Elements of Business Rules and Decision Support Systems 

within Integrated Corridor Management: 

Understanding the Intersection of These Three Components
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 photos: Top photo-SANDAG (Alex Estrella), bottom left-Thinkstock, bottom middle-D. Allen Covey, bottom right-Thinkstock
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HOP-17-027

2. Government Accession 

No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Elements of Business Rules and Decision Support Systems 

within Integrated Corridor Management: Understanding the 

Intersection of These Three Components

5. Report Date

October 2017

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Authors

 Emanuel Robinson, Moggan Motamed, Diane Newton, 

 Koorosh Olyai, Lisa Kinner Bedsole

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Leidos

11251 Roger Bacon Drive 

Reston, VA 20190

Westat

1600 Research Blvd

Rockville, MD 20850

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

Guidance, September 14, 2016 

through November 13, 2017

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HOTM-1

15. Supplementary Notes

Neil Spiller, Transportation Specialist from the Office of Operations, served as the COTM for 

this task.

16. Abstract

The purpose of this guidance document is to provide a fundamental explanation of the “decision 

support system” (DSS) concept and the relationship of DSS systems and business rules to the 

integrated corridor management (ICM) community. The document will provide examples and 

background within and beyond transportation, as well as a clearly organized discussion about 

elements of business rules and decision support systems within ICM corridors. 

17. Key Words

Integrated corridor management, decision support system, 

business rules

18. Distribution Statement

 No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this 

report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No of Pages

 98

22. Price 

 N/A

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

Stantec Consulting Services

2435 North Central Expressway

Richardson, Texas 75080

ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1

Development of Guidance Document.......................................................................................1

Intended Audience ....................................................................................................................2

Background...............................................................................................................................2

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

Decision Support Systems .................................................................................3

Business Rules ...............................................................................................3

Integrated Corridor Management, Relevant Components, and Recent Implementations...5

Overview of Decisionmaking and Decision Support System Design ......................... 11

Factors Affecting Decisionmaking ............................................................... ..... 11

Understanding Common Decisionmaking Biases ............................................................12

Decision Support Systems—High-level History and Relevant Approaches on 

Implementation and Management..................................................................................... 13

How Do Decision Support Systems Help Overcome Bias? ...................................... 13

Business Rules: Context and Constraints for Implementing Decision Support Systems 

Interagency Agreements ................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 2. GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESS RULES AND DECISION SUPPORT 

SYSTEMS WITHIN INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT.................................21

How To Develop a Decision Support System within an Integrated Corridor.........................22

How To Develop Agreements: Rules To Consider within Operational Constraints...............25

Levels of Formality for Agreements.................................................................................25

Potential Partners in Forming Agreements and Business Rules.......................................27

Regulatory Context ...........................................................................................................27

Communication Approaches.............................................................................................29

Contingencies Based on Level of Interagency Cooperation ............................................. 31

Structural Concerns................................................................................................................ 31

Additional Levels of Approval..........................................................................................34

Staffing and Budget Limitations.......................................................................................34

Maintaining Balance among Participating Jurisdictions ..................................................36

Establishment of New Partnerships ..................................................................................36

Differences in Institutions.......................................................................................................37
I C M D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T S Y S T E M A N D B U S I N E S S R U L E S 

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

CHAPTER 3. CASE STUDIES AND LESSON LEARNED IN INTEGRATED 

CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT WITH EMPHASIS ON DECISION SUPPORT 

SYSTEMS AND RELEVANT BUSINESS RULES.................................................................39

San Diego and Dallas..............................................................................................................39

Business Rules..................................................................................................................39

Decision Support System Development............................................................................ 41

Expected Timeframe.........................................................................................................50

Other Grant Sites.....................................................................................................................50

Characteristics of Successful Integrated Corridor Management Implementations.................56

Effective Leadership .........................................................................................................56

Cooperative Working Relationships with Federal, State, and Local Agencies.................56

Program Enhancement Strategies.....................................................................................58

Staff Expertise ..................................................................................................................59

Lessons Learned and Common Mistakes...............................................................................59

CHAPTER 4. EXAMPLES OF OPERATIONAL DECISIONS WITH AND 

WITHOUT BUSINESS RULES CONSTRAINING OPTIONS ............................................65

Example 1: A minor incident on the main highway........................................... ..........65

Example 2: A major incident or unplanned event on the main highway............................65

Example 3: A planned event in the downtown area ....................................................66

APPENDIX A: THE FOUR PHASES OF THE INTEGRATED CORRIDOR 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE ................................................................................................67

Phase 1: Foundational Research .................................................................................68

Phase 2: Corridor Tools, Strategies, and Integration .........................................................68

Phase 3: Corridor Site Development, Analysis, and Demostration .....................................69

Phase 4: ICM Outreach And Knowledge and Technology..................................................72

APPENDIX B: RESOURCES FOR PREPARING A CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS........75

APPENDIX C: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT APPROACHES.......................................77

APPENDIX D: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT EXAMPLES ...........................................81

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................82
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Photo. Example of a chess board. ....................................................................................4

Figure 2. Diagram. Characteristics of transportation highway networks where 

integrated corridor management can be an effective approach. ...................................5

Figure 3. Illustration. Integrated corridor management system partners........................................7

Figure 4. Map. US-75 corridor network, Dallas integrated corridor management 

demonstration site.........................................................................................................8

Figure 5. Map. I-15 corridor network, San Diego integrated corridor management 

demonstration site....................................................................................................... 10

Figure 6. Illustration. Integrated corridor management overview. ............................................... 11

Figure 7. Illustration. Examples of decision tools. ........................................................................ 13

Figure 8. Illustration. The DSS technology and methodologies. .................................................. 15

Figure 9. Illustration. “Five Rights” of decision support system design. ...................................... 16

Figure 10. Diagram. Decision support process used by Dallas Area Rapid Transit. ....................23

Figure 11. Diagram. Potential elements of a multiagency agreement. ..........................................25

Figure 12. Diagram. Key features of a policy board.....................................................................28

Figure 13. Diagram. Functions of a regional intelligent transportation systems 

architecture committee. ..............................................................................................29

Figure 14. Diagram. Approaches to communicating with the public............................................ 31

Figure 15. Diagram. Illustration of the many ways in which agencies may differ........................37

Figure 16. Diagram. Dallas integrated corridor management phases. ..........................................42

Figure 17. Diagram. Overview of a decision support systems analysis. .......................................44

Figure 18. Diagram. Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology tasks. ........................... 45

Figure 19. Diagram. Decision support system concept.................................................................46

Figure 20. Diagram. Response plan concept from the San Diego integrated corridor 

management demonstration project report. ................................................................. 47

Figure 21. Diagram. Elements of the Dallas integrated corridor management demonstration. ....48

Figure 22. Diagram. Integrated corridor management multiple stage implementation. ...............48

Figure 23. Diagram. Elements of the Dallas integrated corridor management implementation...49

Figure 24. Diagram. Functional view of a fully developed integrated corridor 

management system..................................................................................................... 53

Figure 25. Diagram. Operational concept for a decision support system. ....................................54

Figure 26. Diagram. I-210 pilot integrated corridor management preliminary 

high-level architecture. ................................................................................................ 55
I C M D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T S Y S T E M A N D B U S I N E S S R U L E S 

vi

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

Figure 27. Diagram. Hierarchy of the I-210 connected corridor steering committee. .................. 57

Figure 28. Diagram. Institutional framework for the I-15 integrated corridor 

management system. ...................................................................................................58

Figure 29. Infographic. Recommendation to enhance a decision support system. .......................60

Figure 30. Diagram. U.S. Department of Transportation integrated corridor management 

initiative timeline. .......................................................................................................67
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Example stakeholders and potential formal agreements that should be 

established when developing business rules................................................................ 26

Table 2. Institutional issues relevant to business rules in the I-15 decision 

support system............................................................................................................. 32

Table 3. Institutional and technical constraints that may affect the proposed I-210 

integrated corridor management implementation........................................................ 33

Table 4. Example of decision support system rules for response plan development.................. 43

Table 5. Federal Highway Administration 2015 ICM Grant Award Sites.................................. 50

Table 6. Business rules for the three areas of integrated corridor management 

implementation on I-210 in Los Angeles, California................................................... 55

Table 7. Lessons learned from the integrated corridor management 

implementation pilots. ................................................................................................. 61

Table 8. Integrated corridor management strategies considered in analysis, 

modeling, and simulation evaluations. ........................................................................ 70
I C M D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T S Y S T E M A N D B U S I N E S S R U L E S 

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ATMS advanced transportation management

ARTS area rapid transit system

ATIS advanced traveler information system

ARM automated records management

ATM active traffic management

AZTech Arizona Technical Regional Partnership

CM corridor management

CAD/AVL computer aided design/audio visual

CCTV closed circuit television

CAD computer aided design

CHP California Highway Patrol

CSC corridor sharing committee

CSMP corridor systems engineering plan

COMPASS computerized optimization model for predicting and

analyzing support systems

ConOPS concept of operation

DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit

DMS dynamic message aystem

DOT Department of Transportation

DRISI Division of Research, Innovation, and System Information

DSS decision support system

EV emergency vehicle

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GLIDE green link determination

HOT high-occupancy toll 

HOV high-occupancy vehicle

ICM integrated corridor management

ICMS integrated corridor management system

IMTS intermodal transportation management

IRP incident response plan

IT information technology 

ITS intelligent transportation systems

IVR interactive voice response

KITS Kimley-Horn Integrated Transportation System(s)

LRT light rail transit

MOU memorandum of understanding

MPO metropolitan planning organization

NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments

NPS network prediction system

O&M operations and maintenance

NTTA North Texas Tollway Authority
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

i x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (CONT.)

PAC Policy Advisory Committee

PATH Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology

RMS ramp meter station

RTMS Regional Transit Management System

RTSS Real-Time Simulation System

PEMS Performance Engineering Management System

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments

TCC Technical Coordinating Committee

TLSP transport layer security protocol 

TMC traffic management center

TMS traffic management system(s)

TOAR traffic operations analysis report

TRANSCOM Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

XML extensible markup language

ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this guidance document is to provide a fundamental explanation of the “decision 

support system” (DSS) concept and the relationship of DSS systems and business rules to the 

integrated corridor management (ICM) community. The document will provide examples and 

background within and beyond transportation, as well as a clearly organized discussion 

concerning the elements of business rules and DSS within ICM corridors. 

An ICM system is a multimodal transportation management system designed to enhance the 

accessibility and efficiency of traveler infrastructure (routes and modes, but also information) by 

directing travelers in the short term to alternative routes and/or modes in a transportation 

corridor. A corridor is herein defined as a unique travel “wedge” or linear corridor that is 

anchored by a major highway and supported by a network of alternative routes and modes (e.g., 

commuter bus, rail, bike, transit, etc.). Inter-regional commute trips and intra-regional “bustle” 

trips that originate near to (and therefore, are considered “anchored by”) the major spine highway, 

are said to be germane to the “travel shed” of that corridor boundary; that is, they would not go 

out of their way to use another spine highway to travel “downtown” and back.

A DSS is an information system that supports organizational decisionmaking and, in the case of 

an ICM, assists in multimodal transportation operation decisionmaking in real-time (Lukasik et 

al, 2011). To assert a multimodal transportation management structure and control the operation 

of all participating agencies, “business rules” are required. Business rules are predefined and 

agreed-upon organizational and inter-agency permissions, constraints, or criteria that bind the 

participating agencies and affect the DSS solutions.

 This document is not a step-by-step guide to developing business rules, criteria, or algorithms 

(or code) to be implemented within a DSS. Extensive search, contacts, canvassing, and 

discussions have not turned up detailed specifications of business rules as part of DSS within an 

ICM (and transportation) domain. Consequently, general principles are outlined for the reader. 

The document is also not a detailed overview of ICM or DSS history, development, and current 

state. There are numerous other documents whose focus is on these topics (and several of them 

are cited in the appropriate areas below). This guidance document attempts to provide an 

overview of the intersection of these three components, which is an often-overlooked area, and 

we hope the information provided below is helpful. 

DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

This document is divided into five chapters, each focused on the business rules as related to DSS 

for managing integrated corridors. 

• Chapter 1. Introduction. This chapter provides the overall purpose, objectives, guidance 

document overview, intended audience, and a brief background of ICM, DSS, and business 

rules.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2

• Chapter 2. Guidance for business rules and DSS within the context of ICM. This 

chapter describes how DSS was developed in the two U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) demonstration sites, Dallas and San Diego, as well as how users interact, 

communicate, and coordinate with colleagues and agencies.

• Chapter 3. Case studies and lessons learned in ICM with emphasis on DSS and 

relevant business rules. This chapter describes operators’ strengths, limitations, biases, and 

lessons learned from site implementation. 

• Chapter 4. Examples of operational decisions with and without business rules 

constraining options. 

• Appendixes. Listing the phases of initiative ICM and resources for the development of 

concept of operation, and interagency agreement approaches and examples.

INTENDED AUDIENCE 

This guidance document presents information on DSS and ICM with a focus on proper business 

rules. It is intended to be used by practitioners, managers, and designers who have varied levels 

of decisionmaking authority, ranging from leading initiatives to operations supervisors to shift 

workers; therefore, they will face a variety of challenges, including overcoming interagency and 

inter-jurisdictional communication issues, or being fully familiar with decision processes in the 

context of transportation management. These staff members will be from varied backgrounds, 

including those who are new to transportation. 

BACKGROUND

This section provides a brief overview of ICM, DSS, and business rules. It is meant only to give a 

high-level overview and introduction with references to more detailed documents about ICM and 

DSS for the interested reader to pursue. This background is necessary to provide the foundation 

for discussion of these three topics and the role of business rules.

Integrated Corridor Management 

The ICM concept has been defined in the San Diego Concept of Operations report as: 

. . . the operational coordination of multiple transportation networks and crossnetwork connections comprising a corridor and the coordination of institutions 

responsible for corridor mobility. ICM programs provide better information, 

coordination of network junctions, proactive management of capacity and demand, 

advanced technologies and systems, and improved institutional arrangements. 

ICMS is a “system of systems,” i.e., a transportation management system (TMS) 

that connects the individual network-based TMS, provides decision support, and 

enables joint operations according to a set of operational procedures agreed to by 

the network owners. ICMS facilitates ICM programs to meet corridor needs and 

realize the ICM vision. (San Diego Pioneer Site Team (2008), page 1-1).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3

ICM has been a concept for over 10 years but was not fully vetted and implemented until the U.S. 

DOT “ICM Initiative” was undertaken to identify several “pioneer sites” and ultimately award 

full demonstration rights to Dallas, TX, and San Diego, CA.

Managing an integrated corridor is possible if agencies take advantage of telecommunications, 

internet, software, and information technology (IT) capabilities as well as, and perhaps most 

importantly, the increasing availability of archived and real-time “big data.” Together, these 

resources allow agencies’ traffic management systems to archive and share data in real-time (or 

compare it to historical precedence) to enhance their ability to monitor, react to, and even predict 

traffic conditions to inform motorists and system operators of any severe delays and the options 

available for either avoiding problem areas or mitigating the cause. 

Use of the term “integrated” implies the need for interagency and interjurisdictional cooperation 

and the ability for proactive traffic management systems to share information with corridor 

agencies and service providers. ICM sites are complex environments characterized by constant 

upgrades of technology along with the concomitant demands (e.g., monitoring ongoing traffic 

operations, responding to emergencies and unpredictable weather, communicating with partner 

entities and the public) on operators, transportation planners, managers, and designers. Such an 

environment also calls for constant decisions to be made at the individual and organizational 

level along with proper protocols for communication between entities.

Decision Support Systems 

DSS are primarily computer-based information systems that originally were developed in the 

management and organizational decisionmaking arenas. They are typically used to sort, rank, or 

choose alternatives. These DSS operated at the operational and planning levels and were used by 

upper management to plan strategic and long-range approaches. For more historical information 

and a detailed bibliography on DSS, which is outside of the current scope of this report, see 

Marakas (1999); Turban, Aronson, and Liang (2008); and Burstein and Holsapple (2008). A DSS 

consists of three major components: 

• Expert Rules. 

• Prediction (Model). 

• Evaluation. 

Because only Dallas and San Diego were fully implemented at the time of this report, this 

guidance document focuses on those two regional ICM sites as examples. 

Business Rules 

A key component of successful transportation systems management is that all relevant agencies 

both leverage their operating powers as well as achieve administrative efficiencies and cost 

savings. The communication and coordination of information sharing capabilities can promote 

interoperability. Too often, the work of the agencies unnecessarily overlaps due to the lack of an 

interagency cooperation agreement, leading to redundancies. This inefficiency due to lack of 

interagency cooperation can result in higher administrative and congestion costs.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4

This guidance document outlines elements of business rules and DSS used in ICM to ensure 

efficient operations and interagency cooperation.

When discussing DSS, business rules, ICM, and how these concepts tie together, it can often be 

confusing. One analogy that may help describe this complex relationship hails from chess. In a 

game of chess, there are several components: the chess board, pieces, rules, and strategies for 

using those pieces within the rules (see Figure 1 for an example chess board).

Figure 1. Photo. Example of a chess board.

Similarly, we can map these components onto the DSS and business rules within the ICM space: 

• The ICM corridor can be thought of as the chess board where the pieces interact, decisions 

are made, and overall context is provided within the geographical constraint of the board, or 

in the context of ICM, the “corridor.” 

• The managers, operators, agencies, and organizations involved in the ICM corridor can be 

thought of as the chess pieces as they are the “moving parts” on the game board/corridor. 

• Business rules are the pre-agreed game rules by which these individuals and agencies 

(pieces) interact. In the chess analogy, a bishop can move diagonally any number of 

unimpeded spaces, a pawn can move one space forward, etc.

