INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT 

AND THE SMART CITIES REVOLUTION:

LEVERAGING SYNERGIES
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

Disclaimer:

Throughout this report, we use the term “smart cities” as a generic definition of the institutional 

characteristics and operational strategies of many major cities that together, since the early 2000s, are 

representative of using forward thinking applications in technology and communications to improve 

city services. Specifically, our use of this term is not intended to refer to or endorse any commercial 

offering, nor infringe on trademarks such as IBM’s Smarter CitiesTM products or services, or any 

other “Smart City”– named initiative, unless specifically called out in this document as an example or 

unique application. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HOP-16-075

2. Government Accession 

No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Integrated Corridor Management and the Smart Cities 

Revolution: Leveraging Synergies

5. Report Date

October 2016

6. Performing Organizations Code

7. Authors

 Leidos: Diane Newton, Cary Vick, Kelli Raboy

DKS: Adrian Pearmine. Elliot Hubbard

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Leidos

11251 Roger Bacon Drive 

Reston, VA 20190

DKS Associates

1970 Broadway, Suite 740

Oakland, CA 94612 

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

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HOTM-1

15. Supplementary Notes

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

ITS Joint Program Office

16. Abstract

Because smart cities and integrated corridor management (ICM) are so fundamentally similar in 

terms of their requirements and objectives, this primer focuses on opportunities for co-deployment 

synergies and how approaches and lessons learned from one initiative can be translated to the other. 

The institutional relationships, operational processes, and technical methods developed as part of 

the successful ICM deployment may be extended across different regions and across different public 

service areas as part of a broader smart cities program. Both ICM and the smart cities philosophies 

share the same challenges inherent in coordinating among various stakeholders. This primer is 

intended to encourage these groups to think broadly about how to go about creating smart cities and 

how integrated corridor management can help achieve each stakeholder group’s goals.

17. Key Words

integrated corridor management, smart city, urbanism, data 

sharing, communication, interconnected systems, system of 

systems, information and communications technologies, public 

sector services

18. Distribution Statement 

 No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No of Pages

 28

22. Price 

 N/A

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

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

“Smart Cities”.............................................................................................................................1

Integrated Corridor Management Fundamentals.......................................................................1

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

Purpose of the Primer...............................................................................................................4

HOW DOES A “SMART CITY” OPERATE? ..........................................................................5

U.S. Department of Transportation Initiatives..........................................................................7

Other Examples of Smart Cities Initiatives...............................................................................8

INTEGRATION: INSTITUTIONAL, OPERATIONAL, AND TECHNICAL ...................11

Institutional Integration........................................................................................................... 11

Stakeholder Goals and Objectives..................................................................................... 11

Benefits of Institutional Integration .................................................................................. 11

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

Challenges to Institutional Integration.............................................................................. 13

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

Integrated Corridor Management Initiatives that can Inform Smart Cities Initiatives..... 13

Challenges to Operational Integration................................................................................14

Technical Integration............................................................................................................... 15

Opportunities for Technical Integration............................................................................ 15

Challenges to Technical Integration.................................................................................. 15

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX. SMART CITIES RESOURCES – GOVERNMENTAL AND 

NON-GOVERNEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS)..........................................................19
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Examples of Smart Cities and Associated Applications.....................................................8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Illustration. A shared services platform for smart cities can scale 

to integrate multiple agencies and devices.......................................................................................6

Figure 2. Illustration. Measuring Amsterdam seeks citizen input on all aspects of the 

city’s infrastructure, environment and services..............................................................................9

Figure 3. Diagram. Benefits of integrating smart cities and integrated corridor management..... 11
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1

INTRODUCTION

“SMART CITIES” 

The concept of “smart cities” is a relatively recent one, dating to the early 2000s as a response to 

growing urbanism and the return of population and commerce to cities. Its growth as a concept is 

due in no small part to technological advances that began replacing old style information “stove 

piping” with data sharing and improved communication. This in turn drove increased demand for 

more-accountable public services from cities that formerly had deteriorating infrastructure, 

inefficient systems, and limited public agency resources. 

