ISSN 1055- 1425
November 2008
This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the
University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, and the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Final Report for Task Order 6612
CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Study of Integrated Corridor Management
for San Francisco Bay Area I- 880 Corridor
UCB- ITS- PRR- 2008- 30
California PATH Research Report
Wei- Bin Zhang, et al.
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
Study of Integrated Corridor anagement for San Francisco Bay Area ‐ 880 Corridor MI
Final Report for Task Order 6612
Prepared by:
California PATH
University of California, Berkeley
In collaboration with
CCIT, University of California at Berkeley
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
California Department of Transportation
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
AC Transit
Cambridge Systematics Inc.
System Metrics Inc.
Kimberly Horn Inc.
DKS Associates
October 2008
Page 1 of 54
Page 2 of 54
Acknowledgements
This work was performed by the California PATH Program at the University of California at
Berkeley in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). The contents of this report reflect the
views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the
State of California.
The authors thank Pete Gurprit Hansra of Caltrans’ Division of Research and Innovation, Brian Cronin
of USDOT Research and Innovative Technologies Administration and Steven Mortensen of Federal
Transit Administration for their support and advice during the project.
Author List
University of California, Berkeley: Wei‐ Bin Zhang, Irene Li, Steven Shladover, Meng Li
CCIT, University of California at Berkeley: Erik Alm, Jeff Ban
Metropolitan Transportation Commission: Radiah Victor, Albert Yee, Danielle Stanislaus
California Department of Transportation: Alan Chow, Sean Nozzari
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency: Cyrus Minoofar, Bijan Yarjani
AC Transit: Tina Spencer, Patricia Broadbent
Cambridge Systematics Inc.: Vassili Alexiadis
System Metrics Inc.: Tarek Hatata
Kimberly Horn Inc.: Anush. Nejad,
DKS Associates: Habib Shamskhou
Page 3 of 54
Page 4 of 54
Abstract
This document summarizes the efforts by the San Francisco Bay Area ICM team to develop the concept of operation,
data needs and performance requirements for an Integrated Corridor management System for I‐ 880 Corridor. Although
the transportation management systems at the Bay Area are consistent with the regional ITS plans, these management
systems are less integrated. It is believed that higher level of integration among freeway and arterial systems, transit
systems with considerations of all transportation needs and demands in the region will greatly enhance and improve the
efficiency and productivity of all individual systems. ICM benefits include, to name a few, enhanced ability of the partner
agencies to provide true integration of multiple operational components of the corridor, better management of non‐recurrent
congestion caused by major incidents, unexpected weather events, unexpectedly high travel demand, and
major construction and maintenance activities by allowing the full capacity of the corridor to be utilized through
improved integration, and improved capabilities to manage daily recurrent congestion in the corridor.
Keywords
Integrated Corridor Management, ITS
Page 5 of 54
Page 6 of 54
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 11
1. Existing Corridor Scope and Operational Characteristics .................................................................. 14
1.1 Corridor Boundaries and Networks ............................................................................................ 14
3.1.1 I‐ 880 Freeway ...................................................................................................................... 14
1.1.2 Arterial Highways ................................................................................................................. 17
1.1.3 AC Transit Bus Routes .......................................................................................................... 18
1.1.4 Transit Rail ( BART) ............................................................................................................... 20
1.1.5 Water Transit Authority ....................................................................................................... 21
1.2 Individual Network and Corridor Problems, Issues and Needs .................................................. 21
1.2.1 Freeway System ................................................................................................................... 21
1.2.2 Arterial System .................................................................................................................... 23
1.2.3 AC Transit ............................................................................................................................. 23
1.2.4 BART ............................................................................................................................... ..... 24
1.3 Corridor Management Strategies Already Implemented for the I‐ 880 Corridor ........................ 25
1.4 The Needs for ICM ...................................................................................................................... 26
2. ICM System Concept Of Operations .................................................................................................. 30
2.1 I‐ 880 ICM ConOps Development Approach ................................................................................ 30
2.2 I‐ 880 Corridor Vision, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 31
2.3 Development of Candidate ICM Strategies ................................................................................. 32
2.3.1 Information Sharing ............................................................................................................. 33
2.3.2 Candidate ICM Strategies .................................................................................................... 33
2.4 Implementation Institutional Framework ................................................................................... 37
3. I‐ 880 Data for Analysis, Modeling and Simulation ............................................................................ 40
3.1 Summary of I‐ 880 Data for AMS ................................................................................................. 40
Page 7 of 54
Page 8 of 54
3.2 Available Models for I‐ 880 Corridor ....................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Travel Demand Models ........................................................................................................ 42
3.2.2 Microscopic Simulation Model ............................................................................................ 42
3.2.3 Mesoscopic Simulation Model ............................................................................................ 43
3.3 Performance Data for Model Calibration and Validation ........................................................... 43
4. Development of Requirements for ICMS ..................................................................................... 44
4.1 Description of the Target Environment and the Existing Conditions ......................................... 44
4.2 Major System Capabilities ........................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Categorization of the ICM System .............................................................................................. 45
4.4 Major System Constraints ........................................................................................................... 47
4.5 ICMS Requirements ............................................................................................................... 48
4.5.1 Non‐ Functional Requirements ............................................................................................ 49
4.5.2 ICMS Functional Requirements ........................................................................................... 50
4.5.3 Data Requirements .............................................................................................................. 51
4.5.4 Interface Requirements ....................................................................................................... 51
5. Summary ............................................................................................................................... ........... 52
References ............................................................................................................................... ............. 53
Page 9 of 54
Page 10 of 54
Executive Summary
Under the Integrated Corridor Management ( ICM) program sponsored by the United States
Department of Transportation, the San Francisco Bay Area I‐ 880 corridor ICM team has
developed the Concept of Operations, data report and system requirements, documented in
three reports:
1. I‐ 880 ICM Concept of Operation
2. I‐ 880 ICM Sampla Data for Analysis, Modeling and Simulation
3. I‐ 880 ICM System Requirements
This report summarizes the findings in these three reports.
Existing Conditions:
The I‐ 880 corridor in Alameda County is a long and densely populated urban corridor
connecting a major employment center ( Silicon Valley in the south) with the Port of Oakland,
Oakland International Airport, and major population centers including the Cities of Oakland,
Alameda, San Leandro, Hayward, Fremont, and Union City. It is a truly multimodal corridor,
including a robust freeway network, major arterials which carry high volumes of local traffic
as well as absorb diversion from the freeway networks, a transit network which includes the
Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) rail system and multiple AC Transit bus transit lines, and heavy
freight movements with trucks comprising between 4% and 11% of the average annual daily
traffic in the corridor.
Transportation management systems ( TMS) have been widely deployed in the corridor for
many years including: a) ramp metering on I‐ 880; b) HOV lanes and HOV bypass lanes for
ramp meters; c) incident and emergency management systems on all freeways; d)
changeable message signs on freeways; e) electronic toll collection systems ( FasTrak); f)
coordinated traffic signal systems on major arterials; g) BART transit management system; h)
bus transit with signal priority capabilities and AVL; and i) transportation management
centers for freeways, arterials, BART, bus transit and the Port of Oakland.
The transportation management systems are consistent with the regional ITS plan, the
national ITS architecture, and the Caltrans strategic plan for TMS. These management
systems are semi‐ integrated, with higher levels of integration at freeway and arterial
systems, and lower integration levels at BART and bus transit systems.
An institutional integration/ coordination setting is already in place: the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ( MTC), California DOT ( Caltrans), Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency ( ACCMA), BART, Alameda‐ Contra Costa Transit District ( AC Transit),
and cities in the corridor have a history of cooperation.
Concept of Operations:
The I‐ 880 corridor team has defined this Concept of Operations ( ConOps) based on two
primary principles: ( 1) it must improve overall corridor performance by meeting the needs
of the local stakeholder agencies, within their practical operational, institutional and
financial constraints; and ( 2) it must focus on integration of pre‐ existing systems rather than
Page 11 of 54
on implementation of new equipment or infrastructure. Considering that the individual
transportation networks within the corridor are already generally well equipped with ITS
systems, this is not as serious a limitation. A set of strategies were developed, each
representing a high level of stakeholder interest in maximizing the opportunities for corridor
integration. These strategies are summarized in the Table below.
( A) Influencing Travelers’ Decisions & Choices and Traveler Information
Strategies
A corridor- based advanced traveler information system ( ATIS) database that provides
information to travelers for pre- trip and en- route decisions, across all networks.
Promote route shifts between roadways via en- route traveler information devices ( e. g.
DMS, HAR, " 511") advising motorists of congestion ahead, directing them to adjacent
freeways or arterials.