• The DSS contains the strategies to beneficially utilize these rules. In other words, knowing 

the rules of how the entities interact is not enough, just like knowing the rules that govern 

pieces on a chess board does not make someone a chess champion. Combining these rules 

within the chess board context in a most beneficial way to succeed is one way of defining 

strategy.

Another example could be a hospital operating room. DSS have been in use in hospital operating 

rooms for many years, evolving from “management systems” over recent decades. There are 

many task-related rules in place merely to record a patient’s vital signs. Various professionals 

follow protocols to take and monitor the patient’s temperature, blood pressure, oxygen level, heart 

rate, respiration, etc. In case of failure of one or more of these functions, the surgeon plans 

decisions relating to the operating procedure and makes the necessary adjustments. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5

In the transportation management arena, we are advocating that traffic management systems have 

a decision support system that automates much of the necessary decisionmaking based on 

conditions. But, within this context, it is crucial to have these decisions align and be consistent 

with agreed-upon policies, procedures, control plans, interagency agreements, and protocols of 

the lead and cooperating agencies.

Integrated Corridor Management, Relevant Components, and Recent 

Implementations

ICM is an integrated network of freeway, arterial, transit, and parking facilities, among other 

transportation networks. Real-time situational awareness on the entire network and all 

constituent parts is required to make proper decisions. To meet this goal, interagency cooperation 

is needed. 

The existing agencies do very well with day-to-day operations. What causes 

problems with the corridor operations are atypical non-recurring events, such as 

incidents, and even atypical recurring conditions. Multijurisdictional responses 

were not being attempted before ICM (Spiller, et al. 2014, page E-4).

ICM gives agencies the opportunity to operate together by sharing information pertaining to 

incidents, construction, special events, transit, parking, and traffic flow data internally and 

externally. The shared information is used to improve situational awareness, corridor 

performance, and real-time alternatives for transportation users, enabling them to manage their 

trip plans (Miller et al., 2015). Figure 2 lists characteristics of a transportation network where an 

ICM could be effective:

Growing congestion

High-volume corridors

High delay

Other alternative routes available for diversion

Multimodal capabilities

Potential for integrated network cooperation 

to improve safety and mobility

 

Figure 2. Diagram. Characteristics of transportation highway networks where 

integrated corridor management can be an effective approach.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6

However, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Integrated Corridor Management 

Implementation Guide (Gonzalez et al., 2012) suggests the leaders of each agency answer these 

questions before they engage in an ICM project:

• Why the ICM is needed?

• How will ICM address the problem?

• How will ICM benefit the users as well as the partners?

As noted above, to date, the San Diego I-15 and Dallas US 75 corridors are the only two fully 

operational U.S. DOT-funded ICM demonstration sites with DSS systems. However, elements of 

ICM concepts have been developed and tested in several other locations: 

• New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania – since the mid-1980s, this region has cooperatively 

championed the TRANSCOM regional authority, which has grown to include a coalition of 

no less than 16 regional transportation agencies in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 

Connecticut. TRANSCOM was the first de facto ICM-styled, coordinated, multiregional 

coalition.

• Minneapolis – the I-394 corridor was a U.S. DOT Pioneer Site for Stages 1 and 2 of the 

Federal ICM program. The corridor is bounded by Highway 55 on the north and Highway 7 

on the south, and is ripe with advanced and robust infrastructure, highway traveler 

information systems, and real-time data. 

• Phoenix – The Maricopa Association of Governments champions the ICM strategic plan for 

I-10, Loop 101, and potentially the I-10/I-17 “spine” connector. “AZTech” is a strong 

partner in developing the management partnership of many agencies, cities, and local 

authorities (Spiller,et al. 2014).

ICM improves communication by supporting coordination among agencies such that they share 

incident, construction, and special event data and information as well as making changes to 

benefit the corridor’s operation through a data interfacing platform (i.e., a common operational 

and visualization platform) that can be integrated into the agency’s existing software. A DSS, as 

a major component of ICM, supports the operation of agencies participating in the integrated 

corridor system by potentially recommending traffic operations strategies, traffic control plans, 

and response plans and actions and by disseminating information based on prevailing conditions 

within the transportation corridor. 

As ICM builds upon regional management, it requires the expansion of existing agreements 

among institutions to improve corridor operation. Operations are coordinated through the ICM 

network, where participating agencies share data and information while making changes that 

benefit overall corridor operations and performance. An example of this would be operations 

personnel adjusting traffic signals and ramp meters to take advantage of capacity on other 

facilities; e.g., funneling travelers to parallel roads, or high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes or bus 

rapid transit, as needed. A properly deployed DSS can also compare real-time data against 

historical data to predict short-term corridor performance problems to recommend (and 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7

implement) responses that select the most beneficial combination of ICM strategies before the 

actual predicted breakdown, as in, “why wait for the actual problem?” 

Business rules are rules or agreements that define or constrain some aspect of operations, 

decisionmaking, and strategy, among several organizations. A DSS that incorporates business 

rules will incorporate agreements with relevant entities when making these recommendations. 

To expand the agreement to facilitate multi-agency collaboration, the first step is identifying the 

ICM partners. ICM partners can be listed in multiple major categories as shown in Figure 3. Due 

to multi-agency collaboration, ICM has a wide range of applications which require agencies’ 

coordination, cooperation, and communication. For example, the following list notes areas of 

deployment in the Dallas ICM:

• Responsive traffic signal system.

• Arterial street monitoring system.

• Agency, Bluetooth, and third party data.

• Transit signal priority.

• Transit parking management.

• Real-Time transit vehicle information.

• Freeway and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) systems management.

• Weather system reporting.

• Decision Support System.

• 511.

Figure 3. Illustration. Integrated corridor management system partners. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

8

By its nature, ICM consists of the corridor sub network as well as the corridor itself. For instance, 

the Dallas ICM demonstration site on US-75 is illustrated in Figure 4, where the black line 

represents the corridor influence area. “The primary criteria were to select a congested corridor 

where there are both transit and other alternative routes available for diversion in the case of an 

incident. US-75 is fully built out, with no ability for new capacity additions” (Spiller, et al. 2014, 

page E-3). The corridor network includes a freeway with continuous frontage roads, managed 

HOV lanes, the Dallas North Tollway, 167 miles of arterials, a bus network, a light rail network, 

900 signals, multiple traffic management centers (TMC), and a regional advanced traveler 

information system. 

Figure 4. Map. US-75 corridor network, Dallas integrated corridor management 

demonstration site.

(Source: Google© Map Data, March 27, 2017)

Primary Corridor

LEGEND

Primary Corridor

Travel Shed Area

HOV Lane

DART Light Rail

Red Line

Blue Line

Green line
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

9

The San Diego demonstration site on I-15 is illustrated in Figure 5. 

The I-15 corridor is a 21-mile freeway segment in San Diego County. This 

corridor is a regionally significant segment of I-15 from State Route (SR) 52 in the 

City of San Diego to SR 78 in the City of Escondido. The corridor also includes 

the portion of SR 163 from SR 52 to I-15 in the City of San Diego. The I-15 

corridor is presently an eight- to ten-lane freeway within the corridor boundaries, 

with additional auxiliary lanes throughout the corridor. Near the southern section 

and within the median of I-15 from SR 56 is a two-lane reversible, high occupancy 

toll (HOT) facility. Known locally as the I-15 Express Lanes, this eight-mile, 

barrier-separated facility operates in the southbound direction during the a.m. 

peak period, northbound during the p.m. peak period, and all day (northbound) 

during the weekend. The existing I-15 corridor can be split into three distinct 

segments: north, middle and south as shown in Figure 5 (San Diego Pioneer Site 

Team, 2008. Page 3-1).

The role of DSS in the general ICM context is to: 

• Receive data from an information exchange system (e.g., Dallas SmartNET/SmartFusion).

• Evaluate various response plan options.

• Provide recommended plan to ICM coordinator, partner agencies, and information exchange 

system, which then make the ultimate decision and carry out appropriate strategies.

Following confirmation of candidacy, the first step to initiate an ICM is to develop the concept of 

operation (ConOps). Appendix B provides a list of references for how to develop a ConOps and 

examples. “The ConOps does not delve into technology or detailed requirements of the ICMS, 

but it does address the operational scenarios and objectives, information needs, and overall 

functionality. The ConOps must also address the “institutional” environment in which integrated 

corridor management must be deployed, operated, and maintained” (San Diego Pioneer Site 

Team (2008), Page 1-3). To develop the concept of ICM operations, a sequential order process is 

suggested by the San Diego I-15 ICM team. The components of this procedure are as follows: 

1. System vision.

2. System goals and objectives.

3. Operational concept.

4. Approaches and strategies.

5. User needs.

6. Implementation issues.

7. Institutional framework.

8. Operational scenarios.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 0

Figure 5. Map. I-15 corridor network, San Diego integrated corridor management 

demonstration site.

(Source: San Diego Pioneer Site Team 2008)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 1

Figure 6 illustrates the Dallas ICM overview. The development of the system requirements 

incorporated the user needs that had been identified during the concept of operations 

development. Any operational evaluations that are conducted to assess the potential benefits of 

the system would then be based on strategies and approaches identified in the original concept of 

operations (Dion and Skabardonis, 2015). More information about the different phases of the 

ICM initiative can be found in Appendix A.

Concept of Operations Integrate Operations 

among Networks

Use of all Assets

Integrated Traveler 

Information

Reliability Increases

Traveler Alternatives

ICM Input ICM Strategies ICM Outputs

System Requirements

Analysis Methodologies

All Corridor AssetsIntelligent Transportation 

System Technology

Figure 6. Illustration. Integrated corridor management overview.

(Source: Dave Carter, 2007)

Overview of Decisionmaking and Decision Support System Design

Why do we need DSS? Humans are prone to numerous biases that affect decisionmaking and can 

benefit from a support structure.

Factors Affecting Decisionmaking 

Decisionmaking is a complicated process with a myriad potential influences that should be 

considered. These influences can affect the decisions of individual operators, including those who 

are in leadership positions and drive overall organizational strategies. They also are part of the 

motivation for utilizing DSS (i.e., avoiding many of these biases or influences). Torma-Krajewski 

et al. (2010) and Kelly (1999) identified a variety of factors that can impact an operator’s 

decisionmaking, many of which can lead to sub-optimal outcomes:

• Fatigue (including sleep deprivation).

• Stress, often related to perceived or real-time pressure.

• Erratic eating habits (leading to high or low blood sugar).

• Caffeine.

• Lack of information, conflicting information, and uncertainty.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 2

Stress can negatively influence decisionmaking and should be mitigated when possible. 

Robinson, et al. (2017) found that decision makers under stress can exhibit a variety of behaviors. 

For example, they may:

• Seek out certainty, be less tolerant of ambiguity, and look for fast choices.

• Experience greater conflict in social interactions.

• Develop “tunnel vision” (narrowed perception due to sensory overload).

• Experience distorted perception.

• Have a decreased ability to handle complex or difficult tasks.

• Focus on short-term survival goals, sometimes at the expense of long-term benefits.

• Choose riskier alternatives. 

For these human factors, a DSS offers an objective – not subjective – analysis to a situation and 

promotes one or more equally objective solutions.

Understanding Common Decisionmaking Biases 

Understanding Framing. A very common decisionmaking bias involves people reacting 

differently to information depending on the phrasing, context, or “framing.” (Tversky et al., 1981) 

This bias can have profound impacts on a transportation system, especially when switching or 

transitioning operations during a major incident or emergency if the personnel do not adjust their 

thinking appropriately. A strategy to mitigate this bias is to change labels, colors, or codes to 

indicate clearly the context has changed (e.g., from normal operations to emergency operations). 

A DSS can provide guidance on proper label switching and information dissemination depending 

on the “mode” of operation. In addition, one should be aware of how information is presented and 

whether it may be framed in a negative or positive way. 

Understanding Confirmation Bias. People often favor or seek out information that confirms a 

prior hypothesis or belief. This is known as “confirmation bias” (Wason, 1968). This bias can 

affect operations when operators and managers focus more on data that support an initial 

approach or only listen to opinions that support their plans. Thus, operators may not seek out 

alternate explanations and inadvertently ignore other useful information. Instead, the correct 

decisionmaking process or a properly deployed DSS would be to sample the full range of both 

negative and positive possibilities rather than just the positive ones. 

Understanding Anchoring Bias. Individuals have the tendency to rely on the first piece or 

limited pieces of information when planning or forming an estimate. This is known as 

“anchoring” (Ariely, 2008, Tversky et al.,1973). This bias often manifests itself in operational 

situations where the first incoming field reports will drive estimates or the more salient images 

will affect planning. To mitigate this bias, one should be careful about weighting early or limited 

information and generate alternative or counterfactual options. Another option is to constantly 

refine estimates as data becomes more reliable over time (Robinson et al., 2017). A DSS can 

handle the updating of information and properly weigh it to compensate for this bias.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 3

Decision Support Systems—High-level History and Relevant Approaches on 

Implementation and Management

Decisions are not made in a vacuum, a concept which is often lost in the design and 

implementation of DSS. This is particularly relevant in the case of ICM and the overlay of 

business rules for operations, where various entities can affect one another during the process 

(e.g., local roads being congested during rush hour due to an incident on the highway). 

How Do Decision Support Systems Help Overcome Bias?

DSS can be defined traditionally as computer-based information systems that support business or 

organizational activities and can be fully computerized, human powered, or a combination of 

both (Robinson, 2016). DSS can also occur in a range of technology levels, from mechanical to 

digital. Figure 7 illustrates the evolution and examples of DSS, which began with decision 

support tools that facilitated decisionmaking tasks (before being developed to larger, more 

complex decision support systems).

It looks like you’re 

writing a letter.

Would you like help?

Get help with 

writing the letter

Just type the letter 

without help

Don’t show me 

this tip again

Figure 7. Illustration. Examples of decision tools.

(Source: Robinson, 2017)

Within a transportation context, one can think of a traffic simulation model as an example of a 

tool that supports data analysis. It is not a system, per se, but rather produces information that 

supports the process of making decisions. A range of decision support tools are deployed within a 

transportation context and will continue to be used to manage and control traffic as well as 

coordinate amongst staff members and outside stakeholders.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 4

Markalas (1999) defined three components that are often considered to be integral to a DSS:

a) The data/knowledge base. 

b) The model (criteria and decision context).

c) The interface. 

It seems most implementations neglect the context (which in this case can be the business rules 

governing agency interactions). The current effort focuses on this very important component of 

DSS. 

The word “integrated” can also be used to describe an effective DSS implementation; it 

represents the unification of all parts within the context of decisionmaking. A DSS is particularly 

useful for unstructured or semi-structured problems or a litany of biases and problems that occur 

every day. DSS have been successfully developed for a variety of fields, including clinical 

decision support and medical diagnosis, finance, business management, agricultural contexts, law 

enforcement and the military.

DSS in Broader Transportation Areas. As the transportation network and control centers have 

become increasingly complex, a DSS can play a greater role in optimizing the efficient and safe 

movement of people and products. The following passage highlights the burgeoning amount of 

new data streams and expanding complexity facing operations personnel that demands various 

decision support systems: 

In the world of transportation systems operations, emerging infrastructurebased sensor technologies and in-vehicle technologies are providing new data 

streams to support transportation operations decisionmaking. Increasingly 

complex and capable system control technologies and traveler systems present 

transportation managers with a broader range of potential actions to impact 

system performance. In many cases, this includes a new capability to act with 

increasing precision with a shorter response time. At the same time, there is an 

emerging recognition that in complex systems individual mode control decisions 

cannot be made independently. Any single modal decision may impact broader 

system performance positively or negatively. This leads to the consideration of 

how concurrent decisions may be made across modal, facility, institutional and 

jurisdictional boundaries to optimize performance across the entire multimodal 

transportation system (Lukasik et al. (2011), page 3-1).

Most existing DSS identified were associated with freeway management systems 

– from a “lessons learned” perspective, these deployments can be extrapolated to 

future multimodal systems (Lukasik et al., 2011, page 3-4).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 5

The application of DSS in transportation as stated by Lukasik et al. (2011) has variety of 

developments in real-time traffic management but not limited to:

• Accident response strategy assessments. 

• Online travel information systems. 

• Predictive travel time calculations.

• Dynamic route guidance. 

• Adaptive ramp metering using predictive traffic congestion algorithms.

• Intelligence-based Transit DSS.

• Dynamic emergency vehicle routing.

• Emissions management.

• Urban and interurban congestion management. 

• Security threat mitigation and large-scale evacuation management.

DSS technology and methodologies can be categorized into five major groups (Power, 2001 2003; 

Lukasik, 2011). Figure 8 outlines the DSS methodologies. Discussing these technologies/

methodologies is out of the scope of this report, but further information can be found in Power 

(2001, 2003). 

DSS 

Methodologies

Tables-based 

DSS Systems

Knowledgedriven DSS

Hybrids Data Driven 

DSS

ModelDriven DSS

Figure 8. Illustration. The DSS technology and methodologies.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 6

The following list with transportation ICM appropriate examples was based on Lukasik (2011):

• Table-based DSS (e.g., Toronto Computerized Optimization Model for Predicting and 

Analyzing Support Scenarios {COMPASS}, Kansas City Scout, Georgia DOT NaviGAtor) 

are data tables or spreadsheets with predefined response plan recommendations and require 

little or no processing, modeling or analysis. Some may include basic logic to analyze data 

in the tables, while others are purely lookup tables.

• Knowledge-driven examples include:

» Expert Systems (e.g., the Caltrans Advanced Transportation Management System 

(ATMS), St. Louis Gateway Guide). Response plans are based on a set of pre-defined 

rules and the DSS requires an expert system engine. 

