INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT 

AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT: 

A PRIMER
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use 

of the information contained in this document.’

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 

Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only 

because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a 

manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies 

are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality

issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous 

quality improvement.

Cover photo: Thinkstock
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HOP-16-035

2. Government Accession 

No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Integrated Corridor Management and Traffic Incident 

Management: A Primer

5. Report Date

January 22, 2016

6. Performing Organizations Code

7. Authors

 Rebecca Brewster (ATRI), Jennifer Bachman (DKS), 

Renee Hurtado (DKS), Diane Newton (Leidos)

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Leidos

11251 Roger Bacon Drive 

Reston, VA 20190

ATRI 

950 N. Glebe Road 

Arlington, VA 22203

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

 Contract No. 

DTFH61-12-D-00050

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

Primer, August, 2015

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HOTM-1

15. Supplementary Notes

Robert Sheehan, Program Manager, Multimodal ITS Research and Deployment, 

ITS Joint Program Office

16. Abstract

This primer will examine both how TIM can be integrated into an ICM approach, as well as the 

many benefits resulting from ICM that can contribute to the advancement of TIM programs. It 

will explore opportunities to effectively integrate TIM strategies institutionally, operationally, and 

technically, both by leveraging existing platforms and considering new options for coordination 

between traditional ICM and TIM stakeholders. Lastly, although integrating TIM stakeholders into 

ICM processes holds great promise for more efficient and safer transportation operations, it is not 

without challenges. This document will explore what these challenges are and how they can be 

overcome.

17. Key Words

Integrated Corridor Management, Traffic Incident Management

18. Distribution Statement 

 No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No of Pages

 32

22. Price 

 N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

DKS Associates

720 SW Washington St., Suite 500

Portland, OR 97205

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

Integrated Corridor Management Fundamentals......................................................................2

The Integrated Corridor Management Research Initiative ......................................................3

Traffic Incident Management..............................................................................................4

Traffic Incident Management Stakeholders.........................................................................5

Traffic Incident Management Goals....................................................................................6

Traffic Incident Management Today ...................................................................................7

BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION ...............................................................................................9

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATION ..............................................................................11

Institutional Integration...........................................................................................................12

Opportunities for Institutional Integration .......................................................................12

Challenges to Institutional Integration..............................................................................12

Operational Integration ........................................................................................................... 13

Opportunities for Operational Integration ....................................................................... 14

Challenges to Operational Integration .............................................................................. 18

Technical Integration............................................................................................................... 19

Opportunities for Technical Integration ........................................................................... 19

Challenges to Technical Integration..................................................................................20

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................21

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Primary traffic incident management stakeholders. ..........................................................5

Table 2. Opportunities and challenges associated with integrated corridor management and

traffic incident management.......................................................................................................... 11

Table 3. Analysis, modeling, and simulation scenarios and performance measures assessed for 

US-75 in Dallas, TX and I-15 in San Diego, CA........................................................................... 18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Illustration. ICM involves viewing corridor assets – such as freeways, arterials and 

transit – through a common lens. ...................................................................................................2

Figure 2. Illustration. The active and integrated continuum. .........................................................3

Figure 3. Illustration. Washington State Department of Transportation Gray Notebook

Performance Measures..................................................................................................................20

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1

INTRODUCTION

Transportation corridors often contain underutilized capacity in the form of parallel roadways, 

single-occupant vehicles, and transit services that could be better leveraged to improve person 

throughput and reduce congestion. Facilities and services on a corridor are often independently 

operated, and efforts to date to reduce congestion have focused on the optimization of the 

performance of individual assets. 

The vision of integrated corridor management (ICM) is to achieve significant improvements in 

the efficient movement of people and goods on transportation networks through aggressive, 

proactive integration of existing infrastructure along major corridors. By applying an ICM 

approach, transportation professionals manage the corridor as a multimodal system and make 

operational decisions for the benefit of the corridor as a whole. 

Most ICM strategies to date have focused on improving passenger travel, and ICM stakeholders 

have included public transportation agencies such as State and local departments of 

transportation (DOT), metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO), and transit agencies. Yet our 

Nation’s busiest freight corridors also run through 

urban areas that carry millions of commuters, leisure 

travelers, and goods on increasingly crowded 

roadways and transit systems. The movement of 

people and goods is negatively impacted when traffic 

incidents occur. Traffic incident management (TIM) 

programs provide a proven way to minimize the 

impact of traffic incidents and improve the safety of 

motorists and incident responders alike. Adding 

definition to the relationship between ICM and TIM 

efforts will improve the integration of TIM 

stakeholders, issues, and solutions into the ICM 

process.

This primer will examine both how TIM can be 

integrated into an ICM approach, as well as the many 

benefits resulting from ICM that can contribute to the 

advancement of TIM programs. It will explore 

opportunities to effectively integrate TIM strategies 

institutionally, operationally, and technically, both by 

leveraging existing platforms and considering new 

options for coordination between traditional ICM and 

TIM stakeholders. Lastly, although integrating TIM 

stakeholders into ICM processes holds great promise 

for more efficient and safer transportation operations, it is not without challenges. This document 

will explore what these challenges are and how they can be overcome.

Who should read this primer?

The intended audience for this 

primer includes stakeholders from 

state and local departments of 

transportation, metropolitan 

planning organizations, transit 

agencies, and other agencies that 

may be involved in an integrated 

corridor management (ICM) effort. 

