# Presentation: 563330

## ICM Minnesota – Interstate 394

**Brian Kary, Minnesota Department of               Transportation**

## Operational – I-394 Existing Corridor Networks

**Notes:**
I-394 Corridor is a 6-lane major arterial connecting the western Twin Cities Suburbs to Downtown Minneapolis.

Regional corridor limits include Hwy 55 to the north, Hwy 7 to the south, I-494 to the west, and downtown Minneapolis to the east.

## Operational – Why our Site needs ICM

- Locations of Recurring Congestion

## Operational – Why Are Site Needs ICM

***I-394 Travel Times***

***Eastbound***

***PM PEAK***

***Westbound***

## Operational – Why our Site needs ICM

- Gaps in Coordination Between Traffic and Transit Management Centers
- During Normal Conditions
- During Incident Conditions
- Gaps in Incident Data On Arterial Network
- State Patrol Response
- Local PD Response

## Operational – Why our Site needs ICM

- Lack of Traveler Information for Arterials and Transit
- Comparative Travel Times
- Park and Ride Availability
- Planning for Special Event Congestion
- Future Minnesota Twins Stadium
- Existing Minnesota Timberwolves Stadium

## Operational – How ICM will help our Site

- Provide Traveler Information Across All Networks and Modes
- Freeway Travel Times
- Transit Travel Times
- Arterial Travel Times
- Park and Ride Availability
- Improved Agency Communication and Coordination
- Improved Incident Management and Detection on Arterials
- Coordinated Incident Signal Timing Plans
- Transit Rerouting During Incidents
- Reduce Congestion and Improve Trip Reliability

## Institutional – Who are our ICM Stakeholders

- Mn/DOT (Freeway, Arterials, MnPASS)
- Hennepin County (Traffic, EMS dispatch)
- City of Minneapolis (Traffic, EMS dispatch)
- Transit Agencies (Metro Transit, SW Transit, Plymouth Transit)
- Minnesota State Patrol

**Notes:**
List of Stakeholders involved in the development of the ICM project ConOps and Requirements

## Institutional – How our Site defined Roles and achieved Buy-in among ICM Stakeholders

- Mn/DOT Lead Role
- Consultant Hired to Write ConOps and SRS
- Steering Committee and Working Group Meetings
- Stakeholder Workshop
- Individual Stakeholder Meetings
- Project Management Team

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please describe some of the Institutional arrangements to be fostered as part of ICM. Consider discussing you defined roles and facilitated buy-in among ICM Stakeholders.}

Mn/DOT was the lead in developing ICM

Contractor Athey Creek was hired to write documents

Steering Committee and Working Group were created to get stakeholder input.  Difficult to get attendees.  Combined meetings due to low attendance.

Stakeholder workshop to go over preliminary ConOps draft and to get input

Needed to meet individual stakeholders separately in order to get active participation

PM team made up of Freeway Ops, Signal Ops, Transit, and Consultant (Kary, Misgen, Nyberg, Deeter)

Explain diagram – Needed partnerships, agreements (maintenance/operations) and actions by stakeholder to support ICM and make it a success.

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Connection of Existing Systems
- Add-ons to Existing Systems
- ICMS Data Hub

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a Technical overview of the proposed ICM System pictured on the previous slide. Consider discussing details on the following ICMS topics: subsystems, major features, data (real-time, archived, gaps), performance measures. You may need additional slides.}

Explain system diagram – information flow, data hub (virtual or real), additions to existing systems

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Logistical Diagram of Metro Transit Control Center

**Notes:**
Use comparative TT example

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Functional Diagram of Metro Transit Control Center

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Logistical Diagram of Mn/DOT Traffic Operations

**Notes:**
Providing TT for Vehicles

Video Sharing

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Planned Instrumentation of Hwy 55 and Hwy 7 with CMAQ Funds
- Gaps in Providing Arterial Travel Time Gaps
- Jointly Developed Incident Signal Timing Plans

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a Technical overview of the proposed ICM System pictured on the previous slide. Consider discussing details on the following ICMS topics: subsystems, major features, data (real-time, archived, gaps), performance measures. You may need additional slides.}