› Custom Rules-based Systems (e.g., Oregon DOT Transport, Pace Transit Operations 

Decision Support Systems ). The Custom Rules DSS uses specific rules to determine 

response plans, making it similar to the Expert System DSS. The main difference 

between the two is that rules are custom built rather than having an expert system 

engine.

» Event Scenario Matrices (e.g., Lake County Passage, Michigan ATMS, New Jersey 

ATMS) identify events on the roadway using a plane coordinate system, and users can 

respond to the events using the predefined ITS field devices along the roadway in the 

area.

• Model-Driven DSS incorporate on-line simulation tool integration (e.g., Singapore – Green 

LInk DEtermination (GLIDE) Traffic Control System, Madrid, Beijing, Milan).

• Data Driven DSS are a form of support system that focuses on utilizing internal and 

sometimes external data to aid in the decisionmaking process. Sometimes this comes in the 

form of a data warehouse, e.g. a database designed to store data in such a way as to allow for 

its querying and analysis by users. 

• There are also hybrids of the “Model Driven” and “Data Driven” models. 

The “Five Rights.” Lessons have been learned from many of these fields, and DSS has worked 

across several domains within them. For example, Figure 9 illustrates a brief list of “five rights” to 

keep in mind when implementing a DSS design (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

The right information.

To the right stakeholder.

At the right point in the workflow.

Through the right channel.

In the right format.

Figure 9. Illustration. “Five Rights” of a decision support system design.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 7

Proper Design and Use of Decision Aids. Decision aids (such as DSS) can help with data 

processing and improve overall decision quality. This can offset some of the typical biases that 

arise when making decisions. 

Robinson et al. (2017) found that decision aids have a variety of advantages, including:

• Minimizing the influence of biases (such as confirmation bias) on decisions.

• Forcing structure and consideration of alternatives as well as quantitative weighing of 

options. 

However, the same study also found several disadvantages that one should keep in mind when 

employing decision aids, including:

• Discounting intuition and experience. 

• Lack of use regarding inaccurate recommendations.

• Lack of adaptation in unusual circumstances.

• Increased decision time, and difficult to evaluate. 

Despite these potential pitfalls, properly designed decision aids can be valuable assets to an 

operator in the TMC. 

Business Rules: Context and Constraints for Implementing Decision Support Systems 

Interagency Agreements 

A key component of successful transportation systems management is that all the agencies 

involved leverage their operating powers, achieve administrative efficiencies, and function cost 

effectively. Communication and coordination can promote interoperability, which supports these 

objectives. Too often, however, agencies conduct overlapping activities due to the lack of an 

interagency cooperation agreement. Such inefficiency can result in higher administrative and 

congestion costs.

This guidance document outlines elements of business rules and DSS used in managing 

integrated corridors to ensure efficient operations and interagency cooperation. By establishing a 

framework for sharing information and data and for collaborating, the duplication of data 

collection and extra delays caused by congestion can be reduced. Gordon (2011) found that 

significant value can be obtained with:

• The right leadership.

• Strong strategic planning.

• Evaluation of the current case.

• Solid contract management.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 8

To achieve organizational change across multi-agency functions requires a holistic strategic plan. 

Strategic planning to develop business rules commonly includes several major steps:

• Determine the need for ICM.

• Determine the lead agency and point of contact.

• Elect a committed board to assist with planning and design.

• Define the vision.

• Define resources and categorize them by duration (short and long term) and type (service, or 

support fund).

• Define stakeholders with an opportunity for public-private partnering.

• Plan outreach activities and follow up.

• Define capabilities of each agency.

• Evaluate the existing plans, rules, and services.

• Conduct detailed planning for all possible scenarios: daily operations, freeway incident, 

arterial incident, transit incident, special event, and major disaster.

• Determine where there is a need for interagency communication and operation improvement 

and prioritize them (consider all possible scenarios).

• Identify the best way to create a collaboration where there is a need.

• Decide based on the feedback obtained from the board of committee and stakeholders.

• Allocate the resources.

• Gain approval from each agency’s authority.

Consideration for ICM in a corridor (i.e., as a congestion or incident-driven mitigation) is 

typically led by a regional agency, such as a State DOT, a metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) or a transit authority, that has responsibility for overseeing a transportation plan in the 

subject corridor. An early confirmation that said corridor is even an ICM candidate corridor can 

be made by viewing the U.S. DOT report ICM Candidate Corridor: Implementation Guide and 

Lessons (Gonzalez et al., 2012).

Another early step in initiating an ICM system is to select a stakeholder that will manage the 

process, such as scheduling meetings to discuss planning, activities, issues, and risks. The U.S. 

DOT ICM website (http://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/icms/index.htm) offers many 

sources to assist stakeholders in developing a managed corridor system. The “ICM 

Knowledgebase” (http://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/icms/knowledgebase.htm) is also a 

good source for presentations, newsletters, and fact sheets on ICM. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

1 9

All potential stakeholders should be invited early in the process (Gonzalez et al., 2012). Their 

level of involvement will be up to them; however, it is advisable to keep those who decide not to 

participate informed as the efforts progress. The success of the program is highly dependent on 

the level of engagement and interest among agency leadership because ICM-related activities 

require the commitment of time and resources. It’s advisable for each key operating agency to 

have a champion who understands ICM and the concept of corridor operation and could lead a 

diverse team, communicate well, and commit time to the effort (Gonzalez et al., 2012).

The planning and development process should include transportation planners, modelers, and 

operations personnel from various partner agencies. These stakeholders are key to understanding 

the context. They can provide guidance into the types of performance measures needed as well 

as assisting the organization in understanding how best to track and evaluate system performance 

to ensure it remains focused on the established goals. When working with multiple agencies, it is 

also important for terminologies and acronyms to be well defined, understood, and agreed upon 

among stakeholders. Educating stakeholders and maintaining their engagement over time is 

another leadership task critical for the success of the program. Routine evaluation of the risks, 

benefits, and implications of each strategy by the leaders is required. One example of risk could 

be compatibility of the technology and data collection format, which are necessary for agencies 

to exchange certain data elements. However, any changes on the interface and type of data being 

shared could cause problems. 

In accordance with sharing information and data across the system, any future technology 

enhancement regarding data collection must be compatible amongst all agencies.

Proficiency of the program over time can be a challenge. Planning efforts should focus on 

ensuring the program is successful enough to run over the long-term, not just for the short period 

of time that funding is available. One way to facilitate motivation and resource sharing could be 

through peer exchange workshops bringing representatives with the knowledge of ICM 

implementation in other regions to share their experience (Markiewicz et al., 2016).

To improve interagency operational power, agencies need to share information (including the 

names of vendors, contract terms and conditions, and points of contact for each group) and 

real-time data. The traffic management center (TMC) needs integrated information from the 

State DOT, county sheriff’s department, safety/service patrol, closed-circuit television cameras, 

detection systems, other TMCs, agencies, etc. Based on the pioneer sites’ experience, to eliminate 

confusion, stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities should be documented. For formal agreements 

among agencies, one or more business cases can be defined, each of which should include an 

executive summary with the key point of agreement followed by a defined scope and potential 

duplication of resources and staff, potential monetary value, role, and interagency demand and 

management of resources (Gordon, 2011). Although not mandatory, agencies may consider 

developing an agreement such as a memorandum of understanding to share information or 

services. More information about interagency agreement approaches can be found in Appendix 

C. The Dallas/Fort Worth regional comprehensive intelligent transportation (ITS) agreement is 

attached to this document as an example (Appendix D). 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 0

The expected operation of the ICM corridor under each possible scenario must be defined in 

detail. An expanded description of each scenario solution should be provided in detail and broken 

down to the responsibility of each agency (more information is available in the Concept of 

Operations for the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California (Page 5-1 Chapter 5 – Operational 

Scenarios). Dallas and San Diego defined their scenarios in general categories as follows:

• Daily operation or non-event based operation.

• Moderate and major freeway incident.

• Major arterial incident.

• Major transit incident.

• Planned special events.

• Major disaster.

The effect of these capabilities can span the institutional and operational processes; however, 

agencies must be alert to the impact of duplication when creating a new collaborative system. 

The new business rules should be approved by the agency’s executive leadership, although an 

agency may choose to require additional approvals (Gordon, 2011). Regular assessment of 

whether the intended business rules meet the goals for the managed corridor is necessary. In 

addition, an emphasis on transparency when establishing the rules and strategies will reduce any 

future confusion when it comes to implementation. 

To stimulate realistic operations strategies, the board or committee must constantly work to 

enhance their understanding of respective capabilities, authorities, and limitations. Examples of 

limitations could be funding or maintaining trained staff and qualified leadership.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 1

CHAPTER 2. GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESS RULES AND 

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS WITHIN INTEGRATED 

CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

This chapter will provide general guidance for the necessary components to develop business 

rules to be incorporated into a decision support system (DSS) for integrated managed corridors. 

As mentioned previously, the goal is not to provide detailed specifications or algorithms that 

someone can “plug” into a developmental DSS. Through searching, scanning, extensive 

conversations with contacts, and an expert panel review, there have been no documents to date 

that we deem to be detailed, code-level descriptions of business rules for integrated managed 

corridors with respect to a DSS, per se. Consequently, herein we focus on principled guidance to 

endorse that “business rules” should be at least implicit understandings on developing necessary 

components of integrated corridor management (ICM). Business rules incorporate, either by 

inference or actual documentation, interagency agreements, organizational and committee 

structures, and even tacit agreements to share information, resources, and decisions, etc. that can 

be used as building blocks for success.

Attaining and maintaining a successfully integrated and managed corridor that facilitates “the 

safe movement of persons and goods, with minimum delay, throughout the region of influence” 

depends on the human operator interacting with the transportation management center (TMC) 

systems and devices as well as other operators, managers, and agencies. One way to improve this 

relationship between the user and technology is through user-centered system design. The goal is 

to increase efficiency, comfort, safety, and ease-of-use. When applying human factors principles 

and procedures to TMC operation and design, Robinson, et al. (2017) and Nowakowski, Green, 

and Kojima (1999) identified several areas of emphasis: 

• Focus on human requirements.

• Collect data on and analyze the functions, tasks, and human/machine systems.

• Make use of design principles that reduce human error.

• Employ design principles that increase human performance.

• Apply principles of job design, user aids, and data presentation.

• Use the principles of anthropometry.

• Apply principles and standards for displays and controls.

• Adhere to workplace design principles and standards.

• Design user interfaces with information systems.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 2

If user-centered design areas are emphasized in designing and operating a TMC, several benefits 

will result: First, the tasks (e.g., monitoring accidents) and functions (e.g., communicating with 

partner entities) of the operators will be developed based on the total system, second, any 

deficiencies in the system will be discovered early on, and third, the use of human resources will 

be optimized.

HOW TO DEVELOP A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM WITHIN AN 

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR

The DSS identifies sudden or pending nonrecurring events (e.g., incidents or weather) or atypical 

recurring congestion-beyond-the-norm via predictive modeling. This modeling compares “that 

which should be” to that which is forming, thereby triggering broad response strategies. A DSS 

constantly mines real-time data (e.g., detectors, incidents, speeds, warnings, and weather) and 

evaluates and rates the response plan alternatives for recommendation to the ICM coordinator or 

team to identify the highest rated plan and associated mitigations. For example, in the San Diego 

and Dallas deployments, each DSS averages from one to five response plans per week. Monthly 

debriefs evaluate the systems’ success and recommends any fine-tuning that might be needed.

There is no one DSS template. San Diego and Dallas, and indeed many other regions formed or 

forming, have developed unique approaches, any one of which satisfies the function of a DSS. A 

DSS can be simple or complex depending on the users’ needs, the data available, and the 

corridor’s model. A simple DSS could be a set of written incident response plans that agencies 

consult when an incident occurs. For the sites that the scan team visited, more-complex systems 

were in use and are discussed below” (Spiller et al., 2014).

Overview of “Dallas” vs. “San Diego” – The Dallas ICM system uses an expert 

rules system to select a pre-agreed response plan based on numerous variables 

(e.g., location, time of day, and lanes affected) and then uses a real-time model 

to validate that the selected plan will provide a benefit. The San Diego system 

relies on its real-time model much more and allows the model to use engineering 

principles and algorithms to generate a response plan for an event within the 

corridor. The system has the capability to be fully automated or fully manual in 

responding to the event. (Spiller et al., 2014, page 7-1)

The Dallas ICM process is designed to collaboratively engage the planning, technology, and 

infrastructure resources of the various cities and government jurisdictions along the corridor. An 

overview of DSS has been reproduced from the Dallas Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) 

Demonstration Project (Miller et al., 2015) as shown in Figure 10. 

The Dallas DSS (Figure 10) provides candidate response plans to the SmartFusion 

(Smart Urban Freight Solutions) subsystem based on network conditions 

received from the SmartFusion subsystem, prediction analysis, and on a rulebased assessment of the recommended response plans. The subsystem consists 

of three major components: expert rules, prediction (model), and evaluation. 

In response to an incident, the process begins with the expert rules and the 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 3

model collecting information on corridor performance and incidents from the 

data fusion system. The model develops an assessment of the current roadway 

operations based on the data received from the data fusion system. In addition, 

the model periodically forecasts the current and predicted performance of the 

network based on the current conditions and sends them to the expert rules 

system. Given the information about the current conditions of the network and 

the predicted performance of the network, the expert rules develop candidate 

response plans that are delivered to the ICM coordinator via the DSS dialog. 

The ICM coordinator approves or rejects the candidate response plan from 

the recommendation of the expert rules. If the ICM coordinator approves the 

validation decision, then the DSS pushes candidate response-plan information to 

the involved agency users for plan implementation. The expert rules collect the 

users plan readiness status and plan decision from the DSS dialog.

After implementing the ICM coordinator’s plan decision, each agency user 

confirms the plan’s operational status. The plan is terminated once the event 

owner agency user or the ICM coordinator closes the event in the ICM System 

(Spiller, et al. 2014, page 7-1).

Examines current roadway 

conditions such as incident 

location, light rail utilization, 

lanes blocked, available 

capacity of alternative routes

Forecasts 30-minute 

impact of implementing 

the recommendation to 

ensure value added

Agency 

implements 

the 

recommended 

solution

Improved travel 

time reliability 

for commuters

Enhanced decision 

making support for 

operating agencies

Achieves a 20:1 return 

($278.8 million) on the project’s 

cost over 10 years

Less pollution from 

idling vehicles in 

congested traffic

An incident 

occurs on US 75 

and is entered 

into SmartNET 

by agency staff

SmartNET 

relays the 

incident 

information to 

DSS

DSS evaluates 

the incident and 

communicates 

alternatives 

using expert 

rules

DSS 

recommends 

solutions to 

multiple 

operating 

agencies

ICM coordinator 

recommends 

DSS solution 

implementation

Commuters 

receive 

information and 

make alternative 

travel choices

DSS reevaluates 

solution based 

on roadway 

conditions and 

incident status

Alternatives for Agencies, Options for Commuters When incidents Occur on US 75

Figure 10. Diagram. Decision support process used by Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

(Source: Miller et al. 2015, Final Report-Dallas Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) 

Demonstration Project)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 4

More information about DSS Analysis Test Plans and the specific qualitative and quantitative 

data required is described in the Dallas Decision Support System Analysis Test Plan (Lee, 2012). 

San Diego – A key element of San Diego’s ICM project includes the 

implementation of a real-time dynamic DSS. The system uses predictive 

capabilities to aid stakeholders in managing and operating the corridor proactively 

and is composed of seven key system components, including an on-line realtime simulation analysis and network predictive system and the application of a 

dynamic rule-based strategy assessment engine to generate real-time response 

plan strategies.

The DSS collects information on current network conditions by taking in data 

from an array of ITS and modal management systems, including, but not limited 

to, traffic signal systems, ramp metering, transit management, and freeway 

management systems located along the corridor. Data also includes hundreds of 

traffic volume and speed detectors in the roadway infrastructure and automated 

passenger counters and location data from transit systems, video camera feeds, 

and changeable message signs. Through the DSS data fusion engine, if changes 

in demand (based on incident or recurring conditions) are measured that meet 

pre-established thresholds (e.g., a minimum change in speed on the freeway of 

10 mph less than free flow), the DSS generates a set of response plans containing 

recommended strategies to manage the congestion. The DSS assesses the impacts 

of the response plans on the level of service; volume-to-capacity ratio; and speed 

15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes in the future. With the DSS response plan evaluation 

engine, a set of response plans are evaluated and scored using a traveler, not 

vehicular, delay-based algorithm to derive the scores for each plan when compared 

to the “do nothing” case. (“Do nothing” is the base scenario where no new actions 

would be taken along the corridor and devices maintain normal operations.) 

The response plan with the best score, representing the most congestion relief, 

is recommended for implementation. Once response plans are recommended, 

the affected agencies are notified, and the specific assets associated with a given 

response plan are implemented (e.g., en-route and pre-trip traveler information, 

corridor ramp metering, and signal coordination on arterials with freeway ramp 

metering). The implementation of the preferred response plan can be set to 

automated implementation or implementation upon approval. 

Because the DSS is dynamic, it does not contain a set of predefined response 

plans. It was designed and built to take a performance-based approach to corridor 

operations and management. The business rules engine drives how response plans 

are implemented, how or what key actions the response plans should include, and 

under what conditions. The engine reflects agreed-upon regional and corridorlevel operational principles discussed and set by the ICM partners. This includes, 

for example, how the assets available on the corridor will be used in response to 

certain conditions or setting constraints to reflect localized operational demand 

conditions (e.g., traffic cannot be rerouted onto certain arterials during school 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 5

zone hours). After a plan is implemented, the DSS continues to forecast traffic 

conditions. As conditions change, the system continues to monitor the extent of 

the congestion based on the total distance upstream of the event to the end of 

the congestion. As congestion continues or grows, the system will re-evaluate 

and generate new response plans to ensure that the best strategy continues to be 

applied. Once the congestion starts to dissipate and the upstream length of the 

congestion is reduced, the system steps out of the response plan and places the 

device back into the normal operations for that time of day (Spiller, et al. 2014, 

page 7-3).