As a concept, smart cities is perhaps only slightly older 

than integrated corridor management (ICM), which is 

defined as a practical application of a smart cities 

objective, albeit within the defined cordon of a corridor, 

not necessarily city wide. 

In 2014, as a means to position the emerging connected 

vehicle community of strategies into the concurrently 

emerging smart cities movement, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Joint Program Office (JPO) 

defined a smart (or “connected”) city as “a system of 

interconnected systems, including employment, health 

care, retail/entertainment, public services, residences, 

energy distribution, and not least, transportation. This 

‘system of systems’ is tied together by information 

and communications technologies (ICT) that transmit 

and process data about all sorts of activities within 

the city.”1

In many ways smart cities are still lagging in terms 

of technological maturity, primarily because smart 

cities initiatives must overcome decades of public 

service “culture” and overhaul a much wider breadth 

of services than ICM initiatives. 

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS

ICM exists as a complementary process under the tenets and precepts of a smart cities umbrella. 

In traditional urban transportation corridors, each transportation agency within the corridor 

typically would handle operations independently. While the operators may collaborate or interact 

1 “The Smart/Connected City and Its Implications for Connected Transportation,” FHWA-JPO-14-148 (Washington, DC: 2014). Available 

at: http://www.its.dot.gov/itspac/Dec2014/Smart_Connected_City_FINAL_111314.pdf.

Who should read this primer?

The intended audience for this 

primer includes stakeholders from 

State and local transportation 

departments, metropolitan planning 

organizations, city agencies, and 

other organizations – public and 

private sector – that provide 

services within a city or 

metropolitan area and which are 

seeking to provide those services in 

a smarter, more efficient and 

sustainable way. It is intended to 

encourage these groups to think 

broadly about how to go about 

creating smart cities and how 

integrated corridor management 

can help achieve those goals. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

2

to some extent to react to incidents or plan to manage pre-planned events, each agency mostly 

conducts day-to-day operations autonomously. When congestion and the number of incidents 

increases over time, this “reactionary” method of operation becomes less effective in meeting the 

transportation needs of the businesses and people that rely upon the corridor.

The vision of ICM is that transportation networks will realize significant improvements in the 

efficient movement of people and goods through aggressive, proactive integration of existing 

infrastructure along major corridors. ICM stakeholders include public transportation agencies, 

such as State and local departments of transportation (DOT), metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO), and transit agencies. Through 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. Smart cities seek to incorporate emerging information and 

communications technologies within existing infrastructure systems, such as transportation 

networks, in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector services. As smart 

cities pilot programs kick off across the country, FHWA has a unique opportunity to integrate 

mature ICM strategies into smart cities solutions to address transportation challenges. Adding 

definition to the relationship between ICM and smart cities will improve the integration of 

stakeholders, issues, and solutions into ICM and broader smart cities transportation strategies. 

This primer will: 

 • Examine how ICM can integrate smart cities strategies.

• Examine how existing ICM approaches can advance, inform, and even help lead smart cities 

initiatives.

• Explore opportunities to effectively integrate strategies institutionally, operationally, 

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

coordination between ICM and smart cities stakeholders.

• Identify potential challenges to integrating ICM and smart cities, along with potential 

solutions. 

The ICM approach is based on three fundamental concepts: a corridor-level operations “nexus”; 

agency integration through institutional, operational, and technical means; and active 

management of all available, and hopefully participating, corridor assets and facilities. Each 

of these concepts is described below.

Corridor-level focus on operations is one the fundamental elements of ICM. The United States 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) defines a corridor as a travel shed that serves a 

particular travel market or markets that are characterized by similar transportation needs and 

mobility issues. A combination of networks comprising facility types and modes provide 

complementary functions to meet those mobility needs. These networks may include freeways, 

limited access facilities, surface arterials, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 

among others. Cross-network connections permit travelers to seamlessly transfer between 

networks for a truly multimodal transportation experience. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

3

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 – 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 – 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 – The means by which affected agencies share and distribute 

information, system operations, and control functions among networks and their respective 

transportation management systems, and the means by which affected agencies can 

immediately view and evaluate the impacts of operational decisions. Examples include 

communication links between agencies, system interfaces, and associated standards. 