Add slides from Misgen on Arterial Travel Time projects

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

- Existing AVL System on Metro Transit
- Plymouth Metrolinks and Southwest Currently Do Not Have AVL Systems
- Challenge in Providing Accurate Park and Ride Lot Vehicle Counts
- Comparative Travel Times Between Transit and Freeway
- Historical Data Vs. Real-time Data
- Planned UPA Transit Travel Time Comparison Project

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a Technical overview of the proposed ICM System pictured on the previous slide. Consider discussing details on the following ICMS topics: subsystems, major features, data (real-time, archived, gaps), performance measures. You may need additional slides.}

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

| OBJECTIVE | PERFORMANCE MEASURE |
| --- | --- |
| Reduce the variation in travel times | Buffer Index – The amount of time travelers must allow to ensure they are on-time 95% of the time.
Maximum travel times experienced by travelers throughout the corridor
Range of travel times (and variability) experienced by travelers
Percentage of ‘late’ bus routes throughout the corridor. |
| Maintain options for travelers’ | Average parking availability per facility and time of day
Comparisons of transit, HOV/HOT lanes, Freeways, and arterial route performance 
Percentage of corridor (routes and modes) reported on in real-time (travel times, delays, space availability, speeds etc.) |
| Monitor and understand the ever changing available capacity | Percentage of corridor (routes and modes) reported on in real-time (travel times, delays, space availability, speeds etc.) |
| Encourage pattern changes to better utilize spare capacity | Percentage of drivers altering route or mode based on traveler information
Average capacity utilization across all modes during incidents and normal conditions. |

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a Technical overview of the proposed ICM System pictured on the previous slide. Consider discussing details on the following ICMS topics: subsystems, major features, data (real-time, archived, gaps), performance measures. You may need additional slides.}

## Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

| OBJECTIVE | PERFORMANCE MEASURE |
| --- | --- |
| Inform travelers of incidents & impacts | Number of events where viable alternates are delivered to travelers (either via. phone, web or push) 
Number of callers receiving alternate route/mode information
Web page hits and call volumes during incident events |
| Manage traffic around events | Number of closures where vehicles are routed onto appropriate alternate routes
Number of times alternate plans are implemented, and the real-world results.
Response/ clearance times for major events. |
| Travelers are aware of their modal and route options | Web page hits, phone requests, and push deliveries of specific route/mode options |
| Travelers do not experience delays without also being informed of options | Travelers’ feedback after incidents and events. |

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a Technical overview of the proposed ICM System pictured on the previous slide. Consider discussing details on the following ICMS topics: subsystems, major features, data (real-time, archived, gaps), performance measures. You may need additional slides.}

## Lessons Learned – Operational 

- Difficult Not to Focus on Technology
- Use of Operational Scenarios to Engage Stakeholders
- Recommend Developing Operational Scenarios First
- Assumed Connectivity or Coordination Between Centers
- Recognized New Partners During Discussions
- Near Term Strategies to Achieve Benefits of ICM Sooner

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a few example Lessons Learned in the ICM Initiative during the Stage 1 development. Consider discussing the Operational Lessons Learned in developing the Concept of Operations.  The format might describe the Challenges, Solutions, and Advice for future implementers}

## Lessons Learned - Operational

- Incident Data Sharing Example
- Near Term Strategy
- Manual sharing of incident data via email, phone or radio.
- Long Term Strategy
- Automated sharing of incident data via integrated CAD/AVL systems.
- Came From Meetings with Stakeholders!
- Either:
- Require Basic Agreements / Procedural Changes
- Already Existing or Funded Development in process

**Notes:**
The Stakeholders identified a NEED for improved Incident Information sharing between agencies.

Long term plan is to integrate CAD/AVL systems, however, this will take time and funding.

Short term plan was to use existing systems and only require changes procedures or basic agency agreements.

## Lessons Learned – Operational 

**I-35W Bridge Collapse**
- Improved Coordination and Communications Between Stakeholders in Responding to Changing Traffic Conditions
- Weekly Traffic Operations Meetings Including Freeway, Arterials, and Transit Staff – likely to continue as biannual meetings.