HOW TO DEVELOP AGREEMENTS: RULES TO CONSIDER WITHIN 

OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS

Levels of Formality for Agreements

For any operational project that involves multiple agencies, interagency agreements are required 

to manage the system and coordinate responses to any incident. These agreements can form the 

basis of business rules that are incorporated into the DSS, so it is advantageous to spend some 

time discussing ways of developing them and providing general guidance. The following 

examples of interagency agreements have been suggested by I-210 ICM initiatives that may need 

to be developed and could be useful in outlining business rules (Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015).

The level of formality depends on the relationship among agencies and can be set as they desire. 

There are instances of agencies cooperating with very few formal agreements. Instead, the 

interactions are set based on principles and common goals in their concepts of operations, and 

then these are used to guide solutions on an ad hoc basis. On the other extreme, some agencies 

may establish very detailed agreements that try to address the range of possible situations that 

may arise (or develop a new agreement for each situation). Figure 11 shows potential elements of 

multiagency agreements.

Figure 11. Diagram. Potential elements of a multiagency agreement.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 6

Table 1 provides examples of the various stakeholders and potential formal agreements that may 

be established when developing business rules. This was originally formulated as a variety of 

interfaces for the DSS users, but it also is indicative of the different components (for more 

background, see Dion, Butler, and Xuan, 2015, p. 157, 10-10 Institutional Agreements).

Table 1. Example stakeholders and potential formal agreements that should be established 

when developing business rules.

Agreements and Protocols with Information Collection Systems

• Caltrans uses the Performance Management System (PeMS) as its main system for 

collecting, processing, and visualizing freeway flow data. 

• Traffic detection and traffic signal control systems operated by Caltrans (TransSuite), Los 

Angeles County (the Kimley-Horn intelligent transportation system software, or “KITS”), 

the cities of Pasadena (i2tms, QuicNet Pro, and SCATS®), Arcadia (TransSuite), Duarte 

(KITS), and Monrovia (KITS). 

• Bluetooth data collection systems operated by local agencies. Current systems include 

those operated by Pasadena and Arcadia. 

• Transit operations management systems used by Metro Bus, Metro Rail, Foothill Transit, 

Pasadena Transit, and any other participating local transit agencies. 

• California Highway Patrol and its computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. 

• Local law enforcement agencies and their dispatch systems.

• Parking management systems used by operators of park-and-ride facilities participating in 

the project. 

Agreements and Protocols for Device Control Systems

• Traffic signal control systems operated by Caltrans (TransSuite), Los Angeles County 

(KITS), the cities of Pasadena (i2tms, QuicNet Pro, and SCATS), Arcadia (TransSuite), 

Duarte (KITS), and Monrovia (KITS). 

• Caltrans uses an advanced traffic management system (ATMS) to control ramp meters on 

freeway on-ramps and connectors as well as post messages on freeway changeable 

message signs.

• Systems used by local agencies to post messages on dynamic message signs operating 

along arterials.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 7

Potential Partners in Forming Agreements and Business Rules 

Partnership with the key relevant transportation agencies is a necessary step in order to advance 

ICM implementation. A list of potential partners may include:

• U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

• State DOT.

• Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) (e.g., the North Central Texas Council of 

Governments).

• Transit agencies (e.g., high-occupancy vehicles (HOV), high-occupancy toll (HOT), rail, 

bus, etc.).

• Freight.

• County or City public works or transportation agencies that own arterials and signals. 

• Local agencies responsible for parking, commuter or rideshare organizations, traveler 

information or 511 providers.

• Public safety services such as law enforcement, fire department, towing companies.

• Local universities.

• Toll agencies

• Private sector.

Communication amongst different partners is a vital component of an ICM implementation and 

can be done with a variety of interfaces and infrastructure. For example, the Dallas ICM uses the 

existing infrastructure from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) center-to-center 

system (a software system to facilitate sharing of traffic management related information and 

control of ITS field devices between TMCs which have a variety of different management 

systems). This provides direct connection to agencies not on the system with a web-based 

interfaced known as the information exchange system. This system interface is used for ICM 

stakeholders to develop and view events in the corridor as well as ascertain current conditions of 

field devices and congestions. It also allows for coordinating responses to incidents within the 

corridor. Other ICM communications platforms being tested use “the cloud” interface. 

Regulatory Context

A proactive, collaborative, and strategic approach to public and private stakeholder partnerships 

is a key component for the successful implementation of an ICM system. Engaging these partners 

in developing business rules to incorporate into the DSS is critical. 

Enabling Authority. An enabling authority should coordinate with all participating agencies and 

stakeholders. The type and level of authority varies based upon the respective agencies’ roles in 

the system.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 8

Policy Board (Composition, Voting, and Officers). Each participating agency or stakeholder 

should be able to choose its role. However, support personnel and representatives are required for 

each of them. Because the success of the ICM project relies on effective leadership, it is 

important that the selected key policy board has these features illustrated in Figure 12.

Fully understanding the 

benefits of the ICM program

Good communication 

and leadership skills

Inspired and 

enthusiastic

Figure 12. Diagram. Key features of a policy board.

Advisory Committees. The name and number of committees will vary depending on the needs 

of the specific program. Figure 13 shows examples of developed committees at various 

implementation sites (Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015; Gonzalez, 2012; San Diego Pioneer Site Team, 

2008).

Each committee may contain subcommittees. The membership should consist of members from 

local jurisdictions, transit agencies, first-responding agencies, software developers, system 

integrators, etc. 

This section provides an overview of the regulatory and committee structure of a typical 

managed, integrated corridor. It also provides suggestions for the types of representatives and 

communication vehicles (e.g., committee meetings) one may want to tap in order to gather 

business rules and protocols, interagency agreements, and other documents that are helpful in 

incorporating business rules into the DSS. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

2 9

Connected Corridors Steering Committee –

central decision making body for the corridor that 

develops primary goals for the ICM, reviews and 

analyzes the proposed strategies, and addresses 

any issues not resolved by the Technical 

Coordinating Committee.

Public Advisory Committee –

provides guidance and direction on any issues 

that may arise that require additional input.

Transportation Advisory Committee –

the body through which issues are vetted with 

public involvement and regional transportation 

issues are resolved.

Technical and Operations Advisory 

Committee –

meets on a regular basis to discuss ICM planning 

and deployment activities.

Regional ITS Architecture 

Committee

Figure 13. Diagram. Functions of a regional intelligent transportation systems architecture 

committee.

Communication Approaches

Communication amongst various stakeholders in a managed, integrated corridor is critical to 

successful implementation. It involves bringing together multiple agencies that utilize a variety of 

methods and heterogeneous systems (Gonzalez, 2012). 

In the Dallas ICM effort, daily operation is 

coordinated through protocols and arrangements. 

Information is exchanged through the center-tocenter project along with SmartNET (an information 

exchange system). SmartNET then distributes event 

information and response recommendations to the 

appropriate staff. (For more information, see the 

Dallas Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) 

Demonstration Project Final Report, by Miller, et al., 

2015). For this section, we want to highlight the role 

this communication system plays in connecting the 

various stakeholders and utilizing pre-existing 

arrangements that were established to aid in 

implementation. These arrangements (or business 

rules) form the context and structure of the 

communications component to the ICM. They may be institutional protocols, memoranda of 

understanding between the agencies, etc. These elements contain a range of tools and systems 

that transform data into information that operators can use to make decisions. 

“A clearly defined process that 

guides work and encourages 

communication, often using a 

systems engineering approach, 

can be beneficial to achieving the 

ICM goals.” 

— Koorosh Olyai 

Assistant Vice President 

Mobility Programs Development 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 0

This information includes: 

• Computers for storing and processing the large amounts of data. 

• Communications networks. 

• Display devices to present information to decisionmakers.

• Storage databases.

• Devices for manual entry of data.

• Communication devices for information exchange.

• Data warehousing.

• Algorithms for data quality and aggregation.

The information sharing components are critical for efficiently implementing DSS 

recommendations. These also can be based on strict protocols that were pre-established during 

the ICM development process (and can potentially be automated by incorporation into the DSS).

Operators can provide travelers information about conditions through several means: 

• Media feeds – These include information feeds to local media, such as radio and television 

stations, but may also include in-vehicle devices or smartphone apps.

• Dynamic message signs (DMS) – These are on-road signs that provide information about 

conditions to the traveler (including travel time, emergency situations, transit status, etc.). 

• Highway advisory radio (HAR) – This is a radio medium to provide more detailed 

information that may be contained on DMS.

• 5-1-1 systems (voice) – These systems can provide general messages and traffic information 

to the driver via a telephone voice interface (although many places are restricting phone use 

while driving). 

• Traffic and transit web sites – Internet-based websites that provide traffic-related 

information. 

• Mobile application.

In addition to this range of options, operators can use outreach campaigns and publicity releases. 

Figure 14 shows the range of approaches to communicating with the public. This range of media 

and approaches can all be subject to business rules and protocols amongst agencies on 

coordinated responses and information sharing. These rules or protocols can provide a context 

(with boundaries) to recommendations from a DSS that generates media- or messaging- related 

guidance. For example, many messages for non-recurring events (both planned and unplanned) 

are coordinated with public safety personnel. This coordination often has set interagency 

agreements governing how messaging is coordinated, which can be formulated into constraining 

business rules (Noblis, June 2008). 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 1

Communication 

approaches

Media Feeds

Dynamic 

message signs 

(DMS)

5-1-1

Systems 

(voice)

Highway 

advisory radio

(HAR)

Traffic and 

transit websites

Mobile apps

In-vehicle 

systems

Figure 14. Diagram. Approaches to communicating with the public. 

Contingencies Based on Level of Interagency Cooperation

The use of business rules in DSS (and decisionmaking in general) can be guided by each area’s 

unique level of interagency cooperation and formal agreements. There are some regions or areas 

where all interactions, decisions, and protocols are clearly defined and explicitly stated. In 

contrast, there are examples in areas such as freight where staff at the operational level have 

developed relationships and make decisions based on overall principle and the strategic plans of 

the agencies, but formal agreements have never been developed. Instead, there is an institutional 

knowledge of who to reach out to when an incident occurs and what common goals are in place 

that then can be operationalized at the implementation level. Both approaches have advantages 

and disadvantages, and are not mutually exclusive (there can be a combination). The approach 

adopted will depend on the context. 

STRUCTURAL CONCERNS 

The main concerns for each site might vary depending on the nature of their system. For instance, 

Table 2 outlines issues identified by the I-15 corridor stakeholders. It highlights three areas, but we 

will focus on the institutional issues which are most relevant to business rules in DSS.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 2

Table 2. Institutional issues relevant to business rules in the I-15 decision support system.

Technical Issues

• Data archiving and accessibility for future analyses.

• Modifying/updating San Diego regional intelligent transportation system architecture to 

bring it into alignment with I-15 integrated corridor management system (ICMS) concept.

• Use of regional transit fare system (Compass Card) across multiple transit service 

providers.

• Expansion of functionality for 511 advanced traveler information system.

Operational Issues

• Enhancing transit capacity in response to planned events and major incidents.

• Implementing bus signal priority for transit on arterials.

• Coordinating different operating systems across agencies to work together (e.g., I-15 

freeway on-ramp metering signals with adjacent arterial traffic signals).

• Fully integrating commercial vehicle operations into I-15 ICMS concept.

Institutional Issues

• Establishing policies and arrangements with private entities (parking, information service 

providers, and major employment centers along the I-15 corridor).

• Compatibility of virtual corridor transportation management center responsibilities for I-15 

ICMS corridor stakeholders with their conventional responsibilities.

• Expansion of set of organizational stakeholders as part of the I-15 Corridor Management 

Team beyond those that are only transportation-focused (e.g., public health agencies).

• Enhanced level of inter-organizational coordination and integration among corridor 

stakeholders.

 Source: San Diego Pioneer Site Team, 2008.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 3

The following provides examples of institutional and technical constraints that may affect the 

implementation of a proposed ICM system in California (for more detail, see Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015).

Table 3. Institutional and technical constraints that may affect the proposed I-210 

integrated corridor management implementation.

Institutional Constraints

• Due to liability issues, jurisdictional policies may not allow recommendations of specific 

diversion routes to be communicated to travelers. 

• Several local jurisdictions impose restrictions on the routes that truck traffic may take 

across their network. This may be due to various reasons, such as the desire, to reduce 

safety risks, noise in residential neighborhoods, pavement damages, etc. 

• Some jurisdictions may impose constraints on traffic signal operations during specific 

periods.

• Various regulations may govern the operation of changeable message signs. 

• Strict regulations govern the design and installation of traffic signs and road markings. 

Many agencies have established operational procedures defining what to do in specific 

situations. 

• Different jurisdictions may have different requirements and regulations regarding the use 

of information technologies. 

Technical Constraints

• Inadequate traffic detection may exist at various locations within the corridor.

• A variety of traffic signal control equipment with varying capabilities is in use within the 

corridor. 

• Various centralized traffic signal control systems are used throughout the corridor. 

• Not all traffic management centers are staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 

• Transit agencies may not have the necessary equipment to track vehicle occupancy and 

relevant operational metrics in real-time. 

• Park-and-ride facilities may not be equipped with the necessary equipment to track facility 

occupancy in real-time. 

• Suitable communication or control capabilities may not exist with all existing or desired 

field devices. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 4

Additional Levels of Approval

This part can be categorized as:

• Institutional: Additional approval is required for coordination and collaboration between 

various agencies and jurisdictions

• Operational: Agreement among all operating agencies is required on operational strategies 

to manage the total capacity and demand of the corridor.

• Technical: Additional agreement is required for the sharing and distribution of information, 

and system operations and control.

Staffing and Budget Limitations

As with any new program, staffing requirements must be considered. Agencies have staffed ICM 

in a variety of ways. Many add ICM duties to existing staff members’ responsibilities (e.g., 

existing Dallas Area Rapid Transit operations staff was given additional duties). However, the 

agency did fund one full-time equivalent to serve as the ICM coordinator for the US-75 corridor.

In general terms, operations have continued as part of the ongoing operational roles of the 

agencies involved. System support for ICM has been outsourced to private companies for the 

development and ongoing operation and maintenance of the software and hardware used for ICM 

programs. However, depending on staffing constraints, technical capabilities could be provided 

by any combination of public agencies and/or private companies. This should be considered a 

long-term commitment for an ICM program. (Spiller et al. 2014, page ES-3)

The operational needs for an integrated corridor management system (ICMS) are further 

explored in the white paper “Conceptualizing Integrated Corridor Management.” 

Various cooperative agreements are required to support system operations. 

Key agreements include: 

• Traffic Signals/Ramp Meter Support and Update – Establish guidelines, processes, 

and communication protocols between the agencies when changes to signal timing/

operations and ramp meter rates are planned. 

• Planned Events and Update – Establish guidelines, processes, and communication 

protocols when an agency is planning construction events, sports events, or other 

major events that will have traffic impacts along the mainline, and/or ramps, and/or 

arterials.

Source: Connected Corridors: I-210
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 5

The “Conceptualizing Integrated Corridor Management” white paper (Noblis, 2008) discusses 23 

possible operational needs of an ICMS. The unique number and title of each need are listed 

below: 

1. Need for communication with transportation network users. 

2. Need for interactive communication with colleagues. 

3. Need for standard definition of customary operations. 

4. Need for transportation system operators and public safety organizations to coordinate. 

5. Need to manage the supply of services to match demand. 

6. Need to have competent and well-trained staff. 

7. Need to monitor the location and status of vehicles within corridor management agency 

fleet(s). 

8. Need to visualize information. 

9. Need to share control of devices within a corridor. 

10. Need to monitor the effectiveness of control tactics implemented in the corridor. 

11. Need to understand demand for transportation services. 

12. Need to monitor threats to the corridor. 

13. Need for corridor performance measures. 

14. Need for impact assessment tools. 

15. Need to archive data. 

16. Need for descriptive data about corridor infrastructure. 

17. Need to have a quality information processing infrastructure. 

18. Need to monitor corridor status. 

19. Need for real-time or near real-time information. 

20. Need for non-real-time data (e.g., sample data). 

21. Need to collect and process data in real-time or near real-time. 

22. Need to monitor the status of the physical transportation infrastructure. 

23. Need to have quality physical infrastructure. 

The white paper provides a detailed description of each of these needs listed above and the 

following actions are recommended:

• Make a list of resources to finance the project. 

• Try to find a way to make profit with the newly developed system to be able to fund ongoing 

operation (for example, develop a smartphone app).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 6

The Los Angeles I-210 Pilot system identifies the following key groups of individuals to be 

involved in the operation of the ICM system (Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015): 

• ICM corridor manager. 

• ICM system manager. 

• Core system operators. 

• Information providers/consumers. 

• Technical advisory and management committee.

• Connected corridors steering committee.

• Caltrans traffic management center operators. 

• Caltrans operations division staff.

• County/city traffic management staff.

• Transit dispatchers.

• First responders.

Maintaining Balance among Participating Jurisdictions

Once agreements are established and business rules are ready to be incorporated into recommended 

decisions, it is important not to assume the task is complete. Agencies, structures, and context 

continue to change, and the agreements can quickly become outdated. One should consider these 

agreements to be living documents that continue to reflect the current operational environment (and 

not as a snapshot in time from when it was established). They must be revisited and updated as 

needed (Gonzalez et al., 2012). Getting agreements is difficult, but so is constantly having to update 

it, a process which requires board and governing body approvals. Once a blanket agreement is in 

hand, it is best to consider operations and maintenance manuals as living documents.