This cannot be accomplished without institutional and operational integration.

THE INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INITIATIVE 

USDOT started the formal 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: 1) design and deployment and 2) 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. 

In 2015, 13 other regional corridors were awarded grants to develop pre-implementation ICM 

foundations. 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. 

Thus, the FHWA is committed to raising awareness for ICM through their knowledge and 

technology transfer program, which advances the implementation and integration of ICM with 

other concepts.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

4

PURPOSE OF THE PRIMER

Previously published ICM primers, including on 

traffic incident management (TIM) and transit 

operations, described how specific modal programs 

or activities could be integrated into ICM to 

provide additional operations and performance 

benefits to the ICM corridor. But because smart 

cities and ICM are so fundamentally similar in 

terms of their requirements and objectives, this 

primer will focus more on the opportunities for 

co-deployment synergies and how approaches and 

lessons learned from one can be translated to the 

other. For example, a community lacking a smart 

cities program but interested in developing one 

could start by implementing ICM on a particular 

corridor. The institutional relationships, operational 

processes, and technical methods developed as part 

of the successful ICM deployment could then be 

extended across different regions and across 

different public service areas as part of a broader 

smart cities program. 

In many ways, a typical ICM corridor can be 

viewed as a “mini-city,” albeit only in the 

transportation realm, with its mix of transportationspecific users, operators, and stakeholders, each with 

varying needs and objectives, and a unified need for cross-modal and cross-jurisdictional 

coordination in order to deliver the transportation services required by its users. Both ICM and 

the smart cities philosophies share the same challenges inherent in coordinating among various 

stakeholders. This primer examines the opportunities and challenges (institutional, technical, 

and operational) associated with integrating smart cities stakeholder groups and operations 

areas with ICM.

This primer also identifies many of the synergies (i.e., two-way benefits) of an integrated 

approach to ICM and smart cities. Such synergies include the exchange of information on 

planned and unplanned events (city wide vs. corridor-specific); coordinated response to 

events and incidents; better, data-driven decision making; and a broader measurement of 

system performance.

Who are smart city-philosophy 

stakeholders?

• Transportation (streets, transit, 

ports, bicycle). 

• Water/wastewater utilities.

• Energy (electric and gas) utilities.

• City buildings/ facilities 

management.

• Public services (health services, 

waste management).

• Safety & security (fire and police). 

• Parking providers (public and 

private).

• Private industry.

• End users: Private citizens; freight 

delivery services; taxi / car share 

services.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

5

HOW DOES A “SMART CITY” OPERATE?

As the concept of smart cities began to take shape, it quickly focused on a few common themes 

seen in exemplary cities around the world. One of the most common was that the city became a 

“system of interconnected systems.” The operational components of a city all work together to 

deliver the services its businesses and citizens require and expect. The main issue, of course, is 

how to make these systems work more efficiently. The simple answer is to integrate individual 

systems into a system of systems that can better share limited resources and data. For example, a 

city’s assets may include local departments’ information systems and the schools, libraries, 

transportation systems, hospitals, power plants, water supply networks, waste management, law 

enforcement, and other community services. Citizens now expect direct information on those 

services (e.g., trash pickup schedules, school status, hospital waiting times, bus schedules, etc.) 

from the convenience of their home computer or smartphone without having to contact or make a 

physical visit to a city facility for that information. That in turn makes city workers more 

productive and efficient, improving city processes. Information and communications technologies 

(ICT) also enable improved internal departmental efficiency via data manipulation and 

communication amongst different departments, the mayor’s office, public utilities, and public 

safety agencies. In short, the goal of building a smart city is to improve quality of life for the 

citizens and to improve efficiency of government by using technology to better serve the public.