Additionally, this primer is intended 

to inform traffic incident 

management (TIM) stakeholders in 

major urban areas of the benefits 

they can expect to realize from 

greater integration with ICM. This 

includes TIM partners in 

transportation, law enforcement, 

fire and rescue, emergency medical 

services, towing and recovery, and 

communications. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

2

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS

ICM combines two fundamental concepts: active management and integration. Active 

management involves monitoring and assessing the performance of the system and dynamically 

implementing actions in response to fluctuations in demand. In an ICM corridor, all individual 

facilities must be actively managed so that operational approaches can be altered in real-time in 

response to an event anywhere on the system.

Integration requires actively managing assets in a unified way so that actions can be taken to 

benefit the corridor as a whole, not just a particular piece of it. Integration occurs along three 

dimensions:

• Institutional Integration – Involves coordination and collaboration between various 

agencies and jurisdictions (i.e., transportation network owners) in support of ICM, including 

the distribution of specific operational responsibilities and the sharing of control functions in 

a manner that transcends institutional boundaries.

• Operational Integration – Involves the implementation of multi-agency transportation 

management strategies, often in real-time, that promote information sharing and coordinated 

operations across the various transportation networks in the corridor and facilitate 

management of the total capacity and demand of the corridor.

• Technical Integration – Provides the means (e.g., communication links between agencies, 

system interfaces, and the associated standards) by which information, system operations, 

and control functions can be effectively shared and distributed among networks and their 

respective transportation management systems, and by which the impacts of operational 

decisions can be immediately viewed and evaluated by the affected agencies. Cannot be 

accomplished without institutional and operational integration.

Figure 1. Illustration. Integrated Corridor Management involves viewing corridor assets – 

such as freeways, arterials,and transit – through a common lens. 

Source: Federal Highway Administration
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

3

Active and integrated corridors can be viewed along a continuum. For example, some corridors 

may actively manage some or all of their assets, but not in an integrated way. The ultimate goal 

of ICM is to for corridors to progress along the continuum to become as active and integrated as 

possible. 

THE INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INITIATIVE 

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) started the ICM Research Initiative in 

2006 to explore and develop ICM concepts and approaches and to advance the deployment of 

ICM systems throughout the country. Initially, eight pioneer sites were selected to develop 

concepts of operations (ConOps) and system requirements for ICM on a congested corridor in 

their region. Three of these sites went on to conduct analysis, modeling, and simulation (AMS) of 

potential ICM response strategies on their corridor. In the final stage, two sites – the US-75 

Corridor in Dallas, Texas and the Interstate 15 (I-15) corridor in San Diego, California – were 

selected to design, deploy, and demonstrate their ICM systems. 

The Dallas and San Diego demonstrations “went live” in the spring of 2013. Each demonstration 

has two phases: the first is design and deployment, and the second is operations and maintenance. 

Both sites chose to develop a decision support system (DSS) as a technical tool to facilitate the 

application of institutional agreements and operational approaches that corridor stakeholders 

agreed to over a rigorous planning and design process. 

Although the DSS approach at each site differs slightly, the basic process is similar. The DSS 

gathers traffic data from an array of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in the network and 

uses this information to forecast future conditions on the corridor. If an event (recurring or 

non-recurring) occurs that is predicted to meet pre-established congestion thresholds, the DSS 

generates response plans. These plans contain combinations of multimodal strategies to address 

Figure 2. Illustration. The active and integrated continuum. 

Source: Federal Highway Administration
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

4

specific congestion scenarios. Response 

plans are based on detailed business rules 

that establish the conditions under which 

assets can be used. This may vary based on 

the magnitude of the event, time of day, 

congestion levels on the network, etc., as 

well as due to policy constraints. The DSS 

recommends and ranks response plans by 

running a simulation to determine which 

plan will most effectively address the 

congestion. Operating agencies are alerted 

to either accept or reject the plans; if 

accepted, the plan will be implemented.

The USDOT is conducting independent 

“before-after” analyses to evaluate the 

benefits of ICM on transportation operator 

situational awareness, response and control, 

traveler information and overall corridor performance at each site. The experiences and lessons 

learned from the demonstration sites are being actively shared with the transportation community 

so that regions interested in ICM can leverage the knowledge gained to better shape a successful 

deployment for their corridor(s).

Although the demonstration sites provide valuable insights into the necessary components of 

building an ICM system, they do not represent the only way to implement ICM. There is no 

“one-size-fits-all” approach to ICM, since the circumstances of a particular corridor will vary 

based on traffic patterns, agency dynamics, available assets, and a host of other factors.

Traffic Incident Management

Traffic incidents span a continuum of characteristics from debris on the side of the road to fullscale, multi-vehicle crashes involving motorist fatalities. Traffic incident management is the 

coordinated response to these traffic incidents that involves responders from multiple disciplines 

working side-by-side to safely and efficiently clear traffic incidents. 

The stakes are high. Without a coordinated traffic incident management response, the safety of 

motorists and responders is compromised and congestion builds as other motorists try to navigate 

past the incident.

For the past several decades, the USDOT has led the national effort to advance TIM from ad hoc 

incident response to formal, institutionalized TIM programs. This work has taken many forms 

including:

• Consensus Building – to create a shared understanding among TIM responders of the 

importance and value of coordinated incident response to the goals of increased safety for 

motorists and responders alike as well as improved transportation system operations.

What could an integrated corridor 

management (ICM) response plan look like?