Establishment of New Partnerships

Interjurisdictional and interorganizational coordination and integration among corridor 

stakeholders is necessary for the establishment of new partnerships. 

• Invite all potential agencies from the beginning. 

• Motivate by educating them about the benefit of the system to them.

• Keep them motivated.

• If they decide not to be a part of the team, keep them in the loop, they may decide to join 

later in the process.

• Give them a leadership role like chairing committees will be helpful.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 7

DIFFERENCES IN INSTITUTIONS

Every ICM implementation site will have its own unique landscape, culture, and set of 

institutions. This context will shape the agreements and partnerships that are formed, along with 

the “personality” of that ICM implementation. It is out of the scope of this guidance to outline all 

of the different characteristics of potential partners and structures of managed, integrated 

corridors. However, we would like to highlight several categories of which to be mindful when 

establishing interagency agreements and eventual business rules for decision making. Figure 15 

depicts some of the many ways that agencies may differ in their oversight duties. 

Differences in 

Institutions

Agency 

Legislation

State 

transportation 

agency structure

Local 

jurisdiction 

configuration

Public transit 

partners and funding 

sources

State 

financial 

resources

Ownership 

of the roadway 

system

Figure 15. Diagram. Illustration of the many ways in which agencies may differ.

• Differences in agency legislation (at the State, county, or city levels), laws, and funding 

sources. State agencies may have completely different structures and funding concerns than 

city or county agencies. These factors should be considered.

• Differences in State transportation agencies. Each DOT has its own unique character, ways 

of operating, leadership direction, etc. Culture in an organization and leadership presence 

should not be underestimated in impacting business rules and operational execution.

• Differences in local jurisdictions. Similarly, the local context and partners will influence the 

types of agreements made. Does the local jurisdiction work well with the local branch of the 

State DOT? Do they have the same goals?
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 8

• Differences in Public transit partners and funding sources. Transit partners are key to a 

successful ICM implementation, and they are the most seasoned at developing multimodal 

and multijurisdictional agreements. 

• Differences in State financial resources. These resources can have a large impact on the type 

of ICM, its DSS, and the ability to enact agreed upon response plans. If there are not enough 

resources, then the response plans may not be practical and coordination will be inhibited.

• Differences in ownership of the roadway system. This is often overlooked, but different 

segments of the roadway system can have different owners with a range of goals. And, it is 

not unusual for those goals to be in conflict at times. Consequently, ownership rights and 

goals can impact the success of the ICM, as well as how flexible the business rules can be 

with respect to partner priority and coordination.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

3 9

CHAPTER 3. CASE STUDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED 

IN INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT WITH 

EMPHASIS ON DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND 

RELEVANT BUSINESS RULES

Integrated corridor management (ICM) provides information that covers the entire transportation 

network to help commuters make better decisions about how to travel in that corridor. This 

section focuses on best practices in ICM deployment with respect to decision support systems 

(DSS) and business rules.

SAN DIEGO AND DALLAS 

As mentioned in the previous chapter, agreements and memoranda of understanding among 

agencies, known as business rules, are structural and key elements of success within the context 

of ICM. However, few determinate examples exist. Nevertheless, even implicit rules must exist 

for agencies to share data, resources, and—most importantly—real-time action plans. The 

sections below explain how the San Diego and Dallas ICM demonstration sites operated with 

either documented or implicit “business rules.”

Business Rules

Dallas. The business rules for Dallas were initially based on a regional ITS cooperative 

agreement that was expanded to an operations and maintenance agreement, as described by 

Spiller et al. (2014, page 9-1):

A blanket ITS cooperative agreement for the region was in-place and used as a 

starting point by the ICM stakeholders for this project. The ICM program was a 

part of the transportation improvement project to ensure regional support by the 

Council of Governments. An operations and maintenance (O&M) document was 

developed cooperatively among all the operating agencies in the corridor during 

the operations phase of the ICM demonstration. The ICM O&M Manual has the 

potential to act as a more detailed agreement. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 0

The Dallas stakeholder team included: 

• Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).

• Cities of Dallas, Plano, University Park, Highland Park, and Richardson.

• North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG).

• North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA).

• Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) – Dallas District Traffic Operation Division.

• Three Universities (Texas A&M, Southern Methodist University, and University of Texas 

– Arlington) are also involved. 

These agencies and stakeholders have been participating in incident management and regional 

training for many years (Spiller et al, 2014. Page E-2). They have established multiagency 

working groups and committees to promote multiagency cooperation, including an ICM steering 

committee, ICM operations committee, and an ICM 511 committee. Within the region, the North 

Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) includes a transportation committee and an 

ITS committee. The stakeholders’ committee was also created as a multijurisdictional oversight 

and advisory committee. It was noted that interjurisdictional challenges included identifying 

ongoing capital sources, maintaining operational capacity, and funding maintenance activities. 

DART was initially selected as lead agency. 

Existing operations staff is used for the daily operation of the system. The ICM 

coordinator, provided by DART, leads the ICM responses. The DART highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) operations team is co-located with TxDOT at the 

DalTrans facility. The other operating agencies (i.e., DART bus, light rail, North 

Texas Tollway Authority, and cities) operate out of their normal operations center 

(Spiller et al, 2014. Page E-3).

San Diego. In San Diego, the foundational documents were more numerous and included a 

project charter and MOUs:

Throughout the project process several documents have been undertaken and are 

anticipated to be completed as they pertain to the data collection/documentation, 

lessons-learned experienced through the ongoing operations. Initial related 

documentation included the completion of a project charter, followed by the 

completion of individual [memoranda of understanding]. Such documents 

provided high-level guidance on needed coordination and cooperation. During the 

design and development of the [integrated corridor management system (ICMS)], 

the focus turned to the needed operational consensus. Such agreements were 

documented through agency-level memorandums, which served as the platform 

for an ICMS operational framework document. The operational framework 

establishes and sets the conditions for using the individual network assets under 

the ICMS environment and reflects input/agreement by all partner agencies 

(Spiller et al, 2014. Page E-30).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 1

The ICM implementation was also not without interjurisdictional challenges: 

There is no one specific challenge that stands out since all challenges experienced 

were generally dependent on each other. However, the observation to share is 

that the greatest challenge was associated with ensuring that the project partners 

received appropriate transportation, engineering, and operational input, which was 

then translated into the software design process during the [integrated corridor 

management system] design (Spiller et al, 2014. Page E-30).

According to Spiller et al. (2014, page E-31), the San Diego ICM Team established these 

multiagency working groups/committees: 

• Weekly meetings: operational review (all project team partners).

• Biweekly meetings: Core Project management team (San Diego Association of Governments 

(SANDAG) and consultant teams).

• Monthly meetings: project development team (all partners, including management level).

In addition:

The City and County Traffic Engineer’s Council and The City and County 

Transportation Advisory Committee (city engineers and public works directors) 

are used as standing committees that were established back in the late 1990s, 

which generally provide the venue for recommendation and discussion on multiagency, project/program-related efforts, and SANDAG region-wide strategies. 

SANDAG staff used these committees as a sounding board for input and 

discussion throughout the ICM project. These committees report to and provide 

recommendations to our Transportation Committee (policy).

SANDAG serves as project/contract lead. Contract staff is involved, but for 

providing project development, coordination, operational/technical support, 

and ICM system interface, design, and implementation. All other agencies have 

committed appropriate staff to participate (Spiller et al. 2014, page E-31).

Decision Support System Development

A main component of each of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) ICM 

demonstration projects was the development of a unique DSS to facilitate decision-making 

activities and operations in order to minimize the impacts of their respective congestion 

challenges. The San Diego and Dallas ICM Pioneer Sites were the very first sites to deploy ICM 

systems with a combination of DSS methodologies. These methodologies included table-based, 

expert systems, event scenario matrices, custom rules-based systems, and systems that were 

model driven or data driven. These types of DSS had been implemented in different intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS) projects across the country. The lessons learned from these efforts 

as well as an assessment of which methodologies work best under certain conditions had been 

documented by the U.S. DOT in a report titled Assessment of Emerging Opportunities for 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 2

Real-Time Multimodal Decision Support Systems in Transportation Operations: Concept 

Definition and Current Practice. According to this report, each site had unique conditions; 

therefore, it was necessary to explore the appropriate methodologies based on the regional 

differences.

Dallas. Dallas implemented a customized, rules-based DSS that was built on an expert system 

approach with an event scenario matrix. The San Diego site also used a rule-based methodology 

with incident response parameters and knowledge-based information on roadway geometry and 

device locations to generate response plans. The rules were created with operator inputs. Overall, 

DSS uses the strategy responses developed by the stakeholders, expert systems, prediction 

modeling, and evaluation components to recommend plans of action associated with specific 

events (Table 1). Although not explicitly detailed, these approaches should incorporate business 

rules given the coordination needed amongst different entities. 

The DSS is part of the design development stage of an ICM. Figure 16 shows the Dallas ICM 

phases of development.

Concept of 

Operations/

Requirements

Detailed 

Requirements

DesignDecision 

Support 

System

Development

Operations 

and 

Maintenance

Testing

Figure 16. Diagram. Dallas integrated corridor management phases.

(Source: Miller et al., 2015)

The Dallas ICM developed a set of pre-approved response plans, which can be a type of business 

rules based on agreements between agencies. These response plans were seen as key to 

implementing coordinated ICM operations and responses. There were several committees tasked 

with developing these response plans (namely, ICM operations, decision support, and arterial 

monitoring systems). The group would discuss certain event types and locations that would 

require different response scenarios depending on the location and transportation impact. 

Although not explicitly stated in the Dallas ICM reports, it is implied that these response 

scenarios could very well involve key stakeholders, who represented different agencies, as well 

any agreements or protocols. The following approach was used to develop the response plans:

• Event types that occurred frequently, as well as locations with recurring congestion or high 

incident frequency.

• Event impact indicators (for example, queue length and number of lanes affected).

• The corridor was divided into multiple sections.

• Identification of response strategies.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 3

The report lists magnitude-of-event indicators that stakeholders used to develop appropriate 

strategies in response to incidents, including: 

• Number of affected lanes on US-75 (including HOV lanes).

• Speed on US-75.

• Queue length on US-75.

• Speed on frontage road diversion route.

• Speed on diversion route.

• Current utilization of nearby park-and-ride lot.

• Current utilization of red and orange light rail transit (LRT) lines.

Note that several of these indicators are related to local roads, park-and-ride lots, and transit 

operations. Each partner would have its own magnitude-of-event protocols to incorporate 

information sharing and cooperation. Table 4 depicts decision strategies for minor and major 

incidents and delay. 

Table 4. Example of decision support system rules for response plan development.

Strategies

No. Affected Lanes General Purpose and HOV

Main Lanes

Speed Frontage Road (on Diversion Route) (mph)Speed Greenville Ave. (on Diversion Route) (mph)Speed (mph)Queue (Q) Length Derived from Avg. speed (mi.)Park and Ride UtilizationLight Rapid Transit Utilization

Minor Incident: Short Diversion 

to Frontage Road (FR) ≥ 1 < 30 0.5 < Q <1 > 20 N/A N/A N/A

Major Incident: Long Diversion 

to FR. ≥ 1 < 30 Q ≥ 1 > 20 N/A N/A N/A

Major Incident: Diversion to FR 

and Greenville Avenue (GV) ≥ 2 < 30 Q ≥ 1 < 20 > 20 N/A N/A

Major Incident: Diversion to FR 

and GV, Transit ≥ 2 < 30 Q ≥ 4 < 20 < 20 < 85% < 85%

Major Incident: Diversion to FR 

and GV, Transit ≥ 2 < 30 Q ≥ 4 < 20 < 20 > 85% > 85%

Return to Normal < 1 > 30 Q < 0.5 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable. 

(Source: Miller et al., 2015)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 4

The Dallas DSS consists of expert rules, prediction, and evaluation. The operating agency 

stakeholders provide candidate response plans based on their experience and knowledge, which 

are then selected by the expert rules system. Note that these operating agencies would have their 

own protocols, and the DSS could be enhanced by including these agreements (i.e., business 

rules) to enact select response plans as well as implementation. At the next stage, a candidate 

response plan is submitted to the ICM coordinator, who decides whether or not to enact it. This 

would also be an area where business rules could have a significant impact on plan selection. For 

example, if the DSS regularly submits plans that are not realistic due to constraints based on 

interagency agreements, then the ICM coordinator will not be as likely to rely on it for future 

decisions. After selection, the response plan is then pushed to agencies for implementation.

Dallas has developed and approved over 400 response plans, with more currently being written 

and revised as a result of experience. The ICM processes provide partner agencies with the 

pre-approved response plans both in real-time via the Internet during response plan 

implementation as well as offline for assessment and refinement. Figure 17 depicts an overview 

of Dallas DSS analysis from hypothesis to evaluation. For more information, please refer to the 

Dallas Decision Support System Analysis Test Plan. 

Data infusion

Data Fusion Engine 

Input Data

Qualitative Assessments 

(operator perceptions & 

evaluator observations)

DAA Output

Comparison of 

Quantitative DSS System 

Data with Approximated 

“Ground Truth”

Interview/Surveys/

Workshops

Independent 

Lab Testing

On-Site Observations

Examining all Aspects 

of Performance under 

Varying Conditions

Quality responses Complexity Timeliness Prediction Accuracy

DOT Hypothesis

Design

Evaluation Hypotheses

Primary Data Sources

Evaluation Methods and Statistical Analysis

Decision support systems (DSS) provide a useful and effective tool for integrated corridor 

management project managers through its ability to improve situational awareness, enhance 

response and control mechanisms and provide better information to travelers, resulting in at 

least part of th overall improvement in corridor performance.

“Before” and “After” Case Study Design

Figure 17. Diagram. Overview of a decision support systems analysis.

(Source: Lee et al., 2012)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 5

San Diego: In contrast, the San Diego ICM already had a decisionmaking system based on 

enabling the sharing of information across agencies. But, the application needed to integrate this 

information into actionable control strategies—an element which was lacking. The DSS 

attempted to fill this gap by providing data integration capabilities with a decision-making 

process for developing response plans. Unlike pre-DSS practices, this new tool incorporates 

coordination among corridor stakeholders, which is a significant and important development. 

Note the referenced actions are being coordinated and not carried out in isolation. This implies 

some sort of agreements need to be built into the decision-making process, either at the response 

development stage or at the response selection stage.

Figure 18 illustrates the list of contracted tasks for the California Partners for Advanced 

Transportation Technology (PATH):

Project Management Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Task 4

Task 5

Task 6

Task 7

Task 8

Task 9

Refinement of System Requirements

System Design/Build

System Testing

Training

Operations and Maintenance

Participation in the Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation 

of the Integrated Corridor Management System

Participation in the System Evaluation

Participation in Outreach Programs

Figure 18. Diagram. Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology tasks.

One of the objectives was to develop the DSS, the network prediction system (NPS), and the 

real-time simulation system (RTSS). (Dion, Skabardonis, 2015)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 6

Figure 19 depicts the underlying concept for a DSS. Dion and Skabardonis (2015) note that the 

diagram: 

...provides an early conceptual view of the DSS. Core functions of the DSS 

are represented in the gray box shown in the upper right corner of the diagram. 

Based on information received from the various transportation systems via the 

IMTMS web services (shown in the blue boxes surrounding the IMTMS cloud), 

the DSS would use a rules engine to assess corridor operations and develop 

suitable response plans. These plans would then be converted into control actions 

that would be passed back to the relevant systems via the IMTMS web servers. 

Examples of control actions that may be received by each transportation system 

are shown in the grey boxes surrounding the IMTMS cloud. 

511 XML

Arterial

(QuicNet 5)

Congestion

Events

CMS

CCTV

Signal Phasing

Freeway Events

Arterial Events

Congestion

Events

CMS

CCTV 

RMS

Bus Location

Train Location

Events

Security CCTV

Schedule

Road Closures

EV Routing

RMS Timing

CMS Signing

CCTV Control

Modify Bus Service

Create New Routes

Signal timing

CMS signing

CCTV control

Transit 

(RTMS)

XML

IMTMS Web Services

Corridor Management

Area Coordinators

Transportation 

Coordinator Transportation Coordinator

Decision

Support 

System

Monitoring Strategies

Control Strategies*

}

Regional 

Transportation 

Network

Using tools such as:

Expert systems

GIS

Real-time modeling 

Etc.

Medal Color Scheme

Freeway

Arterial

Transit

Public Safety

ATIS/511

IMTMS

Network

ATIS = advanced traveler information system. CAD = computer aided dispatch. CCTV = closed-circuit television. CMS = changeable 

message sign. EV = emergency vehicle. GIS = geographic information system. IMTMS = intermodal transportation management system. 

RMS = ramp meter stations. RTMS = regional transit management system. XML = extensible markup language. 

Figure 19. Diagram. Decision support system concept.

(Source: Dion, Skabardonis, 2015)

Network Prediction System (NPS) – developed as part of the ICM demonstration to 

support DSS operations and used to predict origin-destination flows within the I-15 

corridor.

Real-Time Simulation System (RTSS) – developed as part of the ICM demonstration to 

support DSS operations and used to manage and execute corridor simulations.

Source: Dion, Skabardonis, 2015
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 7

Note that the DSS would receive information from various transportation systems, which could 

include protocols and procedures for interagency interactions. It is also possible that these

interagency agreements and business rules were not incorporated (or incorporated inconsistently) 

because each agency may only be supplying the information relevant to their system. 

Figure 20 shows an example response plan concept from the San Diego ICM demonstration 

project report.