Promote modal shifts from roadways to transit via en- route traveler information
devices ( e. g. DMS, HAR, " 511") advising motorists of congestion ahead, directing them
to high capacity transit networks and providing real- time information on the number of
parking spaces available in the park and ride facility.
Promote shifts between transit facilities via en- route traveler information devices ( e. g.
station message signs and public announcements) advising riders of service outages
and directing them to adjacent rail or bus services.
( B) Facilitating Collaboration among Agencies for Operational Improvement
Integrated Freeway/ Arterial Operations
Coordinated operation between freeway ramp meters and arterial traffic signals to
accommodate traffic shifts in both directions.
Enhance arterial signal timing with advance information about special events at
Coliseum.
Coordinated Roadway/ Transit Operations
Signal priority for transit ( e. g. extended green times to buses that are operating
behind schedule).
Adjustment of AC Transit bus operations based on real- time information about highway
traffic and special events.
Integrated Transit Operations)
Transit hub connection protection for incidents and emergencies
Collaboration between Freeway Operations and Port of Oakland)
Port of Oakland advises trucks travel time based on real- time traffic information.
Coordination with Emergency Services)
Signal pre- emption or " best route" for emergency vehicles.
Coordination for Incident Response)
Multi- agency or multi- network incident response teams and service patrols and
training exercises.
( C) Facilitating Collaboration among Agencies for Event Planning
Coordinate scheduled maintenance and construction activities among networks.
Guidelines for construction work hours during emergencies or special events.
Data Summary:
Transportation facilities in the corridor are highly instrumented with real‐ time data
collection systems. Real‐ time data collection capabilities include: a) the freeway
Performance Monitoring System ( PeMS); b) the Smart Corridor system focusing on arterials;
and the rail and bus transit operations systems. Furthermore, through the California Model
Corridor Study high‐ quality data have been collected and used in modeling and
Page 12 of 54
microsimulation of all networks in the I‐ 880 corridor; these data and models are readily
available for use in the analysis of ICM opportunities in the corridor. Specifically for 880 ICM
Field of Operational Tests, the primary operation agencies along 880 have all agreed to add
additional instrumentation and communication to facilitate high quality real‐ time traffic and
transit data to support quantitative before‐ and‐ after evaluation.
As the I‐ 880 corridor is both operational and institutionally complex compared to most
corridors in the U. S., the experience gained and lessons learned from deployment of ICM
along I‐ 880 can help other regions in the U. S learn how to deploy ICM in less complex
environments.
System Requirements: The I‐ 880 ICM team developed the system requirements for the I‐
880 Integrated Corridor Management System ( ICMS). It describes the approach that the I‐
880 team took in defining the ICMS and in developing ICMS requirements:
General requirements ( non‐ functional requirements)
Functional requirements
Data requirements
Interface requirements
The functional requirements provide a complete description of the behavior of the ICM
system to be developed. The general requirements contain non‐ functional requirements
which impose constraints on the design or implementation ( such as performance
requirements, quality standards, or design constraints). Data requirements define the
information needed to perform the desired functions. Interface requirements specify the
requirements imposed on one or more ICMS subsystems, Hardware Configuration Items
( HWCIs), Computer Software Configuration Items ( CSCIs), manual operations, or other
system components to achieve one or more interfaces among these entities.
These requirements were developed using the systems engineering approach, under the
guidance of USDOT and the IEEE 1233 Guide for System Requirements Specifications. As per
DOT requirements, this document adopted some contents from the I‐ 880 ICM Concept of
Operations document in order to make it a stand‐ alone document so that readers can
understand the context of the ICMS requirement without needing to read the ICM ConOps
document.
Page 13 of 54
Page 14 of 54
1. Existing Corridor Scope and Operational Characteristics
1.1 Corridor Boundaries and Networks
The San Francisco Bay Area is the fifth most populated metropolitan area in the United
States, and the I‐ 880 corridor is centrally located within the region. The I‐ 880 corridor starts
from the connector of freeways I‐ 880, I‐ 80 and I‐ 580 and ends at SR237. A number of
parallel arterial highways, including Highway 185 ( International Blvd./ E14 blvd. Fremont Blvd)
and San Leandro St., are part of the I‐ 880 ICM corridor. I‐ 880 ICM corridor provides
connectivity between densely populated residential areas and many major commercial and
industrial centers. The corridor also plays a key role in freight and goods movement, directly
serving the Port of Oakland, the fourth busiest port in the United States. Thus, the efficient
operation of I‐ 880 is of critical economic importance to the region the state, and the entire
nation. The I‐ 880 corridor is truly a multi‐ modal, multi‐ use urban freeway corridor.
1.1.1 I‐ 880 Freeway
As one of the main arteries of the freeway system in the Bay Area, I‐ 880 consists of 45 miles of
freeway connecting Silicon Valley with the East Bay. Major interchanges in the corridor
include junctions at SR‐ 112 ( Davis Street in San Leandro), I‐ 238 ( connecting I‐ 880 in San
Leandro to I‐ 580), SR‐ 92 ( from Hayward, west to the San Mateo‐ Hayward Bridge), SR‐ 84 ( from
Fremont, west to the Dumbarton Bridge), and SR‐ 262 ( Mission Blvd. in Fremont, east to I‐ 680).
I‐ 880 serves the Port of Oakland, Oakland International Airport, and the Oakland Intermodal
Gateway Terminal ( the Joint Intermodal Terminal), the Oakland Coliseum, as well as a major
concentration of industrial and warehouse land uses. I‐ 880 serves as both an access route for
major inter‐ regional and international shippers and a primary intraregional goods‐ movement
corridor.
The I‐ 880 ICM team has selected the segment of the I‐ 880 corridor between the cities of
Oakland and Fremont in Alameda County, with the I‐ 580/ I‐ 80 interchange as the northern
boundary and SR‐ 237 as the southern boundary ( a distance of about 38 miles and 250+ lane
miles). This is a logical segment for the Integrated Corridor Management project as it matches
the existing institutional agreements in place for the corridor management plan. In addition,
the necessary infrastructure is already in place to support the integrated corridor
management functionality, without major additional investments.
FIGURE 1.1a CORRIDOR MAP
Page 15 of 54
FIGURE 1.1b CORRIDOR CALL BOX MAP
Page 16 of 54
Page 17 of 54
1.1.2 Arterial Highways
There are a number of major north‐ south arterials along the entire project corridor on both
sides parallel to I‐ 880, with connecting arterials to the freeway segment. On the east side of
the I‐ 880 corridor, Mission Blvd ( SR‐ 238) and E. 14th Street/ International Blvd ( SR‐ 185) forms a
continuous corridor from the southern limit of the project corridor to the northern limit.
On the west side of the I‐ 880 corridor, the major north‐ south parallel arterials form a
continuous segment from the southern limit of the project corridor, starting at the
Ardenwood Blvd, Union City Boulevard and Hesperian Blvd, crossing I‐ 880 in San Leandro and
joining the E. 14th Street. On the east side of the I‐ 880 corridor, Doolittle Drive ( SR‐ 61) serves
the Port of Oakland and Oakland Airport and is connected to the I‐ 880 corridor via Davis
Street ( SR‐ 112), 98th Avenue and Hegenberger Road.
These major arterials link to a number of other key arterials that connect to the I‐ 880 freeway.
These connections include:
􀂃 29th Avenue ( Oakland)
􀂃 42nd Avenue ( SR‐ 77) ( Oakland)
􀂃 Hegenberger Road ( Oakland)
􀂃 98th Avenue ( Oakland)
􀂃 Davis Street ( SR‐ 112) ( San Leandro)
􀂃 West A Street ( Hayward)
􀂃 West Winton Avenue ( Hayward)
􀂃 Tennyson Road ( Hayward)
􀂃 Industrial Parkway ( Hayward)
􀂃 Alvarado Niles Road ( Union City)
􀂃 Alvarado Blvd ( Union City)
􀂃 Paseo Padre ( Fremont)
􀂃 Fremont Blvd. ( Fremont)
Within downtown Oakland, the major arterials include 14th Street, Broadway and Grand
Avenue, where it joins the I‐ 880 corridor at the northern limits of the project corridor.
Major portions of these arterial networks are currently included in the East Bay SMART
Corridors program. The East Bay SMART Corridors program includes East 14th/ International
Boulevard, East 14th Street, San Leandro Boulevard/ Street, Hesperian Boulevard, and Union
City Boulevard; this arterial corridor is approximately 18 miles long and parallels I‐ 880 from
downtown Oakland to Union City.