A fundamental aspect vital to the success of a smart city is ICT. Since the early 2000s, the advent 

of “big data” and improved communications due to smart phone applications and social media 

have allowed ICT to power smart cities and simultaneously make integrated corridor 

management (ICM) viable. “Big data” is associated with the ever-growing capability to collect 

huge amounts of data and then use that data to conduct research, analyze, and then disseminate 

information and services to the public (e.g., interactive communication with public agencies, and 

real-time updates of project and service status, etc.). The smart phone revolution has enabled the 

use of powerful applications and social media to make this real-time information available 

practically instantaneously and with increasing transparency. In layman’s terms, both a smart 

city and an ICM process give users real-time information that allows them to make informed 

decisions and take decisive actions. 

However, in many cities the integration of systems and ICT is often complicated by “silos,” or 

vertical lines of business within the city that are not easily compatible or able to communicate 

with other silos and are typically surrounded by a virtual “wall” of opacity. This virtual wall can 

be characterized by institutional constraints, incompatible technologies, managerial 

parochialisms, or a combination of some or all of these factors. Building smart cities often 

requires breaking down these silos within cities and integrating people, systems, and processes, 

thus enabling data-driven decision making and improved efficiency. 
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

6

Any number of smart cities proponents, from technology firms to market researchers to urban 

planners, have offered various definitions of smart cities and ways to depict a common platform 

or framework for real-time data sharing and operational governance within cities and 

communities. Figure 1 presents one such high-level integration platform that depicts how 

common elements across multiple agencies, such as networking and security, can be shared. This 

graphic represents only one of many possible frameworks for a smart city – it is an example, but 

not a recommended solution for every situation. 

Integrating component systems—transportation, healthcare, utilities, education, public services, 

and buildings—will require cross-cutting services such as networks, cyber-security systems, 

weather intelligence, data sharing, and resource and performance monitoring to fully support 

integrated city management and citizen services.

Figure 1. Illustration. A shared services platform for smart cities can scale 

to integrate multiple agencies and devices. 

TRANSIT TOPS CENTER

ITS PLATFORM

CYBERSECURITY

NETWORK

DATA FUSION APPLIANCE

DATA FUSION

CYBERSECURITY

NETWORK

PUBLIC SAFETY

EMERGENCY OPS

CYBERSECURITY

NETWORK

FIELD ASSETS

NETWORK

CYBERSECURITY

ASSET

Source: Leidos
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

7

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES

The approach taken by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to improve the delivery 

and operational efficiency of the Nation’s transportation system is embodied in its “Beyond 

Traffic 2045” framework. In the words of USDOT: “Beyond Traffic is an invitation to the 

American public—including the users, developers, owners, and operators of the transportation 

network and the policy officials who shape it—to have a frank conversation about the shape, size, 

and condition of that system and how it will meet the needs and goals of our nation for decades to 

come.”2 Beyond Traffic promotes five questions:

• How will we move (to build a better transportation network to serve the future)? 

• How will we move freight (to meet increasing freight volumes vs. delay challenges)? 

• How will we move better (to employ new technology, automation and travel information)? 

• How will we adapt (to climate change and infrastructure deterioration)?

• How will we align decisions and dollars (to meet ever-declining revenue sources vs. 

construction costs)? 

As part of the Beyond Traffic framework, the 

USDOT has initiated the “Smart City Challenge” 

which will award one city in 2016 with a 

substantial grant ($40 million in government funds 

plus contributions from the private sector) to 

implement smart cities technologies. In June 2016, 

the USDOT announced the winner of the Smart 

City Challenge, announcing that:

“Columbus was selected as the winner because it put forward an impressive, holistic 

vision for how technology can help all of the city’s residents to move more easily and to 

access opportunity. The city proposed to deploy three electric self-driving shuttles to 

link a new bus rapid transit center to a retail district, connecting more residents to jobs. 

Columbus also plans to use data analytics to improve health care access in a 

neighborhood that currently has an infant mortality rate four times that of the national 

average, allowing them to provide improved transportation options to those most in need 

of prenatal care.”3

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, “Beyond Traffic: USDOT’s 30 Year Framework for the Future” Web page. Available at: https://www.

transportation.gov/BeyondTraffic.

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S. Department of Transportation Announces Columbus as Winner of Unprecedented $40 

Million Smart City Challenge,” DOT 73-16, June 23, 2016. Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-departmenttransportation-announces-columbus-winner-unprecedented-40-million-smart. 