Command 1: Select Timing Plan 105

Command 2: Send Timing Plan 105 to San Diego OuicNet 4

Command 1: Select Timing Plan 203

Command 2: Send Timing Plan 203 to San Diego OuicNet 4

Command 1: Set CMS message

Command 2: Send CMS message to Poway CMS #1

Command 1: Set MLCS Configuration 1

Command 1: Set RMIS Plan 3

Command 2: Send Plan 2 to NB metered ramps

Command 1: Set CMS message

Command 2: Send CMS message to San Diego CMS #10

Command 1: Set CMS message

Command 2: Send CMS message to Poway CMS #1

Operator Review & Approve

Action Plan t2-1

Action Plan t2-2

Action Plan t2-3

Action Plan t2-4

Operator Review & Approve

Terminate all Action Plans

Operator Review & Approve

Action Plan t1-1

Action Plan t1-2

Action Plan t1-3

Response Plan @ t1

Response Plan @ t2

Response Plan @ t3

Incident D110712071935

Figure 20. Diagram. Response plan concept from the San Diego integrated corridor

 management demonstration project report.

(Source: Dion, Skabardonis, 2015)

The following description is from the San Diego ICM report: 

[The diagram] illustrates the conceptual process for the generation and execution 

of response plans. Response plans would be generated when requested for a 

specific incident location, type, severity, and impact, based on the time of day and 

other operational parameters. Each response plan would consist of one or more 

action plans, with each action plan consisting of one or more commands. Single 

commands would be recommended actions for a specific system in a specific 

jurisdiction. The DSS was envisioned to be an Expert System or equivalent tabledriven application that would make decisions based on information available in 

various databases and a series of “if-then” statements describing the business rules 

for corridor operations under specified conditions.

When responding to an event, the DSS was to be further instructed to 

keep monitoring travel conditions within the corridor and issue updated 

recommendations when necessary. This would allow the DSS to account for 

unforeseen changes in travel patterns or other events affecting corridor operations 

in addition to the original event (Dion, Skabardonis, 2015).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 8

Figure 21 and Figure 22 represent elements of Dallas ICM demonstration and implementation, 

respectively. Figure 23 depicts multiple stage implementation of ICM.

Information 

Exchange 

System

Marketing Regional Trip 

Planner

Analysis, Modeling, 

and Simulation and 

Evaluation Support

Weather 

Integration

Parking 

Management Training

511 System

Freeway 

Management

HOV Lane 

Monitoring

Transit Signal 

Priority

Responsive 

Traffic Signal

Arterial Street 

Monitoring

DART Data 

Portal

Real Time Transit 

Vehicle Info

Operation & 

Management

Decision Support 

System

Video Sharing 

Network

External Data 

Sources

Figure 21. Diagram. Elements of the Dallas integrated corridor management 

demonstration.

Manual Interaction – use

developed response plans

Real-time Data 

integration

Predictive Model 

Integration –

Utilize Model to Predict 

30 minutes into future

Figure 22. Diagram. Integrated corridor management multiple stage implementation.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

4 9

Figure 23. Diagram. Elements of the Dallas integrated corridor management 

implementation.

Dallas Implementation – 

Real Time Transit 

Vehicle Information

Dallas Implementation – 

Parking Management

Dallas Implementation – 

5-1-1 DFW

(Dallas-Fort Worth)

Dallas ICM Strategies

• Vehicle location.

• Time to arrival at next stop.

• Transit schedule.

• Available capacity to carry additional passengers.

• Park & ride lots along light rail transit Red Line.

• Monitor availability at each Park & Ride lot.

• Publish to 511 System.

• Publish to Texas Department of Transportation 

dynamic message signs.

• Integrate with the decision support system.

• Multi-modal traffic and transit information 

disseminated through:

• A public web site.

• Interactive voice response (IVR)

• A mobile website and mobile application

• My511 (Web, IVR, alerts)

• Social Media

• Prioritize non-recurring congestion based on 

historical crash data.

• Identify available alternatives for route/mode 

diversion along the corridor.

• Route diversion strategy (minor incident).

• Route diversion strategy (major incident).

• Mode diversion strategy (major incident).

• Combined route and mode diversion strategy.

• Advanced traveler information (all scenarios).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 0

Expected Timeframe 

Dallas: 

• ConOps and requirements done over a one- to two-year period.

• AMS phase was done over 18 months. 

• Development and deployment phase was completed in three years. 

• The program began in October 2006.

• Became operational in April 2013. 

San Diego:

• Kickoff – February 2010 – Completion of project management documentation and definition 

of system requirements February 2010 – March 2011.

• Coordination with partners to define operational framework and interdependencies – April 

through December 2011.

• Design of ICMS – mid-2011 through March 2013.

• System shakedown and testing – March 2013 through January 2014.

• ICMS placed into full operations – February 2014.

OTHER GRANT SITES

This section gives a brief overview of ICM and potential business rules-related issues in several 

of 13 sites selected to receive ICM grants in 2015 from the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA). They were required to use the funding towards pre-implementation activities; e.g., 

development of systems engineering plans and concepts of operations, et al. Table 5 lists the 13 

sites, their respective lead agencies, and their respective ICM project corridors. 

Table 5. Federal Highway Administration 2015 ICM Grant Award Sites

State Lead Agency or City Corridor Description

Arizona Maricopa County I-10 through the Phoenix metro area and multiple 

east-west parallel routes. 

California Caltrans

I-210 on a 22-mile section from the 134/210 

interchange near downtown Pasadena to the 

Foothill Boulevard Interchange in La Verne. 

California Contra Costa County SR-4 in the city of Hercules from I-80 to I-680.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 1

State Lead Agency or City Corridor Description

Florida Broward County

I-95 on a 25-mile section in Broward County. 

Commuter rail, transit bus service, inter-city rail 

(including Amtrak) park & ride lots and bike trails. 

Maryland Maryland State Highway 

Administration

Three corridors connecting Washington, DC and 

Baltimore: I-95, MD 295 (the BaltimoreWashington Parkway), and US 1 between MD 32 

and I-695. 

New Jersey New Jersey Department 

of Transportation (DOT)

New Jersey Turnpike (I-95), Garden Parkway and 

US 1 and US 9 from Woodbridge (south) to the 

Holland Tunnel (north).

New York City of New York

In the New York/New Jersey metro area, the 

corridor includes sections of Route 495 (the Long 

Island/Queens-Midtown Expressway) and crosses 

midtown Manhattan, the Lincoln Tunnel and the 

Queens-Midtown Tunnel. 

New York

Niagara International 

Transportation 

Technology Coalition

I-90 within the Buffalo-Niagara region, including 

the Peace Bridge and the I-190/I-90 interchange to 

the south and the I-190/I-290 interchange to the 

north. 

Oregon City of Portland

I-84 from downtown Portland encompassing over 

45 square miles. Light rail and streetcar routes. 

Local streets. Bus and bike routes.

Texas City of El Paso

IH-10 from US-54 to Loop 375, US-54/IH-110 from 

IH-1 to Loop 375. This project is 16 miles 

combined. Bus routes. 

Texas City of Austin IH-35 between US 183 and SH 71.

Utah Utah Transit Authority 

and the Utah DOT

Major north-south roadways, representing 

approximately 25 miles, from downtown Salt Lake 

City to Lehi City, including I-15, State Street and 

Redwood Road. Commuter rail services. 

Virginia Virginia DOT

Northern Virginia east-west corridors including 

I-66, SR 7, US 29, US 50 and SR 267. The Virginia 

Railway Express Manassas line, Metro Silver and 

Orange lines, commuter bus routes, and commuter 

parking lots.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, “The U.S. Department of Transportation Announces 

$2.6 Million in Grants to Expand Real-Time Travel Information in 13 Cities.” 

Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1504.cfm

Table 5. Federal Highway Administration 2015 ICM Grant Award Sites (continued)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 2

As of 2017, most of these sites have now completed or are near completion of their preimplementation activities. In the context of this report, the Los Angeles I-210 ICM deployment is 

notable because the Los Angeles deployment team built on lessons learned from the Dallas and 

San Diego prototype demonstration projects. Future ICM deployments can also be expected to 

build on these earlier efforts and advance the state of the practice in DSS and business rules. 

Dion, Butler, and Xuan (2015) illustrate their concept of how a fully developed ICM system 

would work in Figure 24 and explain it as follows: 

The large blue box at the bottom of the diagram represents the transportation corridor 

being managed. Within the box, the seven smaller blue boxes show the various 

transportation system elements. The primary functions of the proposed ICM system, as 

outlined in the figure, are as follows:

• Data collection /validation/fusion. 

• System operational assessment. 

• Determination of asset availability.

• Evaluation and Selection of Management Strategies – Evaluations would be conducted by 

a Decision Support System (DSS) drawing strategies from rules or playbooks describing 

potential supply-side and demand management solutions. Figure 8-11 shows a conceptual 

representation of the DSS operations. 

• Strategy execution.

• Information warehousing.

• Traveler information applications.

• Feedback control loop.

For purposes of this paper, we shall focus on the DSS element, especially the selection and 

evaluation of management strategies. Figure 24 indicates a variety of components that fit into the 

DSS, but does not note the incorporation of business rules through interagency agreements, etc.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 3

Figure 24. Diagram. Functional view of a fully developed integrated corridor 

management system.

(Source: Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015) 

Figure 25 illustrates an operational concept for a decision support system. It contains a diagram 

of the decision support system which would evaluate and select appropriate management 

strategies for implementation. Several key functionalities were listed, including:

• State estimation.

• Demand and system state prediction.

• Operator interface.

• Knowledge development.

• Modeling tool maintenance.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 4

OD = origin/destination

Figure 25. Diagram. Operational concept for a decision support system.

(Source: Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015)

Similar to the earlier diagram, there is not a specific area showing the importance of 

incorporating business rules into system development. The description mentions operators 

making selections amongst recommended scenarios, so it is possible that this is where the 

incorporation of interagency agreements and business rules occurs. If so, the load on the operator 

could be reduced by preemptively removing conflicting recommendations that do not work 

efficiently in the coordinated environment.

As noted in chapter 2, communication is a vital component of both proper ICM development as 

well as DSS implementation. Figure 26 presents a preliminary, high-level concept for an ICM 

deployment on I-210 Los Angeles. Note the range of partners and stakeholders, including 

roadway and transit operators, law enforcement and first responders, information providers, 

parking operators, and other data providers. Also note the vital role both communications 

networks and DSS support, located at the center of this diagram, play. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 5

CommunicationNetworks(IEN,RITI S)

ICM

Information 

Services

Caltrans 

TMC

DSS

Foothill Transit

Pasadena ARTS

LA Metro

Parking 

Operators

CHP

Local Law 

Enforcement

LA SAFE

CAD/AVL System

CAD/AVL System

Rail CAD/AVL System

CAD System

Local Dispatch Systems

Freeway Service Patrol

511 System

Call Boxes

Bus CAD/AVL System

Park & Ride Management 

System (future)

Parking Management 

Systems (future)

Lane Closure System Freeway Detectors

SCATS Traffic Signals

ATMS Ramp & Connector Meters

QuicNet Pro Traffic Signals

TransSuite Traffic Signals Freeway CMS

12 Traffic Signals

Arterial CMSs

Bluetooth Devices

TransSuite Traffic Signals

KITS Traffic Signals

KITS Traffic Signals

KITS Traffic Signals

Bluetooth Devices

Bluetooth Devices (future)

Arterial CMSs (future)

Arterial CMSs (future)

PeMS

Probe Vehicle Data

Crowd Sourcing

Other Data 

Suppliers

Durate

Monrovia

County TMC

Arcadia TMC

Pasadena 

TMC

Traveler Information Apps

Radio

Weather

ARTS = area rapid transit system. ATMS = advanced transportation management system. CAD/AVL = computer-aided dispatch/

automated vehicle location. CHP = California Highway Patrol. CMS = changeable message sign. KITS = Kimley-Horn Intelligent 

Transportation System Software. PeMS = (Caltrans) Performance Measurement System. TMC = traffic management center.

Figure 26. Diagram. I-210 pilot integrated corridor management preliminary high-level 

architecture.

(Source: Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015)

The range of partners also indicates the opportunity for incorporating various interagency 

agreements and business rules for operating as part of the DSS development process, although 

this was not indicated in the original concept. However, Table 6 mentions business rules as part 

of the response planning stage.

Table 6. Business rules for the three areas of integrated corridor management 

implementation on I-210 in Los Angeles, California.

Periodical Corridor Operational Assessment

• The decision support system (DSS) predicts how traffic conditions will evolve over the 

next hour if patterns are maintained. If an unusual system occurs, then it is flagged and 

brought to the attention of the manager.

Initial Impact Assessment

• Once there is an identified incident, the DSS predicts traffic impact if nothing is done 

and becomes the base of evaluation for response plans.

Response Planning

• The DSS develops a plan to address the situation. An initial assessment of traffic 

management devices is done to determine which can participate in the response. 

Business rules by corridor stakeholders are then used to develop several candidate 

response plans. The plan with the best overall corridor performance projections is then 

recommended.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 6

CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATED CORRIDOR 

MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATIONS

Effective Leadership

A key component of any successful organizational plan is engagement among knowledgeable 

leadership and staff who are capable of operating and creatively applying decisions in 

unpredictable, complex environments. 

Integrated thinking about capabilities across all areas—understanding the benefits, risks, and 

implication of different scenarios—must become a standard practice for leaders. Engagement 

opportunities among transportation control centers and both public and private agencies will 

promote leadership skill development. Leaders need to be motivated and have the time and 

resources to become more familiar with all partners. Peer exchange workshops are a great way to 

achieve the culture shift necessary to support an integrated operation. Bringing representatives 

with the knowledge of ICM implementation in other regions can provide the training for staff 

new to the concept. 

Cooperative Working Relationships with Federal, State, and Local Agencies

As noted in Gonzalez, et al., (2012), trying to manage the complexity of an ICM implementation 

is a serious challenge. It entails bringing together multiple agencies that use a diverse set of 

operations methods. Further, a range of subsystems that must be coordinated often exist within 

agencies. It is important to increase communication and organization to ensure that all project 

partners agree about expectations. A systems management approach is also useful when 

developing and organizing this highly complex structure. The systems engineering approach 

often entails the development of a plan that all stakeholders agree to early in the project process. 

It provides a common understanding of how work will be managed and supports tracking 

systems development activities from one phase to another. This same approach can be used in 

developing interagency agreements, which can then be incorporated into the DSS.

In their evaluation of stage 3 of the ICM deployment on I-210 in Los Angeles, Dion, Butler, and 

Xuan (2015) identified the following key groups of individuals as part of an institutional 

framework: 

• Corridor Manager (CM). The corridor manager (CM) is expected to have control and 

authority over his or her agency. This will not extend to other agencies. Traffic managers 

from each agency are expected to retain control and decision authority over their respective 

agencies. The CM’s major task is to oversee and assess the functionality of the individual 

systems connected to the ICM system as a whole. The CM also ensures that stakeholders 

carry on the actions that have been agreed upon. 

• Core System Operators. These individuals have the responsibility for making final 

decisions to accept or reject ICM traffic control recommendations when automated control is 

not available. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 7

• Information Providers/Consumers. These agencies provide information to or use 

information produced by the ICM system, such as first responder and transit agencies. 

• ICM System Manager. This individual has responsibility for system maintenance and 

repairs. It is advisable for the individual to be chosen from the agency that houses the 

system’s servers. This individual will be directly responsible for the ICM servers’ 

maintenance and will follow up on identified maintenance and repair activities conducted by 

other agencies. 

• Technical Advisory and Management Committee. This is a committee with 

representatives from each agency that has a role in the operation of the ICM system. 

Responsibilities could include evaluating the change requests for ICM system operations, 

counseling on operational issues, advising corridor stakeholders on jurisdictional issues, 

assessing system performance against established performance metrics, and identifying 

potential system improvements. 

• Connected Corridors Steering Committee. This is a committee made up of representatives 

from major public and private partners who address funding, legal, operational, and 

organizational issues. It is also the committee’s responsibility to develop a strategic vision 

and plans for system implementation and enhancement. Figure 27 illustrates the hierarchy of 

the I-210 connected corridor steering committee.

CHP = California Highway Patrol. ICM = integrated corridor management.

Figure 27. Diagram. Hierarchy of the I-210 connected corridor steering committee.

(Source: Dion, Butler, Xuan, 2015)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 8

Figure 28 is another example of institutional framework of the San Diego I-15 ICM system in 

California. 

I-15 Virtual Corridor Traffic 

Management Center

Intelligent 

Transportation 

Systems (ITS) CEO Group

Regional ITS Architecture Committee I-15 Corridor Management Team

Transportation Committee

(San Diego Association of Governments)

Figure 28. Diagram. Institutional framework for the I-15 integrated corridor management 

system.

Program Enhancement Strategies

Enhancement strategies directly emanate from innovations in ideas, personnel management, and 

leadership development. Here are a few examples of how to improve ICM system reliability:

• Improve engagement among agency leadership and staff. 

• Enhance situational awareness of staff with respect to program capabilities. 

• Prepare a directory of key people that includes a contact number, department, role, and 

locations. 

• Increase the capacity to monitor and macro-manage operations of the staff and, if applicable, 

the contractor performance too. 

• Identify and implement new tools to reconcile expenditures with deliverables. 

• Conduct comprehensive assessments of whether the intended business rules meet the goals 

of ICM.

Performance measures are another way to evaluate the success of the ICM strategies and 

operation. How to select proper performance measures that are related to the ICM goals and 

objectives have been explained in detail in the FHWA document Concept of Operations for the 

I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

5 9

Staff Expertise

Staffing is an important consideration for any new program, and agencies have staffed ICM efforts 

in a variety of ways. These can include hiring new staff or adding ICM duties to existing staff. 