1.1.3 AC Transit Bus Routes
AC Transit operates a number of Regional Express Bus routes and dozens of local bus lines in
the proximity of the I‐ 880 corridor. This includes Route 82/ 82L, a key high‐ ridership trunk
line along the I‐ 880. This route operates 24 hours a day from the Hayward BART station ( Bay
Fair BART for 82L) to downtown Oakland via E. 14th Street and International Boulevard.
Figure 3.2 is the AC Transit route map for most of the East Bay, which includes Route 82/ 82L.
Regional Express Bus lines using I‐ 880 include Line S ( South Hayward to San Francisco), Line
SA ( San Lorenzo to San Francisco), Line SB ( Newark to San Francisco), Line OX ( Harbor Bay /
Alameda to San Francisco), Line O ( Alameda to San Francisco), and Line W ( West Alameda to
San Francisco). The following table is a summary of transit service along East
14th/ International Blvd:
TABLE 1.1
Existing
Transit Service
on E. 14th
Street/ Interna
tional
Boulevard
Weekday Service Weekend Service
Daily
Operating Service Frequency ( min)
Daily
Operating
Service Frequency
( min)
Span Peak Base Eve Span Base Eve
al
24 hours 12 15
No
service 24 hours 15- 60 No service
al ( SL
AIR
7: 30 p. m.
to 7: 00
a. m.
No
service
No
service 15- 60
7: 00 p. m.
to 10: 00
a. m.
No
service 15- 60
nal
ntown
T)
7: 00 a. m.
to 7: 00
p. m. 12 15
No
service
10: 00
a. m. to
7: 00 p. m. 15 No service
Page 18 of 54
AC Transit is in the process of implementing Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) between Berkeley and
San Leandro along the E. 14th Street/ International Blvd. corridor. Completion of the first
phase of arterial infrastructure to support BRT operations was completed in January 2007,
featuring signal coordination and transit priority. Phase Two is scheduled to begin in 2008
and will feature dedicated transit ways at a large percentage of its run‐ ways and significant
ITS and other technological improvements. Ridership for the BRT is anticipated to reach
about 30,000 boardings per day in the next 20 years, which is almost double the current
ridership for the corridor. Construction of the full BRT project is scheduled for completion in
2008.
FIGURE 1.2
AC Transit Route Map
1.1.3.2– OTHER BUS TRANSIT SERVICES
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) operates primarily in Santa Clara
County, but has bus service linking the Fremont BART station to its light rail network as well
as ACE and Caltrain stations in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station. Union City Transit
provides bus transit service exclusively within Union City, including the key arterial Alvarado‐
Niles Blvd.
Page 19 of 54
1.1.4 Transit Rail ( BART)
1.1.4.1 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ( BART) is a public rail rapid‐ transit
system that serves major parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, including the I‐ 880 corridor.
The total system comprises 104 miles of track and 43 stations. Figure 1.3 shows the BART
system, which along I‐ 880 corridor includes 20 miles of track and 12 BART stations. BART is
connected to regional rail and bus services and to San Francisco International Airport
and Oakland International Airport ( via AirBART buses).
FIGURE 1.3
BART System Map
Page 20 of 54
1.1.4.2 Intercity Passenger Rail Lines
Two intercity passenger rail lines provide service along the I‐ 880 freeway corridor, providing
additional travel options for commuters and interregional travelers.
Amtrak Capitol Corridor is an intercity passenger train system that provides a convenient
alternative to traveling along the congested I‐ 80, I‐ 680 and I‐ 880 freeways by operating
intercity rail service connecting the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Areas. This includes
16 stations in 8 Northern California counties ( Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa,
Alameda, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) along a 170‐ mile rail corridor. An extensive,
dedicated Amtrak motorcoach network provides connecting bus service beyond the Capitol
Corridor route. The Amtrak Capitol Corridor is operated by a Capitol Corridor Joint Powers
Authority ( CCJPA), which is managed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District ( BART) with
support from Amtrak and Caltrans. The CCJPA Board consists of representatives from the
eight counties in The Capitol Corridor. Within the I‐ 880 ICM corridor limits, the Amtrak
Capitol Corridor runs parallel to the BART tracks with key stations at Jack London Square in
Oakland, Coliseum/ Oakland Airport, and Fremont Centerville Station. The Coliseum Station
is a true “ cross‐ platform” connection point with BART.
Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE) rail line provides service from Stockton in San Joaquin
County to San Jose in Santa Clara County. The route parallels the highly congested I‐ 580
corridor, part of the I‐ 680 corridor ( Sunol Grade), then along I‐ 880 ( Fremont Centerville
Station, Great America, Santa Clara, San Jose). Near the southern limits of the I‐ 880 ICM
corridor, the rail line connects from the Diridon Intermodal Station to Fremont Centerville
Station, and has an intermediate stop at the Great America Intermodal Station ( just south of
SR‐ 237). The possibility of Union City BART Station becoming an intermodal connection for
the Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE) and the proposed Dumbarton Rail line has also been
discussed.
1.1.5 Water Transit Authority
The Water Transit Authority ( WTA) operates a comprehensive San Francisco Bay Area public
water transit system. Alameda‐ Oakland‐ San Francisco is the most popular route.
1.2 Individual Network and Corridor Problems, Issues and Needs
1.2.1 Freeway System
In the Bay Area, Alameda County has the greatest amount of freeway congestion, with 50,000
vehicle‐ hours of daily delay. I‐ 880 alone has average daily delays of more than 10,000 vehicle‐hours.
The corridor has multiple bottleneck locations and a high incident/ accident rate.
Page 21 of 54
Page 22 of 54
In order to address the increasing congestion problem, Caltrans is currently conducting a
corridor management study for the I‐ 880 corridor. The study builds on Caltrans District 4’ s
corridor analysis efforts to blend long‐ range planning with near‐ term operational strategies on
24 corridors in the San Francisco Bay Area. This prior work included a review of possible
improvements on the I‐ 880 corridor to prioritize future projects and to incorporate traffic
operation strategies into the corridor. The current corridor management study for the I‐ 880
corridor is funded by Caltrans and is being conducted by the California Center for Innovative
Transportation ( CCIT) of the University of California at Berkeley and a team of consultants. As
an important part of this study, micro‐ simulation models using Paramics for the I‐ 880 corridor
have been developed, building on the Alameda County travel demand model. The study is to
be completed in the summer of 2006. Extensive research was done with available detection,
ramp metering, accident, incident data, and field observations to identify problem areas in the
corridor. Intermediate results of the performance evaluation task under this study have
already revealed some important findings on recurrent congestion and its potential causes.
Figure 1.4 shows the problem areas along the I‐ 880 freeway ( circled in blue), further described
in Table 2 which shows potential causes. Recurrent congestion is the result of demand
exceeding capacity at several bottlenecks, related to interchange in‐ flow traffic from other
highways ( e. g., 238) and on‐ ramps ( e. g., Tennyson). There are locations at the northern end
of the corridor with older interchanges not updated to current standards, and closely spaced
ramps with weaving problems. This corridor includes freeway‐ to‐ freeway junctions at three
locations that lead to transbay toll crossings at the Bay Bridge, San Mateo‐ Hayward Bridge,
and Dumbarton Bridge. Operational strategies for the I‐ 880 corridor need to be coordinated
with operational strategies for the Bay Area toll bridges, and demand management needs to
be integrated with traffic management strategies at the arterials and also with intermodal
opportunities. Furthermore, trucks comprise between 4% and 11% of the average annual
daily traffic in the corridor. Truck traffic is highest at the junctions in Oakland near the Port of
Oakland ( 26,000 trucks and 11% of total traffic), and trucks comprise about 8 to 9% of total
traffic at the junctions of Hegenberger Road ( to Oakland Airport), SR‐ 112 in San Leandro and I‐
238 in Hayward.
Non‐ recurrent congestion is also a major problem on this corridor. I‐ 880 averages over 10
collisions per day and over 100 incidents per day. The most severe incidents often involve
heavy trucks, and consequently the incident response and recovery takes longer than average
incident response and recovery time across the state. It is estimated that collisions account for
30 percent of overall corridor delay.
FIGURE 1.4
I- 880 bottleneck locations identified through simulation model
Problem
Areas
1.2.2 Arterial System
A parallel study on SMART Corridor conducted by ACCMA has focused on the arterial
highways. The study results show that the arterials along the project corridor currently
operate at level of service C to E or worse during the peak hours. Due to incidents on the
freeway, there are routine diversions to the local arterials that will increase the delay and
reduce the levels of service along these arterials. Therefore, coordination of the operation of
the network of arterials, ramp metering and the freeway is crucial to optimizing the overall
capacity of the system.