The USDOT Smart City Challenge

https://www.transportation.gov/smartcity
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

8

The size of the USDOT Smart City Challenge grant is one of the largest initiatives for smart 

cities deployment in North America. This approach recognizes the importance of the 

transportation system in facilitating and enabling many solutions to urban challenges.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF SMART CITIES INITIATIVES

Several cities and communities around the world4 have already begun the move to endorse smart 

cities concepts. In most cases, the initiatives have involved a much smaller level of investment 

than that intended for the USDOT challenge. In some cases, cities have undertaken pilot projects 

in one or more domains to show a proof of concept. Some cities have implemented a multi-year 

program to deploy inter-related projects and technologies so that each deployment builds upon a 

common framework, delivering synergistic benefits. Table 1 presents a partial list of cities that 

have been recognized as leaders in smart cities initiatives:

 Table 1. Examples of smart cities and associated applications. Parking Traffic Management Transit Initiatives Maintenance of Public Areas Noise & Air Pollution Energy 

ManagementStreet LightingCrime Analytics

San Francisco, CA, USA  

Santa Cruz, CA, USA 

San Diego, CA, USA  

Dallas, TX, USA   

Barcelona, Spain     

Santander, Spain  

Stockholm, Sweden  

Amsterdam, Netherlands      

4 There are many smart cities initiatives around the world that are being promoted or supported by governmental and non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs). See the Appendix for a list including Web site addresses.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

9

The City of Amsterdam, Netherlands, has been implementing smart cities initiatives for many 

years. Figure 2 illustrates an important cross-cutting element of the city’s initiative, “Measuring 

Amsterdam.” Measuring Amsterdam provides a method for participatory open data collection 

that occurs periodically through a web application. Inputs are accepted regarding all of 

Amsterdam’s infrastructure, environment, and services. The city publishes the collected data as 

open data, allowing developers to create visualizations or applications to provide new insights.

Figure 2. Illustration. Measuring Amsterdam seeks citizen input on all aspects of the 

city’s infrastructure, environment and services.

Source: City of Amsterdam, Netherlands - www.measuringamsterdam.nl/

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 1

INTEGRATION: 

INSTITUTIONAL, OPERATIONAL, AND TECHNICAL 

INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION

As mentioned earlier, almost all major urban areas are made up of a multitude of public agencies 

and governmental jurisdictions. The need for institutional integration is driven primarily by a set 

of common goals shared by many stakeholders.

Stakeholder Goals and Objectives

Each stakeholder group brings its own set of goals and mission objectives. Where it can be shown 

that many of these goals are shared across multiple stakeholders, there is a real opportunity to 

foster greater institutional integration. Some goals that are typically common across stakeholders 

in both ICM and smart cities include:

• Sustainable, reliable, safe, and efficient transportation and mobility services that are integrated 

across all modes all providers and which are ubiquitous throughout the urban area.

• Greater efficiency in providing citizen services, including new approaches to regulation, 

public safety initiatives, trash/snow removal, and health and human services.

• Improved quality of life for area residents through decreased pollution and more options for 

reliable mobility and sustainable lifestyles.

• Improved local/regional economic viability and competitiveness through improved 

transportation, citizen services, and quality of life. 

Often, these shared goals are interconnected and complementary, building off of one another to 

advance local/regional operations.

Benefits of Institutional 

Integration

Shared goals should generate 

benefits to mutual stakeholders. 

Ideally, this is a two-way street. 

Figure 3 shows the sets of benefits 

from both integrated corridor 

management (ICM) and smart cities 

and where they may overlap. The 

following describes some of the 

benefits that are typically associated 

with ICM deployments, but which 

also may be accrued by smart cities 

deployments: Figure 3. Diagram. Benefits of integrating smart cities and 

integrated corridor management.

SMART CITIES CORRIDOR OPERATORS

Benefits for. . .