**Notes:**
By working together on the ICM project, the same Stakeholders where able to work together to respond to the changing traffic conditions due to the I-35W bridge collapse.

New traffic management systems were added to Hwy 280 which was converted to a freeway.  Hwy 280 is the primary detour route for I-35W.

Like Hwy 55 and Hwy 7 on the ICM corridor, arterial traffic management systems where added to Hwy 65 and Hwy 47.  These are major arterials parallel to I-35W connecting the northern suburbs to downtown Minneapolis.

ICM looked at the feasibility of using shoulders to provide temporary capacity.  Although not feasible on I-394, lessons learned where used to convert I-94 from 6 to 8-lanes by utilizing existing shoulders.

## Lessons Learned – Operational 

**I-35W Urban Partnership Agreement**
- Conversion of I-35W HOV Lanes to MnPass HOT Lanes
- Arterial Traffic Management on Hwy 13
- Transit Traveler Information
- Park and Ride Lot Availability
- Next Bus Arrival Times
- Travel Time Comparisons
- Improved Traveler Information Across All Networks and Modes.

**Notes:**
Portions of the Concept of Operations for the ICM are being used for the I-35W UPA project.

The UPA project in general will convert existing HOV lanes to MnPASS lanes similar to I-394.  It will also involve using shoulders and priced dynamic shoulder lanes during peak periods to add temporary capacity to the roadway.

Like Hwy 55 and Hwy 7, Hwy 13 is a major arterial that is a feeder route for I-35W and allows for detouring traffic to use I-35W or Hwy 77, a parallel freeway to the east.

Transit traveler information projects in development as part of ICM will be used on the I-35W UPA corridor.

Travel information will be provided across all networks and modes on the UPA corridor just like the I-394 ICM corridor.

## Lessons Learned – Institutional 

**Stakeholder Concerns of Usefulness of ICM**
- Lack of Spare Capacity on Alternate Routes
- Focus More on Incident Management and Buffer Time Index
- Overcoming the Legacy of Past Project Failures

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a few example Lessons Learned in the ICM Initiative during the Stage 1 development. Consider discussing the Institutional Lessons Learned in coordinating Stakeholders.  The format might describe the Challenges, Solutions, and Advice for future implementers}

## Lessons Learned – Institutional 

**Ownership, Maintenance, Operations**
- Legal Issues Allowing Joint Control Equipment
- Assigning Agency Responsibility – eliminate wish list
- Virtual System – Enhancements to existing systems

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a few example Lessons Learned in the ICM Initiative during the Stage 1 development. Consider discussing the Institutional Lessons Learned in coordinating Stakeholders.  The format might describe the Challenges, Solutions, and Advice for future implementers}

## Lessons Learned – Institutional 

**Maintaining Stakeholder Interest in ICM**
- Making ICM a Priority
- What’s in it for me?
- Major Incident Debriefing Related to ICM

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a few example Lessons Learned in the ICM Initiative during the Stage 1 development. Consider discussing the Institutional Lessons Learned in coordinating Stakeholders.  The format might describe the Challenges, Solutions, and Advice for future implementers}

## Lessons Learned – InstitutionalJanuary 9th Tanker Rollover

- Occurred at 9:10 AM
- Tanker carrying 8,000 gallons of fuel
- Interchange of I-94 and I-394
- Multi-agency response
- Minneapolis Police and Fire
- State Patrol
- Mn/DOT
- HazMat
- Ambulance
- Minneapolis Traffic
- Transit

## Lessons Learned – Technical 

- Develop Functional Diagrams and Logistical Diagrams Early
- Defining Requirements for New Techniques
- TT calculation frequency
- How often do you really need it?
- Storage of data?  Associated cost?

**Notes:**
{Suggested information: please provide a few example Lessons Learned in the ICM Initiative during the Stage 1 development. Consider discussing the Technical Lessons Learned in developing the System Requirements Specification.  The format might describe the Challenges, Solutions, and Advice for future implementers}