1.2.3 AC Transit
AC Transit system operates on several arterial roadway systems along 880 ICM Corridor with
the other traffic. The increasing congestion in the region is the major challenge for AC Transit
to operate their buses on time. Improving running time is a high priority for AC Transit to
meet their goal of an effective and efficient transit system. As indicated in Section 3.4.3.3, AC
Transit collects bus operation data, including vehicle movements, running time, schedule
adherence reports for its entire fleet every 2 minutes using AVL associated with the Orbital
system. Bus predictions on a number of routes are also provided by NextBus systems.
Additionally, Automatic Passenger Counters are used to collect ridership and schedule
adherence data.
To improve day to day operations, AC Transit is actively engaged in finding efficient ways to
use their resources using the cutting edge of transportation technology.
Page 23 of 54
AC Transit has introduced Rapid Bus service along San Pablo Corridor in collaboration with
ACCMA. The 72R Rapid Bus line, a first in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, was launched in
the summer of 2003 has been a tremendous success, both in terms of ridership and travel
time to destination. NextBus signs are installed at nearly every stop along the line providing
bus arrival information. The Transit Signal Priority ( TSP) at the intersections helps reduce the
intersection delays for AC Transit buses. As a part of East Bay SMART Corridors program,
emergency vehicle preemption and transit signal priority equipment is being installed along
the East 14th Street/ International Boulevard Corridor. Operational strategies of the AC Transit
could be coordinated with traffic signal operations on other arterials to have integrated traffic
management strategies.
The AC Transit’s system is based on pre‐ determined routes and schedules and the system is
not flexible to accommodate dynamic schedules and route decisions based on real‐ time traffic
information. Another operational constraint that AC Transit has to face during incidents is
that, the service cannot bypass any bus stops unless it is absolutely necessary due to intending
riders that may be waiting for the bus. When it is necessary to bypass any bus stops, other
means needs to be adopted to convey the message to the riders. AC Transit utilizes
information from ACCMA East Bay SMART Corridors website to obtain real‐ time traffic
information on the arterials to make decisions about the re‐ routing of buses during an
incident. AC Transit has the control over the SMART Corridors’ CCTV cameras when needed to
have more coverage of the traffic conditions. This information is very useful for the AC Transit
supervisors to make decisions about the transit operations during an incident. To improve
their route making decisions, real‐ time traffic information on freeways and control over
Caltrans Dist 4 cameras on as needed basis will be useful for AC Transit.
The current Orbital software version that AC Transit is using is many versions behind the
current version offered by Orbital TMS. Upgrading the current software and the hardware it
uses will be essential for AC Transit to improve the efficiency of fleet operation, and prepare
for the integration of other operational systems in the future including real time systems.
1.2.4 BART
BART plays a major role in the mobility along the 880 corridor accommodating huge ridership
levels as indicated in Section 3.3.2.4. Any kind of disruption in BART service has a huge impact
on the corridor not just the commuters. BART operates on a grade‐ separated system unlike
AC Transit and the traffic congestion does not have direct impact on normal operations.
However, real‐ time traffic information in the corridor will help BART to anticipate the needs
during an incident and to plan immediate actions. There is no direct information exchange
between MTC’s 511 and BART in the current operational scenario. For automated and
complex operations like BART system, more information is always helpful to make
instantaneous decisions.
Page 24 of 54
Along the 880 corridor, the headway between the BART lines is 5 to 6 minutes. Any simple
incident will cause huge backup and takes time to restore back to normal conditions. With
the ICM concept, the coordination between different agencies involved and emergency
response teams could to be improved to cut down response time.
Most of parking lots at the BART stations along the 880 corridor are full during the weekdays.
In the case of emergency where there is a need for a modal shift, BART does not have means
to accommodate vehicles at the BART parking lots. In such cases, agreements with agencies
who own parking lots in the vicinity of BART station could be considered to accommodate the
excess flow.
1.3 Corridor Management Strategies Already Implemented for the I­880
Corridor
The Bay Area Transportation Agencies have already adopted a number of corridor
management strategies, namely pre‐ ICM operation strategies, to improve network efficiency
and to mitigate incidents. The highway meltdown incident that recently occurred in the Bay
Area tested these strategies at work.
In the early morning hours of April 29, 2007, a tanker fire destroyed two vital freeway
connectors in the I‐ 80/ 580/ 880 interchange at the north end of the I‐ 880 ICM corridor in
Oakland, California. This unfortunate emergency provided the opportunity for the Oakland
Pioneer Site Team to apply a variety of strategies:
o 511 Traveler Information System provided pre‐ trip information to the public for
alternate routes and multi‐ modal transit options. Immediately following the incident,
511 call & web volumes surged and highway traffic volumes decreased.
o In‐ route dynamic messages signs were activated and 511 phone system “ floodgate”
announcements were created to promote route shifts between roadways.
o Automated data collection systems provided instantaneous traffic performance
information to system operators and to the media.
o Arterial signal timing was manually adjusted to accommodate diverted highway
traffic ‐‐ a function that could be enhanced in the future through remote signal
operations.
o Transit agencies modified operations. AC Transit adjusted routes and increased its
operational fleet size. BART lengthened trains and deployed parking alternatives for
select stations to accommodate increased transit ridership.
Although most of these strategies required manual communication and interventions and
are in many ways not yet comprehensive, they have demonstrated potential benefits of ICM
strategies. Coordinated network efforts resulted in the successful multi‐ modal and multi‐
Page 25 of 54
agency response to the loss of a critical segment of the Bay Area's regional transportation
system.
1.4 The Needs for ICM
The I‐ 880 corridor stakeholders have identified a set of corridor‐ level needs specific to the I‐
880 corridor that would be served by a fully‐ functioning ICMS.
I. Need for robust
information sharing
among different
transportation systems
( N1) Need for cross‐ systems information Sharing:
Information and data sharing among transportation
systems is essential for achieving close coordination and
integration among agencies, thereby to achieve balanced
transportation service and reduced congestion levels for
the I‐ 880 corridor. Developing a consistent and reliable
means of sharing information will ensure that the corridor
can truly be managed in an interactive and dynamic way.
By interactive and dynamic, any transportation agency
along the corridor can monitor the condition of all
networks along the corridor in real time and can interact
with the others to achieve coordinated management of the
transportation systems as a whole.
II. Need for more
comprehensive traveler
information to influence
travelers’ decisions and
choices
( N2) Need for or a corridor/ regional based multimodal
traveler information system: To encourage mode shift and
route shift, a corridor/ regional based multimodal traveler
information system that supports pre‐ trip planning and in‐trip
route shifts is needed. Travelers on the corridor would
benefit greatly from having accurate real‐ time information
on whether other routes or modes along this corridor
would be better choices for them. The information will
facilitate smart travel decisions and encourage the use of
transit systems.
Page 26 of 54
III. Need for enhanced
operational collaboration
among agencies
Operational decisions for the corridor are largely done by
each mode and network independently. Although there is
some coordination, these processes are largely manual and
not well integrated. As a result, overall corridor efficiency
would be significantly enhanced by instituting true
collaboration among all modes and networks.
( N3) Needs for coordination between freeway and arterial
operations: Coordination between freeway and arterial
highways is needed in order to guide vehicles from one
system to the other when either unbalanced demands or
major incidents occur on one system, causing significant
delay. The coordination between the two systems can help
to effectively use existing transportation infrastructure and
to mitigate congestion.
( N4) Need for coordination between highway and transit
operations: Coordination between transit vehicles and
arterial traffic control is needed to allow the buses to have
minimum intersection delay. Dispatchers at the AC Transit
Operation Control Center can also be benefited by traffic
condition data from highways and freeways within the
operation area in order to provide best guidance to drivers
to avoid large incidents and to achieve on‐ time
performance.
( N5) Need for coordination between transit systems: Close
coordination between AC Transit, BART and the Oakland
Ferry is needed to provide better connection protection for
major events and for incident mitigation. Real‐ time
information sharing by ICM will facilitate better
collaboration when incidents or service disruptions occur.
Page 27 of 54
( N6) Need for coordination between highway and freight
operations: Coordination between highway operations and
the Port of Oakland can help truck drivers make decisions
about their departure time and route between Central
Valley truck ‘ hubs’ and the Oakland Port depending on
traffic conditions along I‐ 880 and the status of the port
operation. Therefore, there is a need for ICM to collect the
traffic information and port operation status. This
information can then be provided to truck drivers and the
Port of Oakland. This coordination will not only help truck
drivers to arrive at the port on time, but also reduce
unnecessary trips during peak hours when their scheduled
loadings have been delayed, which consequently will help
to reduce congestion.