• Improved reliability

• Integrated travel 

information

• Established 

deployment 

process

• Improved quality 

of life

• Economic viability

• Forum for 

collaboration

• Situational 

awareness

• Improved 

corridor 

performance

• Shared use of 

resources & 

big data

• More strategies 

for the ICM 

“toolbox”

• Real-time data 

that better 

captures travel 

patterns

• Expanded 

mobility 

alternatives to 

private cars
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 2

• Improved reliability and resiliency of the transportation system, which supports key smart 

cities goals of economic improvements, efficient city services delivery, and increased quality 

of life.

• Enhanced data sharing and institutional cooperation (e.g., sharing of information on travel, 

weather, events), which supports smart cities goals of providing smarter city services.

Conversely, the following describes some of the benefits that are typically associated with smart 

cities deployments, but which also may be accrued by ICM deployments:

• Improved coordination with emergency responders, city utilities, etc. result from integrating 

more strategies into the ICM “toolbox.”

• Clarified view of corridor or regional travel patterns provided by real-time data when that 

information is combined with additional data sources from related city services. 

• Expanded mobility alternatives to private cars enables better coordination of shared ride 

services with changing corridor demand.

Opportunities for Institutional Integration

The special case for this primer is that ICM can inform and serve as the genesis of wider smart 

cities deployments. One example is simply building upon the success of a single ICM deployment 

in a single corridor to more corridors within the same urban area. Soon, as more ICM corridors 

overlap, the travel shed of multiple corridors will include the majority of travelers within the 

metropolitan area. In this case, the ICM becomes an “integrated network management” program, 

supporting integrated mobility options throughout the smart cities environment.

The potential for mutual benefits really drives opportunities for institutional integration. 

Whenever two or more agencies can save money, improve operations, or increase efficiency, there 

is motivation to overcome the inherent challenges of integration. Shared data offers some of the 

greatest promise, because it touches all city and ICM systems. Access to data and information via 

a common platform enables all manner of efficiencies. Big data analytics provide the most benefit 

when applied across multiple agencies’ datasets. Efficiency increases where there is a centralized 

location to get information. Data-driven decision making is more effective with a holistic view 

and shared situational awareness. 

Another opportunity for ICM to help with the deployment of smart cities projects is via the use of 

a structured systems engineering process. Smart cities deployments are only now beginning to be 

able to prove the value of standards and interoperability. The systems architecture and systems 

engineering processes developed for transportation technology over the last 20 years, and more 

recently for ICM, provides a roadmap for smart cities to follow. The emerging connected and 

automated vehicle technology program is also developing complementary reference architecture 

and related standards. These will serve as powerful opportunities that can be applied to many 

smart cities elements.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 3

Challenges to Institutional Integration

Institutional issues have long been raised as one of the main obstacles for many programs that 

require the active participation (planning, funding, operations, and maintenance) of any system 

across multiple jurisdictions. Some specific challenges include:

• Lack of leadership or a champion with sufficient standing and authority in the organization 

to get things done.

• Absence of a coordinated vision across departments about issues such as open data 

requirements and interoperability standards.

• Laws that preclude some cities/agencies from legally entering into new contractual 

relationships (such as public private partnerships (P3)) or present difficulties in reforming 

procurement laws to attract innovation and new partnerships.

• Regulations (e.g., many cities are struggling to address regulatory issues around ride hailing 

providers such as Uber and Lyft).

• Reluctance among private sector entities to fully engage in public-sector-led activities; 

this is exacerbated by a lack of understanding within the public sector of private sector 

business models.

• Silos in city organizational structures around disciplines such as lighting, parking, signals, 

and streets; new business models must be defined by the desired outcomes (e.g., safety, 

efficiency, livability), not just outputs.

• Budgets for one initiative are often limited to the initial agency-specific scope of work, so 

even if a coordinated effort between agencies or departments could save the city significant 

money in the long run, the initiating agency often prefers to move forward in the context of 

its own limited scope.

OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION

Integrated Corridor Management Initiatives that can Inform Smart Cities Initiatives

Existing ICM initiatives have the opportunity to inform and provide lessons learned for emerging 

smart cities initiatives.

For example, ICM parking programs can support smart parking programs, especially those at 

transit park-and-ride facilities, by indicating real-time availability of parking spaces via online 

and other publicly accessible communications. This guidance serves to reduce congestion from 

drivers searching for a space and to increase transit mode-share.