The lead coordinator is the personnel or office which serves as the daily manager of operations 

overseeing the status of ongoing daily ICM deployment. He or they review and inspect the 

resultant response plans. An ICM deployment may or may not have a lead coordinator identified 

as such; however, by some measure, one person or one office from one of the member agencies is 

probably filling this role by rote. The lead coordinator is also the person or office that one calls to 

inquire about the ICM operation or program. This person may or may not be the champion 

previously described, or necessarily an employee of the lead agency.

The lead coordinator may retain prior job duties for his or her employer. It is probable, however, 

that those job duties (new or continuing) would naturally tailor to serve this purpose anyway, 

only now on behalf of the affiliated ICM agencies (Spiller et al. 2014, page 3-3).

LESSONS LEARNED AND COMMON MISTAKES

Due to the complex environment of an integrated, managed corridor, as well as the ever-changing 

technological and organizational landscape, there are a variety of lessons learned from common 

mistakes that agencies have encountered in their implementation sites. It is our hope that these 

lessons can be passed along for the benefit of an agency considering incorporating business rules 

into a DSS for their regional integrated corridor project. 

It should be noted that many of these topic areas are broad and may go beyond just the business 

rules and interagency agreement included in this guidance document, but are mentioned for their 

potential impact in the larger landscape. For example, in a final report on the Dallas ICM, the 

authors stated that the lessons learned focused mainly on larger institutional issues and 

relationships that are universal to any region considering an ICM (Miller, et al., 2015). It is 

important to build on existing institutional arrangements in an attempt to build consensus, 

developing clearly defined roles and responsibilities along with tempered expectations. Within 

these boundaries, establishing clear business rules as part of the decision process can facilitate 

operations. Figure 29 shows the recommendations to enhance DSS. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 0

Figure 29. Infographic. Recommendation to enhance a decision support system.

Table 7 summarizes lessons learned from the ICM implementation pilots. The following sections 

draw heavily from reports, presentations, and experiences from the Dallas and San Diego ICM 

implementation sites (Miller et al., 2015, Dion and Skabardonis, 201,5 Gonzalez et al., 2012).

1) A decision support system (DSS) may 

not take into account certain jurisdictional 

rules about what cab be communicated 

to travelers (some jurisdictions do not 

allow for direct diversion messages with 

instructions to be communicated, instead 

favoring less specific messages). This can 

have a major impact on the efficiency of a 

traveler information dissemination strategy 

recommended by a DSS.

3) There could be local jurisdictional 

constraints on the use of traffic signals and 

diversions at certain times. For example, 

in San Diego there were safety concerns 

about traffic being diverted past schools 

around school start and end times. These 

concerns and restrictions are contextual 

constraints of the chess board that the DSS 

should be accounting for when providing 

recommendations. 

5) Something as simple as traffic management center (TMC) staffing is another area where not 

all jurisdictions operate in the same way. Recommendations should incorporate whether staff 

from other facilities are available to coordinate with (and if not, is thee another representative 

or agency that the responsibility rolls to) would enhance the need for operator review and 

adjustments. 

4) For traveler information posted to 

dynamic message signs, there are often 

regulations regarding the structure and 

format of messages. This should be 

incorporated into the DSS recommendations. 

Although constraining the message 

content and structure to conform to local 

signs and protocol is likely part of the DSS 

development, additional rules for types of 

messages and phasing frequency based on 

traffic speed may be the type of agreed upon 

use that is not usually incorporated.

2) Many jurisdictions may restrict truck 

use on certain roads. A DSS that has 

not incorporated this information and 

interagency agreements regarding truck 

traffic would not differentiate the traveler 

type. A properly calibrated DSS should 

incorporate this into the recommendation 

protocol to separate out vehicle travelers 

from truck traffic in any diversion or 

messaging suggestion. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 1

Table 7. Lessons learned from the integrated corridor management implementation pilots.

Project Management & Stakeholder Engagement & Planning

• Division of labor. There is too much work that requires many qualities—transportation 

policy, planning, local context, information technology, systems engineering, 

telecommunications, people, and meeting dynamics—for one project manager to make 

decisions without input. Because finding all of the attributes in one person may be nearly 

impossible, the San Diego Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Team found that a dual 

project management mechanism can work very well. This can mean decisions are separated 

out into specialty areas with more than one manager overseeing distinct components. This 

type of structure can set boundaries or business rules that route a decision through the 

appropriate branch, and rules of coordination are set up to clearly demarcate responsibility 

and priority when there is the inevitable disagreement.

» Roles should be clearly documented to avoid any confusion.

• Communication. Invite all the potential stakeholders early in the process and give them the 

ability to choose their level and type of involvement. Keep them informed about the 

decision and the progress even if they decide not to participate, they may decide to become 

part of the project as they see the progress. Their participation will be key to developing 

interagency agreements and protocols for developing robust business rules.

» “Maintaining regular communication with partner agencies throughout a project is 

critical, as continuous information exchange fosters understanding and perspective.” 

– F. Dion and A. Skabardonis. (2015) San Diego I-15 Demonstration Integrated Corridor 

Management System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site Demonstration and Evaluation. 

Sponsored by Caltrans DRISI. Rep. UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-03.

• Needs and goals. Stakeholders should be able to describe the necessity and goals of the 

integrated corridor for their transportation network before proceeding with the development 

of an ICM system. These needs and goals can then be used to develop priorities and 

constraints on the decision-making process, incorporating all of the agency’s perspectives.

» The Dallas ICM project staff suggested that stakeholders should envision the ultimate 

working system, determine resources needed, define roles and responsibilities, deal with 

institutional issues, identify funding sources, and execute regional agreements and 

policies from the beginning.

• Leadership support. The support of each stakeholder’s executive leadership is a necessary 

component in the success of the project as is formulating the proper implementation of 

decisions based in the context of interagency business rules. If leadership does not endorse 

the agreements made, then it is unlikely subordinates will implement them properly.

• Documentation. Integrated corridors are complex environments with a range of different 

players. In some cases, it may be tempting to just “wing it,” operating with a contact list that 

one reaches out to every time a new situation arises. This can often lead to reinventing the 

wheel each time a recurring situation needs a decision, and it also opens up stakeholders to 

the potential of confusion and misinterpretation based on implied roles and relationships. It 

may also leave unclear how best agencies can contribute and support one another. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 2

Project Management & Stakeholder Engagement & Planning (continued)

Consequently, developing clearly worded, legal agreements such as memoranda of 

understanding) will help in the development of clear rules that constrain the decisionmaking process. 

» “Legal agreements, such as memoranda of understanding, generally need to be 

established between agencies to enable them to support each other.” – F. Dion and A. 

Skabardonis. (2015) San Diego I-15 Demonstration Integrated Corridor Management 

System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site Demonstration and Evaluation. Sponsored by 

Caltrans DRISI. Rep. UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-03.

• Evaluation and performance measures. Most decision support systems (DSS) do not have 

a mechanism to actually evaluate the performance of a system after a decision is made. 

Newer generation DSS are beginning to properly incorporate this “self-reflective” ability. 

The use of business rules within a DSS can also be evaluated so that either refinement or 

replacement can occur depending on outcomes. Involvement of transportation planners and 

modelers, along with operations personnel, can provide valuable input into the selection of 

relevant performance measures to best track system performance against established goals.

• Sustainability. Long-term commitments are key to the success of the project. These 

commitments must go beyond principles and ideas and include financial support so that the 

DSS system can continue. Given the context with respect to stakeholders, agreements, and 

priorities can continually evolve, then having the proper resources to update the system 

with these new components is critical. 

• Planning. Proper planning is essential throughout the ICM development and 

implementation process. With respect to business rules in DSS, proper planning is 

necessary to incorporate the range of agreements and stakeholder interests into the 

decision-making process. 

» Experiences from the Dallas ICM site can be summarized with a pithy statement of plan 

big, start small, be flexible, plans are plans, and be prepared for unexpected events.

» To develop essential political buy-in of concepts and funding, proper planning is 

necessary.

Operations, Maintenance, and Testing

• Training. Provide proper training for operations and maintenance personnel prior to the 

launch of an ICM system. With respect to the DSS and business rules, relevant staff should 

be familiar with the DSS as well as constraints that are being incorporated into it based on 

interagency agreements with regional partners. 

• Meetings and communication. Regular team meetings are essential to enhance processes 

and procedures as the operation of an ICM system matures. This includes keeping lines of 

communication open with partners, and providing feedback between agencies with respect 

to implementation and operation decisions. This regular interaction will make it easier to 

modify and adjust the agreements that are then utilized as context for the DSS.

Table 7. Lessons learned from the integrated corridor management implementation pilots 

(continued).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 3

Operations, Maintenance, and Testing (continued)

• Sustainability. As with the project management section above, post-deployment operations 

and maintenance funding, as well as regional agreements and policies should be identified 

when designing an ICM system. Even after a successful implementation, there are 

maintenance and upkeep costs. Specifically focusing on the DSS and incorporating business 

rules, these agreements and relevant partners will likely evolve. Consequently, having a 

budget and resources for keeping the system current and performing well are critical. 

• Evaluation and ongoing measurement. One should select proper performance measures 

and evaluation criteria very early in planning stage with the help of transportation planners 

and modelers. These measures than can be refined and continuously implemented 

throughout the lifespan of the ICM. As noted above, DSS are generally lacking in selfevaluation capabilities. But, new generations are incorporating this functionality and staff 

can assist in this process by monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of decisions made 

and utilization of business rules. If there are cases where recommended decisions ran 

counter to the preset agreements and boundaries of business rules, then the DSS system 

can be reviewed for areas of improvement on future recommendations.

Design & Development

• There are several components to developing an ICM relevant to business rules that can be 

incorporated into ICM:

» Data sharing is a good start point. One needs to have a variety of data and indicators that 

are of high quality.

» According to San Diego ICM experience, data collection and processing as well as proper 

usage of post-deployment data can be one of the most time consuming aspect of ICM 

system planning and design. 

• Communication during development Proper communication of proposed system functions 

and operations is vital. Yet, this is a challenging problem not just for an ICM, but also for 

the DSS being used by the ICM. How do all of the stakeholders and users know what went 

into the contextual, business rules component incorporated into the DSS? Is it functioning 

properly? What changes were made as it was updated? 

» “Significant effort is often required to communicate proposed system functions and 

operations to project stakeholders.” – F. Dion and A. Skabardonis. (2015) San Diego I-15 

Demonstration Integrated Corridor Management System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site 

Demonstration and Evaluation. Sponsored by Caltrans DRISI. Rep. UCB-ITSPRR-2015-03.

• General agreement. Achieving general agreement across all participating agencies may 

take longer time than planned due to variety reasons.

Table 7. Lessons learned from the integrated corridor management implementation pilots 

(continued).

ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 5

CHAPTER 4. EXAMPLES OF OPERATIONAL 

DECISIONS WITH AND WITHOUT BUSINESS RULES 

CONSTRAINING OPTIONS

The goal of this section is to provide the reader with several examples of a decision 

recommendation and the importance of incorporating a business rules filter. This can provide 

guidance to the operator or decision maker with respect to setting constraints for decisions to be 

implemented based on the underlying context of interagency coordination (the chess board along 

with move rules noted in chapter 1). Examples have been generalized, but are based on actual 

response scenarios in situations that occur on corridors where an integrated corridor management 

(ICM) system has been applied. 

EXAMPLE 1

A minor incident occurs on the main highway. The decision support system (DSS) may suggest 

diverting traffic to parallel frontage roads for X amount of time until after the incident clears. 

• Recommendation without incorporating business rules: The DSS may recommend only 

diversion, without regard for the frontage road capacity, authority, or coordination.

• Recommendation incorporating business rules: The DSS may recommend diversion, but 

with a prioritized order of frontage roads based on information provided by the local 

agency overseeing those roads. In addition, there may be a recommendation for the 

operator to contact counterparts and provide appropriate information for a coordinated 

response (including possibly local law enforcement to intervene in traffic direction, signal 

timing adjustments, messaging with media partners, etc.).

EXAMPLE 2

A major incident or unplanned event occurs on the main highway. The DSS may suggest 

diverting traffic to parallel frontage roads as well as strategic arterials for X amount of time 

until after the incident clears. 

• Recommendation without incorporating business rules: The DSS may recommend only 

diversion, without regard for the frontage road or arterial roads capacity, authority, or 

coordination.

• Recommendation incorporating business rules: The DSS may recommend diversion, but 

with a prioritized order of frontage and arterial roads based on information provided by the 

local agency overseeing those roads. There may be a coordinated protocol for routing 

through agreed upon arterials. In addition, there may be a recommendation for the operator 

to contact counterparts and provide appropriate information for a coordinated response 

(including possibly local law enforcement to intervene in traffic direction, signal 

timingadjustments, messaging with media partners, etc.).
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 6

EXAMPLE 3

A planned event in the downtown area will cause expected delays and heavy congestion. The 

DSS may suggest (in addition to diversions onto detours of frontage roads and arterials) 

diverting travelers to public transportation as a mode switching strategy. 

• Recommendation without incorporating business rules: The DSS may recommend 

messages that encourage travelers to use public transportation. But, without coordinating 

with the local transit authority, there may not be enough resources (e.g., trains and busses) 

to handle the excess numbers.

• Recommendation incorporating business rules: The DSS may recommend messages that 

encourage travelers to use public transportation. But, in this situation, protocols are 

incorporated into the recommendation that include proper messaging and utilize the 

coordinated channels established with transit partners as well as local agencies overseeing 

roads. There would also be guidance about interacting with agreed upon liaisons to 

coordinate increased capacity during the diversion times. In addition, the DSS would have 

information about agreed-upon protocols, updates on planned outages for the transit 

partners (e.g., rail work), and other contingencies that would yield a more informed 

recommendation.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 7

APPENDIX A: THE FOUR PHASES OF THE 

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT 

INITIATIVE 

The four phases of the integrated corridor management (ICM) initiative according to Dion and 

Skabardonis (2015) is presented in this section. Figure 30 illustrates an overview of the ICM 

initiative phases. For further detail please refer to the San Diego I-15 Demonstration Integrated 

Corridor Management System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site Demonstration and Evaluation, 

which is the source of the information presented in this appendix. References cited from the 

original report are at the end of this section.

Phase 3- Corridor Site Development, Analysis and Evaluation

2006

Phase 1 - Foundational Research

US-75 ICM Launch I-15 Launch

8 sites

3 sites

2 sites

Phase 2- Corridor Tools, Strategies, and Integration

Phase 4- Knowledge and Technology Transfer

Awareness Understanding Equipping Practioners Long Term

Stakeholder Working Group

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Development of Tools and Strategies

Stage 1 - 

System 

Concepts

Stage 2 - Analysis, Modeling & 

Simulation

Stage 3 - System Demonstration and Evaluation

Feedback

Figure 30. Diagram. U.S. Department of Transportation integrated corridor management 

initiative timeline.

(Dion and Skabardonis, 2015, p. 7)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 8

PHASE 1: FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH

A key outcome of Phase 1 was the development of a generic concept of operations for ICM 

demonstrating how an ICM system could operate along a generic 15-mile corridor serving a 

central business district and consisting of freeway, arterials, bus, and rail networks. This 

document was developed to serve as a guidance resource for sites seeking to develop their own 

concepts. In addition to the concept of operations, a shared framework through which the ICM 

Initiative could identify, test, revise, and deploy appropriate technologies and techniques was 

developed, as well as early guidance on the steps needed to support the development, 

implementation, and operation of ICM systems.

Key activities that were conducted during this phase include:

• Development of alternative definitions of corridors and integrated corridor management to 

support the development of agreed-upon definitions.

• Development of a process for delineating the boundaries of a corridor.

• Identification of relationships between corridor management and regional management.

• Identification and analysis of generic institutional strategies for integrated corridor 

management.

• Identification of administrative challenges associated with planning and deployment of ICM 

systems.

• Documentation of needs, gaps, lessons learned, and best practices from successful local 

integration efforts across the United States.

• Characterization of various corridor types in terms of ICM needs.

• Development of operational approaches and management strategies that could effectively be 

used for a variety of corridor types.

• Feasibility analysis for the development of ICM systems.

PHASE 2: CORRIDOR TOOLS, STRATEGIES, AND INTEGRATION

The primary outcome of the phase was the development of validated and tested methodologies to 

support ICM system analyses to be conducted in Phase 3. Several of the developed tools were 

also subsequently used to support pre-deployment system evaluations in Stage 2 of Phase 3, and 

post-deployment evaluations in Stage 3 of Phase 3.

Key activities conducted during Phase 2 of the initiative include:

• Refinement of the ICM strategies identified in Phase 1

• Development of a framework to analyze, model, and simulate the ICM strategies 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

6 9

• Application of the developed analysis framework to conduct a pilot evaluation of potential 

ICM strategies along the I-880 corridor in Oakland, California 

• Development of analytical and simulation tools enabling the evaluation of proposed ICM 

strategies

• Development and testing of system interfaces to integrate the operation of various system 

components

• Development of operations management schemes to facilitate the sharing of control and 

responsibilities among participating corridor organizations

• Identification and selection of appropriate standards

PHASE 3: CORRIDOR SITE DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS, AND 

DEMONSTRATION

Phase 3 of the ICM initiative focused on the operational evaluations of ICM concepts through 

modeling and simulation, and system implementation. Activities within this phase were divided 

into three stages; concept development, AMS, and demonstration/evaluation, described in detail 

below:

Stage 1: Concept Development

During this stage, stakeholders from each of the selected pioneer sites were tasked with 

developing a concept of operations and preliminary system requirements for the ICM system they 

would be deploying on their respective corridors, using the generic concept of operations that 

was developed in Phase 1 of the initiative as a guide. Sample data from each site were also 

provided to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to assess data availability and the 

suitability of each proposed ICM corridor for conducting modeling and simulation evaluations.