( N7) Need for Coordination between highway control
systems and emergency response: Signal pre‐ emption
infrastructure has been available for major intersections
along arterial highways parallel to the I‐ 880 corridor. There
is a need for emergency vehicles, including not only fire
fighting vehicles but also police and paramedics vehicles to
have signal preemption capability for the intersections that
are preemption capable. Additionally, it is desirable that
‘ Best route’ information be available for emergency service
agencies in order to reduce emergency response time.
( N8) Need for coordination for incident response: Major
incidents can involve hours‐ long road closures, hazardous
materials spills, extreme weather conditions, and multi‐vehicle
pile‐ ups. There is a need for coordination among
agencies for incident response in order to timely resolve
the incidents and re‐ open the road. The coordination
involves better real‐ time data for incident detection and
information exchange among agencies for collaborative
responses.
Page 28 of 54
IV. Need for enhanced
Event Planning and
collaboration among
agencies
( N9) Need for coordination for infrastructure construction
and maintenance: Because of the large venues along the
corridor, a coordinated special event response strategy
would greatly enhance travel reliability. There is a need for
coordination of event planning among agencies for
effectively managing traffic around infrastructure
construction and maintenance areas and for publishing
accurate information ahead of time to the public regarding
the scheduled construction and maintenance in order to
facilitate route and mode shifts.
( N10) Need for coordination of construction work during
emergencies: The San Francisco Bay Area is particularly
exposed to earthquake and fire hazards. There is a great
need to develop and implement comprehensive cross‐agency
guidelines and protocols for transportation agencies
to effectively coordinate the post emergency repair and
construction. The guidelines and protocols will help to
identify the information needs for ICM and coordination of
actions to be taken by each transportation agency during
and after the emergency event.
Page 29 of 54
Page 30 of 54
2. ICM System Concept Of Operations
This chapter begins with a description of the approach taken in developing the Concept of
Operations for the I‐ 880 ICM project, then works through the approach step by step. The
Vision, Goals and Objectives are defined, and the basic concept behind the project is
described. The operational strategies are described, then discussed in the context of the five
basic application scenarios and how they can help improve transportation in the corridor.
2.1 I‐ 880 ICM ConOps Development Approach
The development of the integrated corridor management ( ICM) system has to be founded on
a sound system engineering approach because of the inherent complexity of ICM and the
need to connect diverse legacy systems in order for it to work, in addition to the applicable
federal regulations. Corridor integration cannot be approached haphazardly, but requires
careful consideration of both technical and institutional issues, because both of these will
determine the needs that must be satisfied and the impediments to satisfying them.
The San Francisco Bay Area is already well served by ITS deployments on the various networks
of its transportation system, which have been making important contributions to the
performance of the system under normal operating conditions and for managing incidents.
The region has even benefited from a first level of integration through its regional 5‐ 1‐ 1
system, which provides real‐ time information about highway and transit network operating
conditions ( speeds, travel times and incidents) and its TransLink integrated transit fare
payment system. Mention east bay smart corridor? Given this relatively advanced current
state of affairs, it is important to consider carefully the most important advances still to be
gained through work on the ICM program.
A carefully structured process, based on a systems engineering approach, has been followed
to determine how best to proceed in defining the Concept of Operations for the I‐ 880 ICM.
This represents the initial stages of the systems engineering model recommended by USDOT
for ITS projects, which is shown schematically in the “ V diagram” of Figure 2.1.
FIGURE 2.1
USDOT’s “ V diagram” Schematic of System Engineering Process for ICM Projects
.2 I‐ 880 Corridor Vision, Goals and Objectives
he San Francisco Bay Area has been a national champion for implementing advanced ITS
for improving efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation systems. It has
ecome a program objective for the stakeholders along the 880 corridor to use ICM as a tool
to further integrate the ITS systems already deployed in the San Francisco Bay Area and to
nhance collaborative operations among the operation agencies. Under this program
objective, through various workshops and meetings, the stakeholders have formulated ICM
isions intending to address the current corridor conditions, deficiencies, and needs, and to
achieve the long‐ term. The 880 corridor stakeholders also developed the ICM goal and
bjectives of the ICM program for the 880 corridor is to provide the information sharing
ools to enable the individual network operators within the corridor to manage their
respective systems collaboratively and cooperatively.
2
T
technologies
b
e
v
help
o
t
Vision: The I‐ 880 ICM program will help the existing highway, arterial, rail and bus transit
networks along the corridor, operated by separate agencies, to function as an integrated
transportation system, enhancing efficiency, mobility and transportation choices for all
travelers ( people and goods) under all conditions.
Page 31 of 54
880 ICM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TABLE 2.1
Goals Objectives
􀂃 Improve the efficiency of their
individual networks through shared
information from, and collaborative
• Improve highway efficiency by sharing
information between arterial and freeways
• Improve operation efficiency of transit
operations with, the other networks.
operation by using information about
highway conditions and by improving the
interface between highway and transit
• Reduce waiting times for transfers between
transit services through enhanced
coordination
• Reduce delays for truck traffic to and from
Port of Oakland
􀂃 Balance demand across the networks • Reduce recurrent congestion through
to most efficiently utilize the available improved real‐ time balancing of demand
capacity. and supply between freeways and arterials.
􀂃 Enable travelers to make informed • Support travelers’ trip planning using
choices among transportation options, improved multimodal real‐ time information.
based on reliable information about • Advise travelers about modal shift using real‐travel
conditions.
time operations information ( connections,
traffic interactions).
Page 32 of 54
2.3 Development of Candidate ICM Strategies
The proposed 880 ICM system will be built upon on the existing ITS systems already
deployed for the networks that operate along the I‐ 880 corridor. The focus of the ICM
ConOps is therefore placed on the integration of the existing ITS systems, which will facilitate
data sharing capabilities, enhanced real‐ time cross‐ network coordination and operations
involving various agencies and jurisdictions using a set of transportation management
strategies.
􀂃 Respond quickly and effectively to • Reduce non‐ recurrent congestion through
service disruptions that may be improved incident response and incident
planned or unplanned, whether based information to travelers.
on human or natural causes.
• Improve the ability of the transportation
network operators to respond to service
disruptions through information sharing and
better information to travelers.
Page 33 of 54
.3.1 Information Sharing
Addresses the gaps need N1.
Information sharing is an enabler for ICM, w improved coordination and
the
cies,
g
impacts of operational decisions can be d
agencies and across networks.
2.3.2 Candidate ICM Strategies
In developing the ICM candidate strategies, m conducted a series of
workshops with the stakeholders to on
the current infrastructure and ITS sy d
needs identified under Section 3.9.
of
esentatives, the I‐ 880 ICM team
candidate selected
to
zed,
on
stitutional or political
dix C
for the rating results). When the non‐ n to a
simple linear scale with a range of possible
strategies under active consideration scored ‐ 2 to + 20.
gested keeping this full set for functional
could bring significant benefit to the corridor
encing travelers’ decisions and choices/ traveler information strategies
( Addresses the need N2)
2
hich enable
operations among the transportation
total capacity and demand of the corridor.
system interfaces, and bridging functio
system operations and control functions
networks and their respective transportation
networks and therefore facilitate management of
Communication links among operating agen
ns will be critical for ICM, by which information and
can be effectively shared and distributed amon
management systems and by which the
immediately viewed and evaluated by the affecte
the I‐ 880 ICM Tea
determine those strategies that can be realized based
stem condition, strategies that can address the gaps an
In order to quickly ramp up the ConOps d
USDOT repr
evelopment process and at the recommendation
referenced the list of candidate strategies
provided by FHWA in the Generic ICM
that are not applicable to the I‐ 880 corrido
provide benefits for the corridor. Appe
conduct exercises on
Concept of Operations document, eliminating those
r and adding additional ICM strategies that will
ndix B is a working table used by the 880 ICM Team to
scenarios.
The I‐ 880 ICM Team initially selected
soliciting stakeholders inputs, in an e
the initial set of candidate strategies were
five criteria – significant traffic impact, high
challenge, little technical complexit
29 candidate strategies for consideration. In addition
ffort to determine which ones should be further analy
evaluated by the project consultant team based
benefit/ cost ratio, minimal in
y, and improved national competitiveness ( see Appen
umerical scale of the rating sheets was converted
combined scores from ‐ 60 to + 60, all of the 14
within the relatively narrow range of
At the January 18 meeting, the stakeholders sug
analysis, since they believed all the 14 strategies
and shouldn’t be eliminated prematurely.
Based on stakeholders’ inputs and preliminary analyses, 14 candidate strategies were selected
for the I‐ 880 ICM. These strategies are categorized into three groups, including:
I. Influ
Page 34 of 54
e choice and mode choice can be made prior to the trip or during
stakeholders recommended four strategies for filling the gaps
in pre‐ trip and en‐ route trip planning.