A major incident has occurred on the freeway 

in an ICM corridor. Travelers are advised via 

dynamic message sign and other traveler 

information sources (e.g., 511) to take a parallel 

route or shift to transit, where there is spare 

capacity. Signal timing on the parallel route is 

changed to better manage the flow of the 

detoured traffic, and transit operators prepare 

for increased volumes by adding more buses 

along the impacted route.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

5

• Research and Development – to identify tools and technologies that will improve incident 

detection, response, and clearance and enhance the safety of responders and motorists.

• Best Practices – to identify, quantify the value of, and promulgate the most promising 

strategies for coordinated incident response.

Traffic Incident Management Stakeholders

One of the challenges inherent in TIM is that there are the numerous stakeholders involved who 

have myriad and often divergent priorities. Although certainly not limited to these, the primary 

disciplines involved in traffic incident response are described in Table 1. Each TIM program is 

unique and is typically structured to meet the needs of its region or State; as such the involved 

stakeholders may vary, as does the lead or champion organization for each program. 

Table 1. Primary traffic incident management stakeholders.

Law Enforcement 

(LE)

Often first responder on scene, LE personnel will secure the incident scene; 

provide initial emergency response if there are injuries; direct traffic around 

the incident; conduct accident investigation.

Fire and Rescue 

(F&R)

Protect the incident scene; provide emergency aid to injured motorists; 

suppress fires; address any initial hazardous materials release.

Emergency Medical 

Services (EMS)

Treat injuries; prepare and transport more seriously injured motorists to 

hospital.

Transportation 

(DOT)

Secure the incident scene; establish traffic control around incident; provide 

motorist assistance; incident clearance; restore traffic flow after incident 

cleared.

Towing and 

Recovery (T&R)

Removal of damage vehicles and debris; incident scene clean-up.

Communications • Transportation Management Center (TMC) – Incident detection, 

verification; identify alternate routes; provide motorist information.

• Public Safety Dispatch – Receive and transmit incident information; 

dispatch public safety incident response.

• Traffic Media – Inform motorists of incidents, incident clearance times 

and alternate routes.

Medical Examiner Investigate any incident involving a fatality

HazMat Responders Contain and clean up any hazardous material spills associated with traffic 

incidents.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

6

Given the critical role of multi-discipline coordination in traffic incident management, a number 

of stakeholder coalitions have emerged over the years to advance consensus building, participate 

in TIM research and development, and disseminate best practices.

One of the first such groups was the National Incident Management Coalition (NIMC), which 

focused on building consensus for coordinated incident management through a series of regional 

education and outreach conferences held around the United States. The successor to the NIMC 

was the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC), which was formed following 

a 2002 national conference on the importance of multidisciplinary traffic incident management 

programs. The NTIMC membership was comprised of representatives from the national 

associations representing the various TIM stakeholder groups.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) played a key leadership role in both the NIMC 

and the NTIMC. More recently, FHWA convened a two-day Senior Executive Summit on 

Transportation and Public Safety. Participants in this event included senior-level, 

multidisciplinary executives representing transportation and public safety (law enforcement, fire 

and rescue, and emergency medical services). The goal of the event was to identify ways to 

advance the state-of-practice in TIM. One of the outcomes of the Summit was the establishment 

of the TIM Executive Leadership Group to work with FHWA to “discuss TIM issues of national 

significance and identify barriers to, and opportunities to promote progress towards, national 

goals.”1

Traffic Incident Management Goals

One of the most important products to come out of the NTIMC was the National Unified Goal 

(NUG) for traffic incident management. The NUG has three overall objectives supported by 18 

strategies (see box) which were developed and ratified by the member organizations of the 

NTIMC. It provides a roadmap against which local, regional and state TIM programs can be 

organized. 

These are the three overall objectives of the National Unified Goal:2

• Responder Safety.

• Safe, Quick Clearance.

• Prompt, Reliable, Interoperable Communications.

Despite the very different individual priorities each of the TIM stakeholder groups may have, the 

NUG provides a unifying platform for their coordination at incident scenes. As confirmed by 

attendees at the FHWA Transportation and Public Safety Executive Summit, the NUG “formally 

recognized the key roles of transportation, along with traditional public safety agencies, in 

addressing and clearing incidents from the Nation’s roadways.”3 It also “placed equal importance 

1 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Senior Executive Transportation & Public Safety Summit: National Leadership & 

Innovation Roadmap for Success. (Washington, DC: FHWA, September 2012).

2 National Traffic Incident Management Coalition, National Unified Goal for Traffic Incident Management: Working Together for Improved 

Safety, Clearance and Communications, November 2007. Available online at: http://ntimc.transportation.org/Documents/NUGUnifiedGoalNov07.pdf.

3 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Senior Executive Transportation & Public Safety Summit: National Leadership & 

Innovation Roadmap for Success. (Washington, DC: FHWA September 2012).
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

7

on the need for Responder Safety, Safe and 

Quick Clearance of Incidents, and Prompt and 

Reliable Communications among responders.”4 

Traffic Incident Management Today

From its earliest beginnings as an ad hoc 

activity by the various incident responders 

until today, when more formalized TIM 

programs have coalesced around the National 

Unified Goal, TIM continues to benefit from 

increased education and awareness. TIM 

programs are currently focused on measuring 

and improving performance through tools 

such as FHWA’s Traffic Incident Management 

Self-Assessment and the emerging TIM 

Capabilities Maturity Framework. 