Electric vehicle charging and sharing programs, especially those at transit park-and-ride facilities, 

can utilize ICM advances in providing real-time availability and usage statistics via online and 

other publicly accessible communications. In the future, this technology can also assist smart 

grids with the decision support necessary to serve special events and locations/time periods with 

recurring high demand for energy consumption as electric vehicle use grows.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 4

Bike share programs can take advantage of ICM experience in the management and 

communication of options for last-mile solutions for transit. ICM decision support tools that 

coordinate supply and demand along a corridor could be adapted to manage existing supply and 

demand issues among bike share stations, especially for those at transit park-and-ride facilities.

Smart cities initiatives can adopt or use ICM initiatives in coordinated traffic management as a 

foundation for more advanced smart traffic management systems. Smart traffic management 

systems can learn from ICM experience, enabling better special event traffic management, 

incident response, resilience to catastrophes, and delivery of city services (e.g., waste 

management, snow plowing, coordinated emergency response).

Challenges to Operational Integration

As is often the case in technology deployments, considerations for operations and maintenance 

(O&M) receive relatively little attention. One approach to dealing with this challenge is the 

adoption of AASHTO’s Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Transportation Systems 

Management and Operation (TSMO). The CMM approach can be extended beyond the 

transportation realm and into the management of many city systems, including utilities and 

facilities management.

Limited funding for public projects of all types is a constant challenge for cities. This also makes 

it difficult to compare the relative benefits and priorities of transportation and smart cities 

initiatives. As planners look at ICM and smart cities projects, how do they compare economic 

impacts and societal benefits that will come from a smart grid project versus those resulting from 

a smart mobility project, for example? This challenge is best dealt with by the regional MPO, 

whose responsibility (under most regional governance models) and core competency is to balance 

priorities among all metro area transportation agencies (and often other government agencies). 

The MPO is also well suited for dealing with other city agencies and their corresponding 

governance panels and commissions.

Limited familiarity with cross-disciplinary issues and opportunities among agencies is also a 

significant challenge. The silos mentioned above are rarely intentionally created, but are typically 

due to a simple lack of understanding of each agency’s challenges and the potential benefits of 

closer coordination and integration.

Finally, as cities look more and more to the private sector to help share the expense of operating 

many city systems, there is the challenge of incentivizing private sector participation in public 

sector-led initiatives. Privatized operation of public facilities can be challenging, but with the 

right mix of performance-based incentives and minimum service level agreements, this approach 

can be valuable for both ICM and smart cities programs.

.
INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 5

TECHNICAL INTEGRATION

Once ICM and/or smart cities stakeholders are engaged and operational integration opportunities 

are identified, the systems engineering process can begin. Starting with a concept of operations 

(ConOps), system requirements and architecture, the details of design and implementation will 

define the technical integration of ICM and smart cities elements.

Opportunities for Technical Integration

Early in the systems engineering process, high level questions, such as “what is my vision?” 

and “what outcome do I expect?” help define the ConOps. Each stakeholder should then ask 

“what can I do with what I have and what do I need from one or more other stakeholders?” This 

conversation will help define potential data sources, existing or future, that will be necessary 

for a successful system. There are many possible data sources within an ICM corridor that will 

be valuable to related smart cities systems, including travel demand patterns, incident history, 

special events, etc.

In addition to data needs, there are resource needs. For example, the location and capacity of 

emergency responders is typically a resource that is evaluated for ICM incident response 

planning. These resources are also available to support other incidents, such as severe weather 

events and other natural disasters. There is also opportunity to share other resources, such as 

communications, sensors, etc. that can support both smart cities and ICM functions. For a typical 

ICM deployment, the technical infrastructure (communications networks for center to field and 

center to center connections) and the physical resources (emergency responder vehicles, 

maintenance equipment, etc.) needed to detect and monitor incidents and coordinate responses, 

requires extensive coordination between all stakeholders. This ICM coordination helps to create a 

more mature capability model within all affected agencies. This capability is reusable for smart 

cities deployments and provides multiple opportunities for mutual benefits to all stakeholders.