Decisions about rout
the trip. The I‐ 880 ICM
Strategy 1
A corridor‐ based multimodal advanced traveler information system ( ATIS) that
supports travelers pre‐ trip.
Encourage travelers to shift mode and use public transportation has been a goal for
Bay Area transportation agencies for many years. The I‐ 880 stakeholders believe that
an accurate and easily accessible multimodal trip planner that can help to plan trips
of transportation will help travelers to determine route,
accessible media.
with more than one mode
mode and travel time. It could potentially encourage mode shift the most, and
therefore is a high priority strategy for the I‐ 880 ICM. Strategy 1 will involve real‐ time
information about integrating the I‐ 880 freeway, adjacent arterials, AC Transit, BART,
ferries and park and ride into the Bay Area 511 system to provide the traveler
information through various easily
Strategy 2
Promote route shifts between roadways via en‐ route traveler information devices
( e. g. DMS, HAR, " 511") advising motorists of congestion ahead, directing them to
adjacent freeways or arterials.
When incidents occur either on the I‐ 880 freeway or major arterials, diverting some
traffic to the other roadway will help to reduce the total delay. Strategy 2 will detect
traffic conditions on freeways as well as arterials and dynamically advise motorists the
duration of the delay, to move to an adjacent roadway and which entrance or exit to
use.
Strategy 3
Promote modal shifts from roadways to transit via en‐ route traveler information
devices ( e. g. DMS, HAR, " 511") advising motorists of congestion ahead, directing
them to high capacity transit networks and providing real‐ time information on the
number of parking spaces available in the park and ride facility.
realized that
this strategy may be more helpful for travelers on their trips to the office, but probably
Strategy 4
Strategy 3 will advise motorists about the condition of the congestion and about the
availability of park and ride facilities near BART or AC Transit stations. This strategy is
particularly useful when major congestion events occur. The stakeholders
will not be very effective for their trips back home.
Page 35 of 54
services.
intended to facilitate passenger transfers between BART, AC Transit and
n a service abnormality occurs in one of these systems.
II. ong agencies for operational improvement ( Addresses
the needs N1‐ N7)
r
Strateg
Promote shifts between transit facilities via en‐ route traveler information devices
( e. g. station message signs and public announcements) advising riders of outages
and directing them to adjacent rail or bus
Strategy 4 is
WTA ferry whe
Facilitating collaboration am
In order to address the gaps identified in 3.9, multiple aspects of coordination are
needed among the transportation agencies operating in the I‐ 880 corridor. A total of
10 strategies are identified for facilitating coordination among operating agencies fo
operational improvements.
y 5
Coordin signals
This str tablish coordination between ramp metering and arterials, which will help
to reduce vehicle queuing and delays at freeway on‐ ramps and therefore reduce delays for
arterial
strateg e
conges
Strateg
ated operation between freeways and arterial traffic
ategy will es
s as well at intersections connected to ramps. In collaboration with Strategy # 4, this
y will also facilitate coordinated operation between highways and arterials to mitigat
tion under incident situations.
y 6
Enhanc
Coliseu
This strategy will enable special signal plan for arterial traffic signals during special events at
the Oak um.
Strateg
e arterial signal timing with advance information about special events at Oakland
m.
land Colise
y7
Signal
This strategy has already been implemented along International Blvd and East 14th Street.
Additio
priority for AC Transit buses
nal bus signal priority‐ enabled intersections are planned for other arterial corridors.
Page 36 of 54
Strategy 8
AC Tran ation about highway incidents
and special events
This str ay incidents
and, based on the severity of the incidents, to make decisions to adjust its routes, schedules
op
obl
primarily buses that run on the freeways and for buses running on
arterials
Strateg
sit adjusts bus operations based on real‐ time inform
ategy will allow AC Transit to receive real‐ time information about highw
and erations to maintain operations instead of being stuck in the traffic. As AC Transit has
the igation to serve all the bus stops unless a certain street is closed, this strategy is
designed for express
only when a major highway incident occurs.
y 9
Transit or special events or major incidents
y allows AC Transit to provide connection protection for pre‐ planned special
events and emergencies due to major events. Specific transit hubs/ connection points such as
protection on routes
ight distribution centers are located in the Central Valley of California, and most
ng an electronic identification system to reduce truck waiting times. This strategy
losses.
hub connection protection f
This strateg
the Coliseum will be selected for a demonstration of transit connection
that have long headways. Connection protection for BART stations under normal operating
situation is not appropriate, as delays at one station can affect the arrival time at the
downstream stations. Strategy10
Port of Oakland advises arriving and departing trucks about port delays and estimated
travel times
The main fre
of the trucks take I‐ 880 and I‐ 238 between there and the Port of Oakland. Container traffic
along these corridors is expected to triple by the year 2020. The Oakland Port is currently
implementi
will allow truck drivers to be informed about port delay and estimated travel times prior to
their departure from the freight distribution centers so that they can better plan their trips
and minimize their congestion
Strategy 11
Signal preemption or “ best Route” for emergency vehicles
in order to reduce emergency response time. The ICM team will work with these
takeholders to determine if this is doable within the ICM scope.
This strategy intends to facilitate all emergency response vehicles ( i. e., fire trucks, police,
paramedics) with signal preemption capabilities. It also intends to provide ‘ best route’
information
s
Page 37 of 54
Strategy 12
Multi‐ agency or multi‐ network incident response teams and service patrols and training
exercises.
Currently, MTC, Caltrans, and CHP are working together for a workshop and training program
toward a closer collaborative working relationship and to develop collaborative incident
response plans. The first phase of this program involves first responders ( CHP, and Caltrans).
The second phase will involve local agencies.
This ICM strategy intends to facilitate communication
and coordination among agencies to
help the first responders to identify types of incidents and the equipment needed to respond
nts.
III. Fa needs N9‐ N10)
Strategy 13
to the incide
cilitate Collaboration among Agencies for Event Planning ( Addresses the
Though the 880 ICM will focus on technological and operational integration around real‐ time
information sharing, the ICM Team believes that guidelines and protocols, particularly those
that deal with infrastructure construction and maintenance, will be needed to support the
strategies dealing with real‐ time operations.
Coordinate scheduled maintenance and construction activities among corridor networks.
l
Strategy # 13 will allow a standardized repository for reporting on routine maintenance
closures of freeways and local arterials, accessible to other agencies. This will be very helpfu
for network operators as well as travelers.
Strategy 14
Guidelines for construction work hours during emergencies.
recovery as a result of a major event ( e. g. earthquake), infrastructure
work is expected. This strategy will support the development of
ies for procedures and
coordination protocols.
along I‐ 880 include
multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The management and operations of the corridor and the
MS will be a joint effort involving all the stakeholders. For the effective operation and
management of the I‐ 880 ICM system, an ICM Operations Committee ( ICMOC), consisting of
During emergency
repair and construction
guidelines for coordination of different transportation agenc
2.4 Implementation Institutional Framework
The primary purpose of the I‐ 880 ICM Concept Implementation Institutional Framework is to
implement, operate, and manage the corridor. The operating agencies
IC
Page 38 of 54
es from each of the stakeholder agencies, is proposed. The I‐ 880 ICM
Operations Committee ( ICMOC) will be in charge of the development of policies and to final
n coordination among different stakeholders and to help resolve issues
encountered across agencies.
cy.
The I‐ 880 ICM will be a distributed system. While all stakeholders along the I‐ 880 corridor
I‐ 880 corridor, a lead agency will be assigned for the implementation of a
particular strategy. The lead agency will be responsible for the daily operation of the
gencies in order to facilitate the timely implementation of the protocols. When issues occur,
I‐ 880 ICM corridor.
representativ
approval of operation plans and protocols. The ICMOC will be the consensus body to make
decisions o
Under the guidance of ICMOC, MTC will be the administrative agency for the I‐ 880 ICM,
serving as the decision‐ making body for budget development, project initiation and selection,
and overall administrative and operational poli
will be collaborating on the implementation of all of the proposed strategies, based on the
roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in the existing operation for transportation
systems along the
strategy it is in charge of and will coordinate with other agencies that are involved in the
operation of such strategy. A clear communication protocol will be identified between
a
the lead agency will be responsible for reporting the issues to the ICMOC and will assist the
ICMOC to resolve the issues.