TIM practitioners across the country are also 

benefitting from standardized TIM training5 

developed as part of the Second Strategic 

Highway Research Program (SHRP2). One of 

the first products of the SHRP2 Reliability 

Program track was a national TIM responder 

training curriculum. The resulting 

multidisciplinary training course promotes a 

shared understanding of the requirements for 

quick clearance and provides for the safety of 

motorists and responders alike. Through 

deployment of the training around the 

country— as a 2-day train-the-trainer course, a 

4-hour student course, or through e-learning— 

the common set of core competencies will 

ensure improved TIM practices by all 

responder disciplines today and for the future.

This primer will describe how TIM partners 

and activities can be incorporated into ICM, 

where important synergies exist between the 

two, and how to capitalize on the shared goals 

of TIM and ICM.

4 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Senior 

Executive Transportation & Public Safety Summit: National 

Leadership & Innovation Roadmap for Success. (Washington, 

DC: FHWA September 2012).

5 Federal Highway Administation, Strategic Highway Research 

Program 2 Solutions, “National Traffic Incident Management Responder Training Program” web page. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

goshrp2/Solutions/SafetyTopic/L12_L32A_L32B/National_Traffic_In.

National Unified Goal Strategies

Cross-cutting

1. Traffic Incident Management (TIM) 

Partnerships and Programs.

2. Multidisciplinary National Incident 

Management (NIMS) and TIM 

Training.

3. Goals for Performance and Progress.

4. TIM Technology.

5. Effective TIM Policies.

6. Awareness and Education Partnerships.

Responder Safety

7. Recommended Practices for Responder 

Safety.

8. Move Over/Slow Down Laws.

9. Driver Training and Awareness.

Safe, Quick Clearance

10. Multidisciplinary TIM Procedures.

11. Response and Clearance Time Goals.

12. 24/7 Availability.

Prompt, Reliable Communications 

13. Multidisciplinary Communications 

Practices and Procedures.

14. Prompt, Reliable Responder 

Notification.

15. Interoperable Voice and Data 

Networks.

16. Broadband Emergency 

Communications Systems.

17. Prompt, Reliable Traveler Information 

Systems.

18. Partnerships with News Media and 

Information Providers.

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

9

BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION 

Integrated corridor management (ICM) is designed to improve the efficient movement of people 

and freight through aggressive, proactive integration of existing infrastructure along major 

corridors. However, when incidents occur along those corridors, ICM strategies are challenged. 

Traffic incident management (TIM) programs can support ICM safety and mobility objectives:

• When traffic incidents are cleared more safely and efficiently, the opportunity for secondary 

incidents is greatly reduced and traffic flow is restored more quickly. 

• The integration of TIM data—such as anticipated incident duration, incident and roadway 

clearance times, occurrence of secondary incidents, alternate routes, etc.—allow for more 

robust ICM decision support systems (DSS). 

• The involvement of TIM stakeholders in ICM provides for broader awareness of potential 

corridor impacts from planned special events such as sporting events, concerts, major 

conventions, visiting dignitaries, etc.

• The unique perspective of the varied TIM partners can provide valuable insights on where 

motorists should be rerouted when incidents occur. 

Similarly, TIM response can be greatly improved in a corridor when the transportation 

infrastructure is managed in an integrated system; however, where that does not exist, TIM 

response can be hindered. TIM programs can benefits from ICM in a number of ways:

• Expedited and safer access for public safety and emergency response agencies to victims 

and communities in need of service. When incidents do occur, ICM strategies can be 

deployed to clear the way for public safety and emergency response personnel and vehicles 

to more quickly approach the incident, safely respond to those in need, and transport victims 

to care.

• ICM provides the resources for improved traveler information, allowing motorists to 

understand incident impacts on travel times and make alternate route or modal choices. 

• ICM enhances the ability to reroute and divert traffic away from an incident scene and 

potentially move that traffic to other facilities or modes. Not only does this reduce the 

incident queue, thereby minimizing the potential for secondary incidents, it greatly improves 

safety for responders at the scene and the motorists involved in the incident. Incident scenes 

can then be cleared more efficiently and traffic flow restored more quickly.

• In those areas where the TIM program may not be as well established or formalized, ICM 

provides a platform for collaboration among TIM partners. With TIM efforts focused on the 

specific corridor, relationships among TIM stakeholders are built and can then be capitalized 

on to expand the TIM program beyond the corridor.

• Planning for ICM often leads to increased awareness and a more accurate inventory of 

available traffic management and transportation operations infrastructure, systems, and 

assets. 

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 1

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATION

There are ample opportunities for integrating traffic incident management (TIM) into integrated 

corridor management (ICM) processes. In areas that have existing TIM teams and structure, 

those platforms can serve to initiate integration discussions. Along with opportunities, there are 

also several challenges to overcome, such as limited resources or different priorities among 

stakeholders. Table 2 highlights some of the key opportunities and challenges related to 

institutional, operational, and technical integration. 

The following sections explore opportunities and challenges in those three areas in more detail. 

Table 2. Opportunities and challenges associated with integrated corridor management and 

traffic incident management.