Challenges to Technical Integration

One of the most significant challenges facing smart cities initiatives is the lack of standards, 

protocols, and architectures for systems that have not previously been required to integrate or 

share data. The well-established approach used to develop standards and architectures for 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and programs such as ICM can be used as a model for 

smart cities. There are many benefits for establishing such standards, making it possible to share 

information across all city systems. Other ways to address the challenge of disparate data formats 

include the use of open data standards, big data, and data analytics technologies. These open data 

approaches actually reduce the need for complex integration between agency systems. With a 

common platform that enables secure and ubiquitous data sharing, city agencies can subscribe to 

data they need—with the applications they already have—to support more efficient operations.

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 7

CONCLUSION 

Integrated corridor management (ICM) is a practical and logical evolutionary step in 

transportation operations. As congestion continues to grow and agencies’ ability to expand the 

roadway network is limited by both space and resources, ICM provides operators with a tool to 

maximize the person-throughput of existing roadway infrastructure through active management 

of all assets along a corridor. It is this “active management” aspect that offers lessons to smart 

cities deployments.

Successful ICM deployments in Dallas and San Diego have shown that, in order to achieve the 

level of real-time, or even pro-active, transportation systems management necessary to optimize 

corridor operations and maximize the benefits of ICM, there is a need for both a shared vision 

and a shared view of the corridor between all stakeholders. The institutional issues addressed by 

ICM stakeholders are the same as those that smart cities planners will have to address. 

The lessons learned by ICM deployment teams may be readily shared with smart cities 

implementers. For example, where there are shared goals between agencies, there are 

opportunities for shared benefits. Common goals for both ICM and smart cities implementations 

include safe, reliable, efficient transportation; greater efficiencies for the delivery of city services; 

and improved quality of life, including both economic vitality and a cleaner environment. 

There are many opportunities for operational integration between ICM and smart cities 

operators. Smart cities initiatives can adopt or mimic ICM initiatives, such as coordinated traffic 

management and incident response. City-wide, smart traffic management systems can leverage 

the ICM experience, enabling better special event traffic management and proactive response to 

severe weather and natural disasters. This capability provides better system reliability and 

resilience, both of which are common goals for ICM and smart cities initiatives. 

ICM deployments have been able to leverage existing and emerging technologies to meet project 

goals and objectives. This experience provides multiple examples and opportunities for smart 

cities initiative. Open data standards, big data, and data analytics technologies offer solutions to 

many technical challenges. ICM initiatives have been able to use these approaches to integrate 

and fuse real-time data from multiple sources, and disseminate information for use by multiple 

applications, including decision support systems and traveler information apps. Both ICM and 

smart cities initiatives benefit from a common platform that enables sharing data securely and 

ubiquitously across multiple city agencies to support more efficient operations.

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND SMART CITIES

1 9

APPENDIX

SMART CITIES RESOURCES – GOVERNMENTAL AND 

NON-GOVERNEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS)

 

Resource Web Address

USDOT Beyond Traffic: Smart 

Connected Cities Program www.transportation.gov/smartcity

Smart Cities Council www.smartcitiescouncil.com 

Smart Cities Association www.smartcitiesassociation.org

European Innovation Partnership for 

Smart Cities & Communities www.eu-smartcities.eu/ 

Smart City Advisory Group (Europe) www.iurban-project.eu/the-consortium/smart-cityadvisory-group.html

Russia The Smart City Project http://en.isrussia.ru/visitors/events/bussines/smartcity/

India Smart Cities Challenge www.smartcitieschallenge.in/ 

China Smart City (UK-China 

partnership www.uk-chinasmartcities.com/

Meeting of the Minds www.cityminded.org

IEEE Smart Cities Technical 

Community http://smartcities.ieee.org

American Planning Association Smart 

Cities and Sustainability Task Force www.planning.org/sustainingplaces/smartcities/ 

Global Smart City & Community 

Coalition (GSC3) www.gsc3.city/news

National Science Foundation Smart & 

Connected Communities www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=136253


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

October 2016

FHWA-HOP-16-075