program will build on these previous efforts by further enabling the agencies to manage delay and utilize spare capacity within the corridor by temporal, route and/or mode shifts.  ICM will contribute to all agency missions by providing a multimodal interconnect between systems that will encourage a reduction in overall total trip- and person-travel time through the corridor, improve travel time predictability, increase transit ridership, encouraging vanpooling and carpooling, and improve commercial vehicle operations through and around the corridor.  Transportation demand strategies, including trip reductions strategies (telecommuting, etc.) should also be part of the overall ICM concept.

Providing Comprehensive Traveler Information in the Corridor.  Houston area travelers have available to them a very robust set of existing traffic data tools, but it is currently limited to only a few modes and controlled access facilities.  As part of ICM, travelers must be provided with a holistic view of travel options in the corridor in a real-time (or near-real-time) manner.  This information must have the driver’s confidence so it should be accurate and reliable for all mode choices available.  Traveler information should include total trip time, not just the portion of trip made on HOVLs, freeways or tollways.  Information should also be provided so that drivers can make informed choices regarding departure time, mode and route, or whether to make the trip at all.

Enhancing Incident Management within the Corridor.  There rarely exists an incident-free day within the WHICM Corridor.  Another goal of this concept should be to provide an integrated corridor approach during incident management, special or planned events, and emergencies that occur within the corridor (or that have regional impacts).  The synergy afforded by the ICM concept and the data availability to adequately determine available system capacities will assist in the operation of the corridor during incident conditions so that the corridor returns back to normal conditions as soon as possible.  The ICM concept should include greater emphasis on pre-planning, multi-agency coordinated responses during incidents, and expedited updates to the traveler information systems. 

## Institutional – Who are the Houston ICM Stakeholders

***Institutional – Who are the Houston ICM Stakeholders***

- TranStar Partners:
- State of Texas (TxDOT, TxDPS)
- Harris County (HCPID, HCTRA, HCOEM)
- City of Houston, Texas (Traffic, Police/Fire)
- Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO/PD)
- State, County, Local Law Enforcement
- Smaller Cities/Villages (8)
- Federal Agencies (FHWA/FTA/DHS/FEMA)
- Private towing companies, information service providers, fleet operators
- In all, 15 primary stakeholders and 14 secondary stakeholders were identified.

## Institutional – How Our Site Defined Roles and Achieved Buy-in Among ICM Stakeholders

- Houston is lucky!  The TranStar partnership was established over ten years ago with many agreements in place and an existing organizational structure.
- Some agreements in place;
- TranStar Master Operating Agreement
- Fiber sharing agreements (various agencies)
- HOVL/Managed Lanes agreements
- Incident Management agreements
- Very little institutional _dis_agreement existed about ICM
- The “it’s our project” factor was not present – so who’s the champion?

## Institutional – Existing Stakeholder ITS Infrastructure Subsystems Feeding ICM

- Communication Networks (Fiber Backbone, Wireless Networks, and Hardwire (Copper) Communication Lines)
- Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
- Automatic Vehicle Identification System (AVI)
- Spot Speed and Traffic Volume Detection (via inductive loops and microwave radar)
- Dynamic Message Signs (DMS)
- Highway Advisory Radio (HAR)
- Freeway Ramp Meters (Flow Signals)
- Traffic Signals/Regional Computerized Traffic Signal System (RCTSS)
- Roadway Weather Information System (RWIS)

- Harris County Flood Sensors
- Truck Rollover Ramp Warning System (for freeway-to-freeway connectors)
- Automated Traveler Information System
- Regional Incident Management System (RIMS)
- Regional Integrated Traffic Management System (RITMS)
- Queue/Congestion Warning Systems
- Regional Maintenance Database Management System (RMDBMS)
- Arterial Traffic Signal Systems (RCTSS)
- Transit data, trip scheduling and trip planning

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Data inputs from field devices as processed by individual subsystems.

- The ICM system processes subsystem data and prepares ICM multi-agency use

- The ICM system then processes ICM data and packages near real-time corridor data for multi-agency operations and decision support as well as public consumption

**Notes:**
Oversimplified version of the system.

Data comes in from the Freeway/Tollway ITS subsystems (DMS, CCTV, ramp meters, construction databases), Incident database (RIMS), arterial ITS subsystems, and transit subsystems.
An ICM data server(s)

## Technical - DMS Comparison of Freeway to HOV Travel Times on Katy Freeway

**        ****· ****HOV Travel Times****	****	****   ****· ****Freeway Travel Times**

## Technical – Traveler Information on Next Generation PDA

## Technical – How our ICMS will facilitate ICM

- The deployment of the ICM concept will require the further integration of individual-agency ITS elements (not already integrated)
- We will be able to achieve ICM across certain networks (for instance, freeway/tollway and HOV/transit network) now.
- The AVI travel time system could be combined with METRO’s transit ITS data to produce a traveler information system to compare travel times (and potentially costs) associated with a choice between freeway mainlanes, HOV-carpool, or HOV-Bus Rapid Transit.
- The limiting factor to a “complete” ICMS would be the lack of arterial travel time information to provide the arterial option(s).

**Notes:**
The AVI travel time system could be combined, in a relatively short time-frame (1-3 years), with METRO’s transit ITS data to produce a traveler information system to compare travel time (and potential costs) associated with a choice between freeway mainlanes, HOV-carpool, or HOV-Bus Rapid Transit on both IH 10 and US 290.  However the limiting factor to this system (currently) would be the lack of arterial travel time information and reporting capability which would limit the capability for motorists to get near-“door-to-door” travel time information.  