The table below illustrates the responsibilities of the ICMOC and each stakeholder for
successful operation and management of the
TABLE 2.2
Roles and Responsibilities
STAKEHOLDER/
AGENCY
RESPONSIBILITIES
ICMOC
􀂃 Monitor all conditions within the I- 880 ICM corridor including
performance measures
􀂃 Ensure coordination between different stakeholders to provide
accurate traveler information
􀂃 Suggest adjustments to network operating parameters in the event
of significant variations in network demands
􀂃 Demonstrate I- 880 ICM concept
Caltrans District 4
􀂃 Daily maintenance and operations of freeway and local arterials
which are part of state highway system
􀂃 Coordinate truck and freight activities on freeway and local arterials
which are part of state highway system
􀂃 Monitor traffic operations of freeway and local arterials which are
part of state highway system
􀂃 Coordinate construction and maintenance activities on freeway and
local arterials which are part of state highway system
􀂃 Provide ramp metering information to local jurisdictions
Page 39 of 54
STAKEHOLDER/
AGENCY
RESPONSIBILITIES
􀂃 Provide traffic and incident information to traveler information
systems
􀂃 Freeway Surveillance
􀂃 Monitor/ Operate Dynamic Message Signs
􀂃 Provide Support for the I- 880 ICM operational test
MTC 􀂃 Provide Traveler information through 511 system
􀂃 Provide overall coordination for the 880 ICM
ACCMA
􀂃 Monitor arterial traffic operations
􀂃 Arterial Surveillance on East Bay SMART corridors
􀂃 Provide East Bay SMART corridors information to local jurisdictions
􀂃 Provide East Bay SMART corridors information to Caltrans District 4
􀂃 Provide East Bay SMART corridors information to MTC’s 511 traveler
information
􀂃 Provide East Bay SMART corridors information to Transit agencies
AC Transit and BART
􀂃 Provide support for the I- 880 ICM operational test
Local Jurisdictions 􀂃 Monitor signal operations
􀂃 Adjust transit signal priority
AC Transit
􀂃 Daily operation of bus transit service along the I- 880 ICM corridor
􀂃 Monitor bus transit on- time performance
􀂃 Provide pre- schedule and real time information to traveler
information systems
􀂃 Enact response plans during special events and incidents
BART
􀂃 Daily operation of rail transit service along the I- 880 ICM corridor
􀂃 Monitor rail transit on- time performance
􀂃 Provide pre- schedule and real time information to traveler
information systems
􀂃 Enact response plans during special events and incidents
Port of Oakland 􀂃 Coordinate truck and freight activities with Caltrans District 4
Emergency Responding
Agencies ( CHP, Police, Fire,
and Paramedics)
􀂃 Daily law enforcement activities along the I- 880 ICM corridor
􀂃 Coordination of law enforcement and incident response activities
􀂃 Coordination of emergency services and incident response activities
􀂃 Integration of all the emergency responding agencies’ interfaces
Page 40 of 54
r Analysis, Modeling and Simulation
odeling, and Simulation ( AMS) leads to a comprehensive understanding of the
performance of a given corridor or set of corridors, the identification of problems ( e. g.,
bottlenecks, high incident
of investment strategies that rate the congestion caused by these
problems.
Moreover, AMS helps prioritize delay
tion, air quality im the
associated costs. To do odeling.
Traditional 4‐ step models ation. Micro‐ or meso‐scopic
models are needed
Finally, AMS also provides
that do not deliver
how to avoid such projects n also learn from projects that meet or
exceed the expected benefits.
what they should expect from kages.
­880
Table 1.1 summarizes the
represent data that are available ICM team; those
partially available
those in light blue are available possession of the I‐ 880 ICM team
and requests have been
represent data that are
considered as critical to
Table 1.1 Input Data
3. I­880
Data fo
Analysis, M
locations) and the causes of these problems, and the development
eliminate or amelio
these investments by quantifying the benefits ( e. g.,
reduc provements) of given investments and comparing them to
that, transportation professionals must rely on solid m
are adequate for expansion project evalu
to analyze and evaluate operational strategies.
for improved “ learning” and “ accountability”. We can learn from
projects the expected benefits and make sure we understand why and
in the future. We ca
We can also communicate to the public and decision makers
proposed investment pac
3.1 Summary of I Data for AMS
available data for I‐ 880 AMS. Entries highlighted in light green
and already in the possession of the I‐ 880
in yellow are and can be supplemented by new data collection efforts;
but not currently in the
sent to corresponding agencies; and finally those not highlighted
neither currently available nor relevant, because they are not
I‐ 880 ICM.
for I- 880 AMS
Network Travel Demand Traffic Control Transit ITS Elements
Link distances Freeway link volumes Freeways AC Transit Surveillance system
Free- flow speeds Traffic composition Ramp metering Transit routes Detector type
Geometrics- On & off- ramp
freeways volumes
type ( local Transit stops Detector spacing
responsive)
Number of travel
lanes
Arterial link counts
and turning
movement volumes
Detectors location CCTV
Presence of
shoulders
Vehicle trip tables Metering rates geometrics Ramp Meters
Page 41 of 54
Network Travel Demand Traffic Control Transit ITS Elements
Number of HOV
lanes
Person trip tables Algorithms
( adaptive
metering)
dwell times Information
Dissemination
Operation of HOV
lanes
Transit Ridership Arterials Transit schedules CMS
Accel/ ecel lanes Signal system
description
Schedule adherence
data
HAR
Grade Controller type Transfer locations 511
Curvature Phasing Transit speeds In vehicle systems
On- and off- Detector type & Transit Fares I
ramps placement
ncident management
Geometrics –
arterials
Signal settings Payment
mechanisms
Incident detection
Number of lanes Signal timing plans BART CAD system
Lane usage Transit signal
priority system
BART routes Response & clearance
Length of turn Contr
pockets
ol logic BART stations Tolling system
Grade Detection location Type
Turning
restrictions
settings Pricing mechanisms
Arterial parking
facilities
Emergency
preemption system
dwell times TMC
Location control logic BART schedules Control software/
functions
Capacity detection BART adherence
data
Communications
BART Parking
facilities
ations
dissemination
Transfer loc Data archival/
Location Train speeds Transit/ Fleet
m tem for
AC Transit
anagement sys
Capacity BART fares AVL
Caltrans Park &
Ride lots
p
mechanisms
ayment Communications
Location Paratransit Traveler information
at bus stops
Page 42 of 54
Network Travel Demand Traffic Control Transit ITS Elements
Capacity d
responsive stem for
BART
emand- Transit/ Fleet
management sy
ride- share AVL
programs
Communications
Traveler information
at bus stops
As in Section 7 ( Table 7.1), most data that for the
st d approaches are also sho . T a need
strategies are motorists’ travel changes information systems and market
these systems. As discus 3.3, acts of the
CMS travel times on motorists’ choices can be obtained from travel surveys that were
co ing conducted. Th t n be estimate
su ained from the literature avele n system
3. od ls for I­880
Corrido
Several els are available for the I‐ 880 corridor, including regional travel demand models,
microscopic simulation models, and me simulation for the corridor area.
Ta summarizes information relat ch model, including model ty
ch cs of the network modeled, who performed the model development, date of the
for mode
3.2.1 Travel Demand Models
There o sets of travel demand models the I‐ 880 velope
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) and Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency respectively. The MTC travel nd mode developed
further validated in 2004 using 2000 travel survey data. The model covers the nine San Francisco Bay
( including Alameda County here the I‐ 880 cor mo
developed using TP+/ Viper, with both base years ( 2000, 2006) and forecast years ( 2015 and 2025).
Th travel demand model was developed specifically County s 14
cities in the county. The model was developed in Cube and was validated for Yea
base year ( 2005) and forecast years ( 2015 and 2030). The ACCMA model is consistent with the MTC
re vel demand model. Either the MTC or ACCMA mo used for th 0 ICM
3.2.2 Microscopic Simulation Model
The micro‐ model, developed in the Corridor ment Plan
( CMDP) study ( see Section 2.2.1), covers all of the freeway and some parallel arterial networks of the
I‐ 880 ICM study area. The model simulates the I‐ 880 freeway from downtown Oakland to SR‐ 237 for
discussed of the are needed I‐ 880 ICM
rategies an wn in Table 1.1
due to traveler
he extra dat s for ICM
penetration of sed in Section the imp 511 system and
mpleted or are be e market penetra ion ca d from 511
rvey or obt ( for other tr r informatio s).
2 Available M
mod
e r
soscopic models
ble 2.1
aracteristi
ed to ea pe,
development, and documentation each available l.
are tw related to corridor, de d by the
( ACCMA), dema l was originally in 1990 and
Area counties w ridor resides). The del was
e ACCMA for Alameda which cover
r 2000. It has both
gional tra del may be e I‐ 88
study.