Opportunities Challenges

Institutional

• Providing a platform through TIM teams 

to move forward with joint ICM/TIM 

goals and strategies

• Incorporating partners from the towing 

industry and other disciplines not 

currently included on a regular basis

• TIM and ICM stakeholders often have 

different priorities

• Lack of formal agreements with partner 

agencies and stakeholders limit opportunities

• Network security and privacy issues in regard 

to sharing information 

Operational

• Joint planning efforts between ICM and 

TIM partners

• Improving incident detection and routing 

(for responders, travelers, and freight)

• Implementing advanced applications that 

aid first responders and improve the 

efficiency of the transportation network

• Providing a robust data set to use for 

modeling and evaluating ICM or TIM 

strategies 

• Challenging in areas were TIM teams do not 

already exist

• Limited resources

• Ensuring on-going maintenance and operation 

funding is available

• Providing early notification to all impacted 

TIM stakeholders

• Maintaining on-scene communications 

between all applicable TIM stakeholders

Technical

• Sharing data with both partner agencies 

and the traveling public

• Real-time decision capability across 

multi-agency boundaries

• Creating consistent performance measure 

reporting

• Advances in predictive crash analysis

• Limited resources 

• Lack of field devices (communication and 

detection)

• Determining the best technology to invest in 

when it is constantly changing and being 

outdated 

• Determining how to process and use the data 

can be time-intensive and challenging

ICM = integrated corridor management

TIM = traffic incident management
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 2

INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION

The first step for successful integration of ICM and TIM strategies is cooperation and 

coordination among partner agencies and stakeholders to transcend institutional boundaries. 

Formal agreements need to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the involved agencies 

and stakeholders. 

Opportunities for Institutional Integration 

Fostering existing relationships between transportation agencies and TIM professionals can be a 

starting point to complete an initial feasibility assessment and systems engineering analysis for 

integrating TIM and ICM. Existing TIM teams can provide leverage to move forward with ICM 

opportunities. In regions where TIM teams currently exist, meetings, training, or other TIM 

gatherings can serve as a platform for discussions on how to integrate ICM and TIM strategies. 

This platform can also serve as an opportunity to share data, advance performance measures, 

and collaborate on planning efforts. 

Regions that have large planning organizations, like metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), 

can also use existing meeting platforms to begin ICM and TIM integration. Bringing TIM and 

ICM professionals together during the planning stage ensures that needs for both disciplines are 

fully understood. It also facilitates a smoother integration of joint strategies. 

In regions where first responders are co-located in a facility with transportation facility operators, 

like a traffic management center (TMC), barriers to communication and coordination are 

removed and facilitation between the disciplines may improve. In areas where these stakeholders 

are not co-located there may be other opportunities to improve communication. 

The towing and recovery industry is a key component of TIM, and opportunities to improve tow 

operator response time and clearance times could be gained through formal agreements or 

region-wide tow boards. Establishing towing protocols and creating formal agreements sets the 

stage to more easily implement advanced ICM and TIM strategies that incorporate the towing 

and recovery industry on a region-wide basis. 

Challenges to Institutional Integration

While both ICM and TIM stakeholders can benefit from integrating strategies, the process is 

likely to face challenges. 

In areas that do not have a strong TIM program in place, it will be challenging to move forward 

with ICM integration without first establishing a TIM program for the subject corridor. A key 

element in institutional integration is clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of partner 

agencies and stakeholders. Without a TIM program or other foundation platform in place, 

defining these roles and responsibilities, and reaching agreement among responsible parties, may 

be challenging. 

TIM partners often have different priorities than ICM partners, which can lead to disagreement 

about how to obtain and spend available funding. ICM strategies tend to focus on achieving 

mobility goals through technology-based solutions and longer term planning. First responders are 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 3

more focused on those immediate actions at an incident scene that are necessary to ensure the 

safety of responders and motorists. In addition, TIM resources and staffing may be limited. 

These limitations may hinder the ability and willingness of TIM partners to further integrate 

ICM activities and lead to missed opportunities. Under these circumstances, the ICM project 

leaders need to effectively convince TIM partners that ICM integration will benefit them without 

extra burden. 

Another institutional challenge is how to reach agreements on sharing data between agencies that 

accounts for existing security and privacy issues. For example, traffic signal systems for many 

agencies operate on a secure network with policies in place that limit who can access the network 

and what level of access they have. These policies need to be addressed so that relevant 

information can be shared in real-time with necessary partners. 

OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION

Once relationships and institutional integration is established, operational integration can begin. 

Operational integration involves implementing multi-agency transportation management 

strategies, often in real-time, that both promote information sharing and coordination operations 

across the various transportation networks in the corridor as well as facilitate management of the 

total capacity and demand on the corridor. Designing an operational response requires taking 

multiple factors into account.6 

• Assets – All of the potential networks, routes, systems, and capabilities along the corridor 

that could potentially be used as part of a response.

6 Adapted from San Diego Association of Governments presentation, A. Estrella, “I-15 San Diego Integrated Corridor Management Project,” 

ITS America Annual Meeting 2013, Nashville, TN, April 22, 2013.

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Demonstration Sites: 

US-75 in Dallas, Texas and I-15 in San Diego, California

The U.S. Department of Transportation selected two sites to demonstrate ICM systems, and the 

sites began actively deploying their systems in the spring of 2013. 

Early lessons learned:

• Regular communication and meetings with partner agencies is essential.

• Following the systems engineering approach may be difficult at first but pays off in the end.

• Determining how to process and use the robust data collected can be challenging.

• Performance measures and evaluation criteria should be considered early in the process.

• Agencies should consider post-deployment operations and maintenance when designing 

their systems particularly with respect to stakeholder roles and responsibilities.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 4

• Availability – The status of the assets and whether they are currently available for use as 

part of a response. Availability can be limited based on time of day and other factors; for 

example, it may be impermissible to re-route traffic along a certain arterial during school 

zone hours. 

• Scale of Response – A response may be conservative, moderate, or aggressive based on the 

predicted impact of an event, which is defined by an integrated performance metric (e.g. 

person-miles traveled). The assets that will be used may vary based on the scale of the 

response. For example, at the Dallas demonstration site, travelers are advised to take transit 

only if a major incident of a pre-defined magnitude occurs on the freeway. 