## Technical – How our ICMS will facilitate ICM

- ICMS will allow for a more multi-modal view of the corridor
- Easier coordination and cooperation
- Access to multi-agency data, single user interface, common platform (but agencies can repackage if they wish)
- Encourage transit use by providing new, more visible source of info
- Encourage management of network junctions and interchanges
- Induce discussions on policy and procedures that address resource sharing and operations of other agency systems
- Provide a single point of traveler information multi-modal in nature.

**Notes:**
Fostering of a more multi-modal view of corridor operations, focusing on the system operators and travelers – a shift away from the generally “stovepiped” development of ITS systems over the past few decades.

Enhanced partner agency coordination and communication through integration of operational systems. This is done now with great success operationally, but there is a need to expand the multi-modal operational capability during both normal and incident conditions and enhance the traveler information capability of these systems.  

Developing and enhancing the existing operational information capability through creation or enhancement of existing systems that will be available to all agency partners, with a single user interface and through the use of regionally defined GIS references.

Increased dedication to the use of accepted standards that result in system interoperability among partner agencies.  The use of the regional ITS architecture should continue to be emphasized and required for all regional ITS development by all partner agencies.

Encouraging transit usage within the WHICM corridor by providing new traveler information about this mode of travel.

Enhanced multi-agency operational coordination of network junctions and interchanges in the corridor.  Examples would be at freeway/tollway entry and exit ramps and nearby arterial signals, signalized intersections and transit operations (use of priority preemption, etc.).

Continued development of policy and procedures for the joint use of resources and infrastructure to leverage equipment use between agencies.

Continue to enhance the coordinated and efficient response to incidents.  For a decade incident management has been a strong point of the multi-agency operations at TranStar.  ICM systems can further the operational capability by providing real-time operational information across the entire transportation system allowing managers to make more informed decisions during critical times.

Provide a mechanism for increased public information dissemination and outreach through direct (through agency and TranStar websites) and indirect (through private media and traffic providers who use TranStar data) means.  TranStar has done a better job in the past few years in getting the message out about who they are and what they do, but most agencies still see that improvements can be made in educating the public about the benefits of ITS and operations.  A more comprehensive traveler information capability as provided by an ICM system will provide a platform to define the benefits of transportation system management and ITS.

Developing greater performance measurement capability to determine the effectiveness of operational strategies and enhanced traveler information.

## Lessons Learned – Operational 

- Agencies are hesitant to turn over complete authority to another agency (or “corridor commander”)
- ICM would (in a first generation) operate using a cooperative committee of TranStar agency managers (physically housed at TranStar) which would make operational decisions as a group.
- Decision-makers would be supported with ICM-related data and the ICMS decision support system
- Determination of system capacity (and availability)
- Estimated spatial and temporal incident impacts
- Suggested operational changes based on estimated impacts
- Give all agencies a bigger picture of impacts to the corridor
- Multi-agency control capability might become “easier” over time

**Notes:**
The group could continue to make decisions as a group or designate an incident “commander” based on which agency might be most impacted.
Right now, we go off of local knowledge and gut instinct – the ICMS would give us a tool to be more optimal.

## Lessons Learned – Institutional 

- Challenges – Why do we need ICM in the first place?
- Stovepipe deployments are agency specific, but there are data elements common and helpful to others to better manage “system”
- What, again, are you going to do with my data?
- Fear of loss of internal control
- Quality control & reliability becomes more of an issue as more people look at (and use) your data, especially the public
- The less-than-majority champion – finding the push.
- Vision and priority comes from the top, but with ICM you have multiple CEO’s to deal with
- Getting them all on the same page will move things along

## Lessons Learned – Institutional Solutions & Advice

- Have good direction from leadership (develops momentum)
- Have a clear message about why working together is important and advantageous
- Encourage agencies to think about being in their cohorts position – why something I have might be important to someone else!
- Helps if team members have not spent entire career at one agency or location.
- Important to have a regional ITS Architecture to use as a foundation.

## Lessons Learned - Regional ITS Architecture Needed

## Lessons Learned – Institutional Solutions & Advice

- Think about it from the public user perspective – what does the public need to make good decisions **(ask them)**
- Work through “what-ifs”, more importantly don’t limit yourself to the situations that you envision ICM to help
- From the most minor incidents, planned or otherwise
- To the most major evacuation or incident events
- Having four agencies under one roof makes things easier, but doesn’t solve all the issues
- Data from emergency/911 dispatch centers
- Solving data acquisition from proprietary or legacy systems

## Lessons Learned – Technical 

- Systems Engineering isn’t easy on simple projects, much less complex ones, but don’t let it scare you – focus on the end game!
- Seek input from partners, but don’t be afraid to suggest new ideas, concepts, or procedures for agencies other than your own
- But be willing to listen to others!
- There will be a lot of gaps – that’s OK, but think big
- Identify technical requirements by agency affected
- (and there may be more than one agency impacted by a requirement)

## For additional information

please contact me,

John M. Gaynor, P.E.

Email:  jgaynor@houstontranstar.org

Phone:  (713) 881-3060

or

Anthony (Tony) P. Voigt, P.E.

Email:  a-voigt@tamu.edu

Phone:  (713) 686-2971

**please contact me,**
**John M. Gaynor, P.E.**
**Email:  **_[jgaynor@houstontranstar.org](mailto:jgaynor@houstontranstar.org)_
**Phone:  (713) 881-3060**
**or**
**Anthony (Tony) P. Voigt, P.E.**
**Email:  **_[a-voigt@tamu.edu](mailto:a-voigt@tamu.edu)_
**Phone:  (713) 686-2971**

## Questions???