Each document first inventoried existing transportation systems and described the operational 

performance of these systems. Each document then identified the goals and objectives of the 

proposed ICM system, the strategies to be pursued for improving corridor operations, the user 

needs and asset requirements for the proposed system, how the system was envisioned to operate 

under various scenarios, and the eventual responsibilities of system stakeholders. The system 

requirements that were subsequently developed further identified and defined the different 

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) components that would need to be integrated along each 

corridor. The resources for preparing a Concept of Operations is provided in Appendix B.

Stage 2: Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation

Under this stage, the corridors were first modeled according to the analysis, modeling, and 

simulation (AMS) framework that was developed in Phase 2. For each corridor, key ICM 

strategies from the Concept of Operations developed in Stage I were then selected for modeling 

and analysis to assess the range of expected benefits associated with each proposed system.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 0

Table 8 lists the various management strategies that were modeled and evaluated for each corridor. 

Depending on the corridor, various combinations of strategies aimed at improving traveler 

information, traffic management, HOV/HOT operations, and transit management were considered.

Stage 2 activities further resulted in the development of new tools for the analysis of freeway ramp 

metering, HOT lane operations, congestion pricing systems, transit operations, and active traffic 

management strategies. Activities also led to improved model calibration and data analysis 

methods.

Table 8. Integrated corridor management strategies considered in analysis, modeling, 

and simulation evaluations. 

Integrated Corridor Management Strategy Dallas San Diego

Traveler Information •

Earlier dissemination and information sharing between 

agencies l

Comparative travel times (modes and routes)

Parking availability at park-and-ride lots l

ABC garage display

Freeway traveler information (pre-trip and en-route) l l

Arterial traveler information (pre-trip and en-route) l l

Transit traveler information (pre-trip and en-route) l l

Traffic Management

Reduced incident times

Incident signal retiming plans for arterials/frontage roads l

Retime ramp meters for incidents or congestion

Coordinated signal and ramp meter operation l

System-wide coordinated ramp metering

High-occupancy Toll/High-occupancy Vehicle Lanes

HOT lane congestion pricing l l

Changes to minimum vehicle occupancy access requirements l l

Opening to single occupancy vehicles during incident l

Transit Management

Dynamic rerouting

Special event transit capacity expansion l

Arterial signal priority l

Light-rail transit smart parking system l

Additional parking and valet service l

Physical priority to buses on arterials l

More detail about Stage 2 is available in the San Diego I-15 Integrated Corridor Management 

(ICM) System: Stage II (Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation) report, which can be accessed at:

https://merritt.cdlib.org/d/ark:%252F13030%252Fm5z039tp/2/producer%252FPRR-2010-09.pdf
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 1

Stage 3: Demonstration and Evaluation

This stage, which was expected to last three to four years, consisted of the development, 

implementation, and operational evaluation of an actual ICM system on each corridor. A first 

goal was to demonstrate the application of institutional, operational, and technical integration 

approaches in the field. A second goal was to document the operational benefits associated with 

each system and the implementation issues encountered during system development and 

implementation to assist with future ICM system deployments along other corridors.

The following nine tasks were defined for Stage 3 of the I-15 ICM Demonstration project:

1. Project management.

2. Refinement of system requirements.

3. System design and system build.

4. System testing.

5. Training.

6. System operations and maintenance.

7. Participation in the Analysis, modeling, and simulation of the system.

8. Participation in system evaluation.

9. Participation in outreach activities.

Each of the above tasks are described in detail in the chapter 6.1 of the San Diego I-15 

Demonstration Integrated Corridor Management System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site 

Demonstration and Evaluation report. 

On phase 3, specific activities associated with each deployment site included:

• Design and implementation of the system to be implemented.

• Execution of pre-deployment and post-deployment simulation evaluations.

• Operational evaluation of the deployed system.

• Documentation of lessons learned.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 2

PHASE 4: INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT OUTREACH AND 

KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

The goal of Phase 4 of the ICM Initiative was to equip corridor managers and operators around 

the country with a comprehensive resource set to help them develop, implement, and evaluate 

prospective ICM systems.

Key outreach and technology transfer activities that were conducted during this phase include:

• Development of the ICM Knowledgebase on the U.S. DOT website, which serves as a

one-stop, fully searchable repository for the knowledge developed through the ICM

Initiative.

• Publication of guidance documents on the development, implementation, and evaluation of

ICM systems.

• Development of peer-to-peer training resources, such as web-based seminars and mobile

workshops.

• Organization of ICM conferences.

• Development of conference presentations.

• Publication of fact sheets about ICM systems.

REFERENCES

[1] I-15 ICM Demonstration: Stage 3 PATH Report, 2015.

[2] Integrated Corridor Management Initiative – Program Plan Update, U.S. Department of

Transportation, February 2006. Available at https://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/icms/

resources/doc_details.cfm?document_id=91&from=search, accessed, January 22, 2015.

[3] L. Neudorff, J. Harding, and L. Englisher. ICMS Concept of Operations for a Generic

Corridor. Document FHWA-JPO-06-032, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, D.C., April 2006.

[4] L. Neudorff, J. Harding, and L. Englisher. Integrated Corridor Management: ICM

Implementation Guide. Document FHWA-JPO-06-042, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., April 2006.

[5] V. Alexiadis. Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS)

Methodology. Document FHWA-JPO-08-034, Research and Innovative Technology

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 2008. 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 3

[6] W.B. Zhang. Study of Integrated Corridor Management for San Francisco Bay Area I-880

Corridor. Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2008-30, California PATH, University of California, Berkeley,

November 2008.

[7] S. Mortensem. Integrated Corridor Management. Presentation prepared for the ITS America

Annual Meeting 2010, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 2010.

ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 5

APPENDIX B: RESOURCES FOR PREPARING A 

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS

A Concept of Operations is a key document to be used in the development of an ICM. It is vital 

to have a clear understanding of the purpose and structure before beginning development of such 

a document. The following list of resources provide a starting point as well as fundamental 

elements to include in a well-crafted Concept of Operations. 

• Developing and Using a Concept of Operations in Transportation Management Systems.

(FHWA-HOP-07-001 - 2005) available (5/30/2017):

https://tmcpfs.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/cfprojects/uploaded_files/conops_tms_handbook.pdf

• Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents. (ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012).

American National Standards Institute, 1992. This report gives guidelines for creating a

Concept of Operations document.

• Concept of Operations for the US-75 Integrated Corridor in Dallas, Texas. (FHWAJPO-08-004- 2008) available (5/30/2017):

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30400/30409/14390_files/14390.pdf

• Concept of Operations for the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California (FHWA-JPO-08-009-

2008) available (5/30/2017):

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30300/30311/14395_files/14395.pdf

• Concept of Operations for the I-394 Corridor in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (FHWAJPO-08-006- 2008) available (5/30/2017):

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30300/30310/14392_files/14392.pdf

• Concept of Operations for the I-880 Corridor in Oakland, California (FHWA-JPO-08-003

-2008), available (5/30/2017): https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30700/30766/14389.pdf

• Concept of Operations for the I-270 Corridor in Montgomery County, Maryland. (FHWAJPO-08-002 -2008), available (5/30/2017):

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30300/30312/14388_files/14388.pdf

ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 7

APPENDIX C: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT 

APPROACHES

This section has been extracted from “Assessment of Emerging Opportunities for Real-Time, 

Multimodal Decision Support Systems in Transportation Operations Task 4 Concept of 

Operations.” For more detail on each part please refer to the original report. 

1. Definition and Explanation of Terms- have clear definition of all terms documented, 

such as:

Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) – Devices on emergency vehicles communicate 

with devices at traffic signals to provide a green traffic signal phase for emergency 

vehicles approaching an intersection.

2. Purpose of MOU, Project Description, and Project Governance 

a. Purpose. The MOU should serve the following purposes: 

1) Confirm support from all project partners, particularly local support for freeway 

elements; 

2) Articulate key operations and maintenance (O&M) principles for continuing 

project development; 

3) Clarify ownership, O&M, and management responsibilities; 

4) Clarify the distribution of costs and funding sources; 

5) Outline the framework for multi-agency cooperation, collaboration, and conflict 

resolution; 

6) Identify which Smart Corridor devices will be made part of the ICM project; and 

7) Signify the ongoing commitment of the project partners to deliver the project and 

make it a success. 

b. Governance

It is the intent that all technical and operational matters be resolved among the 

partnering agencies at the lowest working level. For instance, the I-80 integrated 

corridor management activities will be directed through three bodies of governance, 

in the following order of hierarchy, from low to high:

Technical Coordinating Committee (I-80 TCC)

Corridor Steering Committee (I-80 CSC)

Policy Advisory Committee (I-80 PAC)
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 8

3. Project Goals & Objectives 

4. Operations Strategies and Principles

a. Operational Scenarios & Lead Agencies - illustrates the operational strategies that 

will initially be deployed as part of the I-80 ICM Project and the agencies that will 

take the lead in implementing the strategies.

Normal Operations

Incident / Special Events Management

b. Operating Principles - day-to-day transportation management and operational 

activities along the corridor

5. Equipment Ownership & Maintenance - delineates the ownership and operations 

responsibilities. 

6. Project Development Principles 

a. Project Documents 

i. To design the project:

1) Project Report: Defines the purpose and need for the project, identifies the 

alternative selected, describes how that alternative was decided upon, and 

describes how consensus was reached among stakeholders.

2) Environmental Document: For a capital project to proceed, it must receive 

official federal, state, and environmental approvals as well as consensus from 

all the stakeholders and the public.

3) Corridor Systems Management Plan (CSMP): Overall corridor operational 

conditions, existing and future conditions, list of future projects, and 

recommendations.

4) Concept of Operations Report (Con Ops): Concept for proposed system, 

user-oriented operational description, operational needs, system overview, 

operational and support environment, operational scenarios, summary of 

impacts.

5) Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR): Existing traffic conditions, 

proposed alternatives, traffic forecasts, modeling results.

ii. To govern the implementation of the project

1) Project Implementation Plan: Document identifying the staging and 

commissioning of each I-80 ICM project element (TOS, TLSP, ARM, and ATM). 
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

7 9

2) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan: Operational scenarios and cost 

of operations, maintenance and management for each city along the corridor. 

3) Incident Response Plan (IRP): Overall incident response plan that defines 

various incident scenarios and procedures for managing traffic congestion 

during incidents, including signal flush plans. 

4) System Integration Plan: Specifies the procedures, methods and strategies to 

implement the required project elements based on project documents and 

system requirements. 

5) Configuration Management Plan: Details the process to establish and 

maintain the integrity and control of software and hardware products. 

6) Outreach Plan: Outlines strategies to disseminate periodic project 

information and updates to various stakeholders.

a. Construction 

b. System Integration 

c. Implementation & Initial System Evaluation 

d. Regular Operations & Maintenance 

e. Configuration and Change Management

7. Costs & Funding - The project most likely is funded by various fund sources for the 

different phases of the project – Project Development, Construction, and Operation & 

Maintenance phases. Funding for each phase should be outlined.

8. Future MOU Modifications - The MOU could be a legally non-binding document. 

However, revisions to this MOU may be requested by the Technical Coordinating 

Committee (TCC) and approved by the Corridor Steering Committee (CSC). Revisions 

may also be recommended by the CSC.

9. Need for Additional Agreements - New maintenance agreements or amendments to 

existing maintenance agreements could be developed and executed as necessary to 

address maintenance arrangements, liabilities, or any other legal issues.

ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

8 1

APPENDIX D: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT 

EXAMPLES

[1] These are complete references from the original document (I-15 ICM Demonstration: Stage 3 

PATH Report, 2015) and provide numerous examples of interagency agreement structure and 

content. 

[2] L. Neudorff, J. Harding, and L. Englisher. ICMS Concept of Operations for a Generic 

Corridor. Document FHWA-JPO-06-032, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C., April 2006.

[3] L. Neudorff, J. Harding, and L. Englisher. Integrated Corridor Management: ICM 

Implementation Guide. Document FHWA-JPO-06-042, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., April 2006.

[4] V. Alexiadis. Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS)

Methodology. Document FHWA-JPO-08-034, Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 2008.

[5] W.B. Zhang. Study of Integrated Corridor Management for San Francisco Bay Area I-880 

Corridor. Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2008-30, California PATH, University of California, Berkeley, 

November 2008.

[6] S. Mortensem. Integrated Corridor Management. Presentation prepared for the ITS America 

Annual Meeting 2010, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 2010.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

8 2

REFERENCES 

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decision. New York, 

NY: Harper Collins.

Burstein, F. and Holsapple, C. eds., 2008. Handbook on decision support systems 2: variations. 

Springer Science & Business Media.

Carter, D., PE, PTOE. (2007) Integrated Corridor Management (ICM), ITS Texas, November 15, 

2007, City of Richardson.

Dion, F., Butler, J., Hammon, L., Xuan, Y (2015) Connected Corridors: I-210 Pilot Integrated 

Corridor Management System- Concept of Operations. Available at: 

http://connected-corridors.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Concept%20of%20

Operations%20I-210%20Pilot%20(2015-06-15).pdf

Dion, F., Skabardonis.A. (2015) San Diego I-15 Demonstration Integrated Corridor Management 

System PATH Report on Stage 3: Site Demonstration and Evaluation. Sponsored by 

Caltrans DRISI. Rep. UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-03.

Gonzalez, P., Hardesty, D., Hatcher, G., Mercer, M., Waisley M. (2012) Integrated Corridor 

Management: Implementation Guide and Lessons Learned, FHWA-JPO-12-075.

Gordon, D. I. 2011. Development, Review and Approval of Business Cases for Certain 

Interagency and Agency-Specific Acquisitions. Executive Office of the President, Office 

of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Kelly, M. J. (1999). Preliminary human factors guidelines for traffic management center (Tech. 

Rep. FHWA-JPO-99-042). McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.

Lee, M.; Pack, M., (2012) Integrated Corridor Management Initiative: Demonstration Phase 

Evaluation – Dallas Decision Support System Analysis Test Plan. Report FHWAJPO-13-039.

Lukasik, D., Churchill, B., Golob, J., Malone, T., Hubbard, E.,2011, Assessment of Emerging 

Opportunities for Real-Time, Multimodal Decision Support Systems in Transportation 

Operations. United States Department of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-06-D-00005, Task No. T-10-007. Page 3-3.

Maggs, M, 2007, Opening chess position from black side. Creative Commons License. Obtained 

from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opening_chess_position_from_black_

side.jpg

Marakas, G.M., 1999. Decision support system in the twenty first century. Upper Saddle River, 

Prentice Hall, New York.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

8 3

Markiewicz, A.; McCoy, K. (2016). Regional Cooperation and Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming in Indiana: A Regional Models of Cooperation Peer Exchange Summary 

Report. FHWA-HEP-17-009.

Miller, Kevin; Bouattoura, Fariel; Macias, Roberto; Poe, Chris; Le, Minh; Plesko, Todd. (2015) 

FHWA-JPO-16-234 Final Report-Dallas Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) 

Demonstration Project.

Miller, M., Skabardonis, A. 2010. San Diego I-15 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) 

System: Stage II (Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation). California PATH Research 

Report. UCB-ITS-PRR-2010-9.

Noblis. (June 2008). Conceptualizing Integrated Corridor Management. White Paper.

Nowakowski, C., Green, P. and Kojima, M., 1999. Human factors in traffic management centers: 

A literature review (No. UMTRI-99-5,). University of Michigan, Transportation Research 

Institute.

Operational Contract Support Joint Concept, The Joint Requirement Oversight Council (JROC) 

07 October 2013.

Oakland Pioneer Site Team (2008) Concept of Operations for the I-880 Corridor in Oakland, 

California FHWA-JPO-08-003.

Power, D. J., 2001, “Supporting Decision-Makers: An Expanded Framework,” In Harriger, A. 

(Editor), e-Proceedings Informing Science Conference, Krakow, Poland, June 19-22, 

431-436. 

Power, D. J., 2002, Decision Support Systems: Concepts and Resources for Managers, Westport, 

CT: Greenwood/Quorum. 

Robinson, E., Barragan, D., Dembowski, D., Szymkowski, T., Miller, S., Golembiewski, G., 

Ferezan, S. (2017). Human Factors Guidelines for Transportation Management Centers 

(TMCs). FHWA, under review.

San Diego Pioneer Site Team (2008) Concept of Operations for the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, 

California. FHWA-JPO-08-009.

Spiller, J. N., Compin, N., Reshadi, A., Umfleet, B., Westhuis, T., Miller, K., & Sadegh, A. (2014). 

Advances In Strategies For Implementing Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) (No. 

NCHRP Project 20-68A).

Torma-Krajewski, J., & Powers, J. (2010). Decision-making and emergency responses training for 

incident command centers and mine rescue teams Washington, DC: US Department of 

Labor.

Turban, E., Sharda, R. and Delen, D., 2011. Decision support and business intelligence systems. 

Pearson Education India.
ICM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND BUSINESS RULES

8 4

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and 

probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2), 207-232. 

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. 

Science, 211, 453-458.

U.S Department of Health & Human Services, Clinical Decision Support: Chapter 1: 

“Approaching Clinical Decision Support in Medication Management”: Section 2 - 

Overview of CDS Five Rights. Obtained from: https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-fundedprojects/current-health-it-priorities/clinical-decision-support-cds/chapter-1-approachingclinical-decision/section-2-overview-cds-five-rights. Site last accessed 06/06/2017

Wason, P.C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 

20(2), 273-281. Obtained from: 

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/17.1_Attachment_2_OFPPbusinesscaseguidance92911.

pdf. Site last accessed 06/06/2017

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

October 2017