Opportunities for Operational Integration 

ICM and TIM strategies provide numerous opportunities for operational integration as described 

in the following subsections. 

Joint Meeting Opportunities

Involving ICM stakeholders in TIM meetings provides a platform to plan and present new ideas. 

TIM teams may hold regular meetings or after action reviews in which ICM stakeholders can 

participate. Providing a platform for the different partners to communicate can lead to improved 

understanding of the capabilities each partner can offer and the challenges these partners face. It 

can also create opportunities to move forward together. 

Meeting in advance of a known event and coordinating response efforts can ensure minimal 

disruptions to corridor operations. Additionally, after action reviews can lead to improved 

performance from all partners during the next similar event or incident. 

The joint meetings can also be used to advance the development of performance measures, share 

data, and determine how each partner can use the data to improve operations. 

Concept of Operations

Typically a concept of operations is developed for each ICM corridor to provide a stakeholder 

view of the system in a non-technical manner with a focus on user needs, activity-based 

operations objectives, performance measures, roles and responsibilities, and institutional 

agreements. Including TIM stakeholders in the Concept of Operations development process 

provides a key opportunity to discuss the integration of ICM and TIM strategies. One or more 

incident scenarios, such as those included in the Maryland I-270 corridor ICM concept of 

operations,7 helps establish how the two program areas will work together in practice. The I-270 

ICM concept of operations outlines examples for both a minor and major traffic incident and 

clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of all involved agencies through the duration of each 

incident response. Integration of TIM stakeholders into the development of the ICM ConOps also 

allows the opportunity to discuss more technical issues, such as how data and video will be 

shared among partners. 

7 Montgomery County Pioneer Site Team and the USDOT ITS Joint Program Office, Concept of Operations for the I-270 

Corridor in Montgomery County, Maryland, FHWA-JPO-08-002 (Washington, DC: JPO, 2008). Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/

lib/30000/30300/30312/14388.htm .
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 5

Traffic Incident Management Strategic Plans

Similar to the concept of operations discussed above, many regions also have TIM strategic plans 

that identify programs and actions to improve incident response. TIM strategic plans are typically 

region-wide or state-wide and often lead to a specific set of actions for implementation. 

Incorporating ICM strategies into TIM strategic plans provides a medium in which to promote 

and prioritize specific strategies. TIM strategic plans can also document roles and responsibilities 

and establish lead agencies in charge of implementing specific action items. 

Incident Detection, Response, and Rerouting

Pairing ICM resources with TIM dispatch capabilities can decrease incident detection and 

improve verification and response times. Allowing incident dispatchers to use traffic operation 

tools such as closed circuit television cameras to verify incident location, severity, and tow 

requirements enables responders to arrive at the scene well informed and improves incident 

response and clearance times. 

Through on-the-job experience, TIM stakeholders can likely provide insights to ICM partners 

about high incident locations. These are locations to target for additional monitoring to enable 

early incident detection. TIM stakeholders may also be able to provide insight regarding where it 

would be useful to place dynamic message signs to re-route travelers during an incident. 

Traffic Incident Management Service Patrols and Public Safety Mobile Resources

Expanding TIM safety service patrol coverage to include arterials (in addition to freeways) also 

provides an opportunity to integrate TIM with ICM. Expanding these patrols to arterials will 

increase operators’ knowledge of conditions and incidents on facilities adjacent to freeways and 

will facilitate incident response efforts on arterials. The patrols also act as a mobile resource for 

public safety. If TIM safety service patrols expand to include arterial routes parallel to the 

freeways, public assistance on arterial routes will be made available. 

Routing Guidance and Traffic Signal Priority

ICM partners may be able to provide better information to first responders traveling to or from 

the scene. Providing improved information to first responders, monitoring their progress while en 

route, and even adjusting traffic signal timing to get first responders to the scene (or hospital) 

faster are all elements within reach if ICM and TIM strategies are integrated. 

Additionally, most traffic signals include emergency vehicle priority, giving the emergency 

vehicle the green phase while truncating other phases early. Although preemption is a standard 

feature in traffic signals, the emergency vehicles allowed priority can vary by agency and region. 

For example, in some areas the preemption may apply to fire engines, ambulances, police 

vehicles, service patrols, and even maintenance vehicles, whereas other areas may only allow fire 

and police vehicles to gain signal priority privileges. An integrated ICM and TIM approach could 

involve first responder vehicles being informed of the optimal ingress and egress routes, ensuring 

that the route includes traffic signals with priority preemption. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 6

Accommodation of Work Zone Management

Coordinating work zone management and construction projects with TIM and ICM partners 

provides a mechanism to ensure that parallel route options are available and that emergency 

vehicle mobility in the vicinity of a work zone is optimized. Transportation management plans 

(TMP) address work zone safety and mobility and are required by FHWA for any projects 

receiving Federal funding. Expanding the TMP to include TIM stakeholders and applying it to a 

broader range of projects can improve operations across the transportation network as a whole by 

keeping all parties better informed. 

Many States use collaborative mapping tools to identify work zone locations. This allows for 

coordinated construction efforts and an expanded ability to evaluate impacts to traffic. 

Response, Emergency Staging and Communications, Uniform Management, and 

Evacuation (R.E.S.C.U.M.E.)

R.E.S.C.U.M.E. was developed by the Dynamic Mobility Application program through the 

Intelligent Transportation Systems Join Program Office and U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 

“The DMA program seeks to identify, develop, and deploy innovative applications that leverage 

the full potential of connected vehicles, travelers, and infrastructure to increase system efficiency 

and improve individual mobility.”8 

R.E.S.C.U.M.E. is a bundle of applications that will “provide advanced vehicle-to-vehicle safety 

messaging over dedicated short-range communications to improve the safety of emergency 

responders and travelers.”9

8 US DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, “R.E.S.C.U.M.E – Response, Emergency Staging and Communications, 

Uniform Management, and Evacuation,” FHWA-JPO-13-008 (Washington, DC: RITA, 2013). Available at: http://www.its.dot.gov/

factsheets/pdf/JPO_FS_RESCUME_v3.pdf.

9 Ibid.

Oregon - Corridor-level transportation management plans ensure at least one major 

north-south corridor and one major east-west corridor are left unrestricted for freight and 

passenger travel at all times. 

New York/New Jersey/Connecticut Region - This region formed the Transportation 

Operations Coordinating Committee (TRANSCOM), which consists of a coalition of 16 

transportation and public safety agencies. TRANSCOM helps facilitate construction 

coordination among member agencies, holding annual meetings where upcoming 

construction projects are discussed. TRANSCOM contacts member agencies with 

recommendations if adjustments to traffic operations are needed based on real-time 

construction and incident information. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 7

There are four main applications included in the R.E.S.C.U.M.E. bundle:10

• Incident Scene Pre-Arrival Staging Guidance for Emergency Responders (RESP-STG) 

– provides first responders with situational awareness information while en route and at the 

scene to help them make more informed decisions in regard to routing and staging. 

• Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers (INC-ZONE) – alerts both 

drivers and workers when a vehicle is approaching a work zone at an unsafe speed or 

trajectory.

• Emergency Communications and Evacuation (EVAC) – alerts evacuees using their own 

transportation about current roadway conditions, food, lodging, gas, and other essentials. 

EVAC also identifies and locates evacuees who are more likely to require guidance and 

assistance and provides information to identify services and available resources. 

• Advanced Automated Crash Notification Relay (AACN-RELAY) - communicates a 

wealth of data to a roadside hotspot that can then be forwarded to first responders or other 

agency personnel. Information could include: exact location of the vehicle, position of the 

vehicle (upright or overturned), whether the airbags deployed, vehicle speed just prior to the 

crash, whether the gas tank was full, number of occupants, medical history of occupants, and 

cargo content for commercial loads, just to name a few of the available details. 

Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation 

The ICM analysis, modeling, and simulation (AMS) methodology is a comprehensive approach 

that analyzes the impact of a strategy on the entire corridor (freeway, arterials, and even transit 

system). Agencies can use ICM AMS to determine whether particular strategies will improve 

performance and to assess planned ICM strategies. Currently, little AMS has been conducted for 

TIM-related strategies. Incorporating TIM strategies into the ICM AMS could provide a robust 

tool for modeling the comprehensive benefits of different TIM strategies. 

10 US DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, “R.E.S.C.U.M.E – Response, Emergency Staging and Communications, 

Uniform Management, and Evacuation,” FHWA-JPO-13-008 (Washington, DC: RITA, 2013). Available at: http://www.its.dot.gov/

factsheets/pdf/JPO_FS_RESCUME_v3.pdf..
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 8

Analysis, modeling and simulation was recently used to evaluate strategies at the two 

integrated corridor management demonstration sites: US-75 in Dallas, TX and I-15 in San 

Diego, CA.

 Table 3. Analysis, modeling, and simulation scenarios and performance measures assessed for US-75 in 

Dallas, Texas and I-15 in San Diego, California

Scenarios Evaluated Performance Measures

San Diego

• Daily Operations

• Major Freeway Incident

• Major Arterial Incident

• Special Event

• Disaster Response Scenario

• Travel Time

• Delay

• Throughput

• Reliability and Variance of Travel 

Time

• Safety

• Emissions and Fuel Consumption

Dallas

• Daily Operations (high, med, and low 

demand)

• Major Freeway Incident (high, med, and 

low demand)

• Major Arterial Incident (high, med, and 

low demand)

• Travel Time Reliability

• Increased Corridor Throughput

• Improve Incident Management

• Enable Intermodal Travel Decisions

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, “ICM Pioneer Sites–Dallas, 

Texas” web page. Available at: http://www.its.dot.gov/icms/pioneer_dallas.htm. See also, U.S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent 

Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, “ICM Pioneer Sites–San Diego, California” web page.

Challenges to Operational Integration

Similar to institutional challenges, integrating these operational strategies will be particularly 

challenging in regions that do not have a formal TIM team or program.

Funding and staffing is another challenge facing operational integration. Often the operational 

opportunities include an element of TIM staff time and resources, especially in the beginning, 

and some of the operational strategies may have a steep learning curve. Limited TIM staff and 

resources is a likely barrier to implementing the operational strategies discussed in the previous 

section. Once a strategy is implemented, it may be a challenge to ensure that funding is available 

for ongoing maintenance and operations. 

Effective communications, particularly regarding early notification and on-scene communication, 

can often be difficult to coordinate between numerous stakeholders. This can be strengthened by 

defining clear roles and responsibilities in the concept of operations for all stakeholders and 

holding post-incident debriefings to identify successful practices and areas for improvement.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

1 9

TECHNICAL INTEGRATION

The final step necessary for integrating ICM with TIM is technical integration. Technical 

integration provides the means for implementing operational strategies, such as communication 

links and system interfaces. It includes technical resources for sharing, viewing, and using 

real-time information to make decisions. 

Opportunities for Technical Integration 

Technical integration can pave the way for improved data collection as well as being key to 

advancing some of the operational opportunities discussed in the previous section. Several ICM 

strategies rely on a solid communication infrastructure with the ability to monitor and respond to 

real time data. With that technology and infrastructure in place, TIM responders could develop a 

process for data collection and archiving if one is not already in place. 

Sharing Data

Sharing data between incident responders and ICM stakeholders presents a wealth of opportunities 

for all stakeholders. For example, ICM could provide a forum for TIM responders to develop a 

consistent process for data collection and archiving. By combining data from both incident 

responders and ICM stakeholders, the quality of real-time traveler information will improve, 

resulting in better information about rerouting to avoid incidents and incident-related delay. 

With the rise of smart phones, other mobile devices, and connected vehicles, there are endless 

opportunities to improve communications and share data with the traveling public. By doing so, 

real-time conditions and rerouting recommendations will be instantly available, enabling 

travelers to make informed decisions and optimizing the transportation network. 

The private sector already has applications that provide real-time traffic and incident information 

and can recommend rerouting options for travelers. One application, WAZETM, is a crowdsourced application, relying on users to input incidents and hazards. That application then 

provides travelers with alternate route options and informs them of the travel time to their 

destination using each route option. Collaborating with the private sector, such as providing an 

open source clearinghouse of public sector real-time incident data, could result in other private 

sector apps that reduce congestion during incidents.

Data Collection and Performance Measures

Collecting data and tracking performance measures are key for both TIM and ICM stakeholders. 

Data provides a way to measure performance and make decisions. FHWA recommends the 

following three performance measures for incidents:

• Roadway clearance time (time between incident awareness and confirmation that all lanes 

are open to traffic).

• Incident clearance time (time between incident awareness and when the last responder left 

the scene).

• Number of secondary incidents.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

2 0

TIM performance measures 

data could be used to 

supplement and create a more 

robust ICM decision support 

system (DSS).

Challenges to Technical 

Integration

Creating a robust and shared 

database between ICM 

partners and TIM stakeholders 

may be challenging when field 

equipment—such as detection 

devices and communication 

infrastructure—are 

insufficient. Without field 

devices in place, several of the 

operational strategies cannot be 

implemented. Or, if they are implemented, the strategies will not realize their full potential. In a 

world of constantly advancing technology, it can be a challenge for agencies to evaluate and 

identify the best tools to meet the region’s needs and allow the system to expand, which can 

complicate the implementation process. Additionally, there is little data that quantifies a return on 

investment in terms of safety when integrating data between ICM and TIM, so TIM stakeholders 

may be hesitant to focus limited resources on such efforts. TIM stakeholders are more likely to 

place a higher need on investing in tangible first responder equipment than data integration. 

Another challenge to technical integration is determining how to process and use the large quantity 

of data that will be available. Once the data is available, resources need to be allocated to determine 

how it is processed, whether the data should be published, and where the data is stored. 

Source: Washington State DOT, The Grey Notebook, Edition 59, Quarter 

ending September 30, 2015 (Olympia, WA: WSDOT, 2015). Available at: http://

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/navigateGNB.htm.

A Lesson Learned from the Integrated Corridor Management 

Demonstration Sites:

“Collecting and processing the necessary data can be one of the most time-intensive aspects of 

planning and designing an ICM system, and figuring out how to use that data post-deployment 

can be a challenge.” 

Source: FHWA

Figure 3. Illustration. Washington State Department of Transportation 

Gray Notebook Performance Measures.

First quarter (January through March) 2014 and 2015

incident responses

incident responses

Washington State Department of Transportation sees less incident 

responses, clearance times improve

minute average incident 

clearance time

minute average incident 

clearance time

decreased decreased

2015 - Q1

2.3%

12.2

12.4

11,076

incident responses

2014 - Q1 11,333

clearance time 1.6%
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

2 1

CONCLUSION 

Integrated corridor management (ICM) and traffic incident management (TIM) have at their core 

a shared objective – safely and efficiently moving people and goods. ICM focuses on the efficient 

utilization of transportation infrastructure and assets to maximize the capacity of existing 

corridors through multi-modal, active management of all assets along that corridor. TIM provides 

for safe, quick clearance of traffic incidents that protects motorists and responders while quickly 

restoring traffic flow and reducing the occurrence of secondary incidents. 

The benefits to ICM and TIM from integration are fairly intuitive. Better managed corridors 

mean less risk of traffic incidents and a safer, more efficient response environment for TIM 

stakeholders when incidents do occur. Coordinated traffic incident response minimizes impacts 

from the incidents that do occur, and TIM programs can provide greatly enhanced incident data 

for an ICM decision support system.

The opportunities for ICM and TIM integration are numerous and in many instances are easily 

realized, such as involving ICM stakeholders in regular TIM meetings and sharing incident data 

for improved traveler information. 

There are challenges to integration of ICM and TIM, particularly in those areas where the TIM 

program is not institutionalized among TIM responders. In such areas, ICM may actually provide 

the platform for coalescing TIM partner activities on the corridor, providing the opportunity for 

further expansion once the relationships are built.

Despite the challenges, the objectives of ICM and TIM are so closely related that opportunities to 

integrate the two should be capitalized on whenever possible.


U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Operations 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Toll-Free “Help Line” 866-367-7487

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

January 2016

FHWA-HOP-16-035