Paramics simulation Manage Demonstration
Page 43 of 54
about 34 miles, which coincides with the proposed freeway coverage of the I‐ 880 ICM. It includes
major arterials of the ICM study, such as International Blvd, East 14 St., San Leandro St., Hesperian
Blvd., Blvd., c. It also includes all ramps and es along
together with 157 actuated and 25 fixed‐ timed signalized intersections. It also in the API
( Application Programming Interface) for simulating the ramp meterin logic freeway.
More importantly, extensive data collection has been conduc the course of the Paramics
simulation model development, which will significantly reduce the data collection efforts for ICM
AMS. This model is pected to play an important role in the development
ICM S. The model development was le by the California epartment of Transp
( Caltrans), starting in 2004. Currently, the base‐ year ( 2005) simulation model is near and
the future‐ year model will be completed by September 2007.
libration and Validation
that
ics has been completed and
can serve as a valuable platform to develop more comprehensive simulation models for ICM
ly, most of the performance data needed for model
for I‐Mission
et on/ off interchang the freeway,
cludes
g control
ted during
for the
ex simulation of the I‐ 880
AM d D ortation
completion
3.2.3 Mesoscopic Simulation Model
A mesoscopic simulation model was developed using DYNASMART‐ P1, as part of the efforts of the
CMPD study. The coverage of the model is larger than, but encloses, the Paramics model. The
mesoscopic model functions as an intermediate layer between the travel demand model and the
micro‐ simulation model. It estimates dynamic Origin‐ Destination travel demands via sub‐ area
analysis and a bi‐ level optimization model. For details, please refer to the CMPD report at
http:// calccit. org/ resources/ publications. html.
3.3 Performance Data for Model Ca
It is essential that the models used in the corridor analysis are properly calibrated prior to
the evaluation of alternative scenarios. This is particularly critical for microscopic traffic
simulation models. Calibration involves the adjustment of model parameters so
predicted performance reasonably matches observed operating conditions in the corridor.
For the I‐ 880 corridor, the baseline simulation model in Param
AMS purposes. Corresponding
calibration and validation have been made available via this current simulation effort
880.
The performance data can be obtained from PeMS and recently conducted field data
collection efforts ( in 2005 and 2006). Spatial and temporal extents of queuing can be
obtained via analyzing the speed contour maps based on PeMS data. Data ( travel times,
delays, and speeds) collected over several days and time periods will be analyzed to provide
reliable estimates of the average and the variability in traffic performance.
1 http:// www. dynasmart. umd. edu/ dynasmartp/ index. htm
Page 44 of 54
l
r.
Port of
nd the entire nation. During the
s been worsening significantly. The I‐ 880 ConOps
0
80
been less
ong the operating agencies. The I‐ 880 ICM is
nal, technical and
MS is expected to enable four new strategies involving enhanced information provided
Data acquisition: Collect additional data to supplement data collected by the existing traffic
control systems to support ICMS functions;
Data archiving: Supplement the existing data archiving capabilities to archive the new data
and the existing data that has not been archived and share data among ICMS subsystems;
4. Development of Requirements for ICMS
4.1 Description of the Target Environment and the Existing Conditions
The San Francisco Bay Area is the fifth most populous metropolitan area in the United
States, and the I‐ 880 corridor is centrally located within the region. It is a strategic route
providing connectivity between densely populated residential areas and major commercia
and industrial centers. The I‐ 880 corridor is a multi‐ modal, multi‐ use urban freeway corrido
The corridor also plays a key role in freight and goods movement, directly serving the
Oakland, the fourth busiest port in the United States. Thus, the efficient operation of I‐ 880 is
of critical economic importance to the region, the state, a
past 15 years, the congestion level ha
document provides a detailed description of the corridor environment and the existing
conditions, which is summarized in Table 2.1. In order to improve mobility along the I‐ 88
corridor, stakeholders have invested heavily in infrastructure and ITS technologies. Table 2.2
summarizes the ITS systems and subsystems that have been implemented along the I‐ 8
corridor. However, because of the traditional institutional arrangements, there has
than ideal coordination and cooperation am
intended to help integrate the transportation systems from the institutio
operations perspectives.
4.2 Major System Capabilities
The integrated information processing system of the ICMS will enable travelers to obtain
more complete and accurate information about travel conditions, while also enabling the
operating agencies to collaborate on real‐ time operating decisions under both normal and
incident conditions and on planning for special events, including construction and
maintenance activities that interfere with normal operations. The sharing of information in
the IC
directly to travelers, two new strategies for agency collaboration on planned events and
eight new strategies for agency collaboration on enhancing real‐ time operational
coordination.
Similar to all transportation information systems, the ICMS will have four major system
capabilities, including:
Page 45 of 54
Data processing: Process data to obtain information needed for ICM functions or to
accomplish ICM strategies.
Data dissemination: Provide information or outputs to travelers, traffic control devices or
system that facilitates information sharing: The I‐ 880 ICMS is intended to
cient means for sharing data among the networks, through technical
d an institutional coordination mechanism. The heart of the ICMS is
ation from the others.
traffic data from the Caltrans freeway TMC, CHP incident reporting and transit schedule
information. 511 will include real‐ time transit information soon. The ICMS will facilitate
intended system users.
Figure 2.1 illustrates these major ICM capabilities and their relationship to each other.
4.3 Categorization of the ICM System
In order to better define the categorization and configuration of the ICMS, its subsystems
must be defined. During the ConOps process, the ICMS stakeholders, based on the I‐ 880
ICMS goals and objectives and through several iteration of discussions, have defined a set of
ICM strategies to address corridor gaps and needs and to achieve the overall goals identified
under US DOT’s ICM program. It is envisioned by the I‐ 880 ICMS stakeholders that the I‐ 880
ICMS will be composed of a total of 14 subsystems, each implementing one operational
strategy specifically developed by the I‐ 880 ICM Team.
A. Sub
strengthen the coordination among all transportation agencies by providing an
easy and effi
interfaces an
an information processing and storage system with real‐ time connections to the
existing information systems of all the local network operators, providing each
with access to the relevant inform
B. Subsystems that influence travelers’ decisions and choices: These subsystems will be
built upon on the Bay Area 511. The 511 system provides traveler information based on
Page 46 of 54
nter
art Corridor.
l
n the existing freeway, arterial and transit management systems,
n among the networks ( when needed) and
based on the conditions of an individual network but also the knowledge of the
conditions at the corridor level. In some cases, such as coordinated arterial and ramp
metering, the ICMS will enable the operation of individual networks to be coordinated
based on the conditions of more than one network.
D. Subsystems that support planning coordination for maintenance and construction of
infrastructure: Aided by better information about the condition of the network, this
category of subsystems will be implemented based on the existing and newly developed
regional emergency response plans and coordination protocols and will provide decision
support for maintenance and construction coordination.
It is noted that, other than the information sharing subsystem, these ICMS subsystems can
be selectively implemented based on budgets and stakeholders’ decisions.
the inclusion of additional arterial data from the Caltrans arterial traffic control ce
and the Alameda CMA Sm
C. Subsystems that provide operational decision support: This category of subsystems wil
primarily be built upo
with the addition of communicatio
coordination strategies. The ICMS will provide the system operation personnel with
cross‐ network information in order to allow operational decisions to be made not only
Page 47 of 54
The most basic constraints on ICMS operations include the need for electrical power to all
4.4 Major System Constraints
ICMS components and the working conditions of the associated ITS systems that provide the
raw data to the ICMS. Loss of power will disable all ICMS functions. Failure of any ITS
system associated with ICMS will disable the functions that depend on data flowing to or
from that ITS system.
Technical constraints on the operation of the ICMS are expected to include:
Compliance with national ITS standards: 511, Caltrans eTMS, and ACCMA’s arterial
traffic data systems are in compliance with the regional ITS architecture and have used
national ITS standards for communication protocols. The AC Transit CAD/ AVL and BART’s
train traffic control system were developed using proprietary architectures.
Interfaces to existing ITS systems in the corridor: ICMS needs to interface with existing
ITS systems through existing interfaces. Standard interfaces such as Ethernet and series
ports will be applied. Data contents will be defined to be compatible with existing
systems. The data formats include commonly used XML data format and MS Media video
format.
Software compatibility: Software components can reside within the existing hardware
and software environment. Therefore ICMS will need to be developed using compatible
computer languages.
Performance and availability of communication links to and from the existing ITS systems
in the corridor: The existing ITS systems at all partner agencies are not designed to
provide direct links to the ICMS. Rather, they have or will have direct connections with
511.
Gaps in available data based on limitations of existing data collection systems ( sensor
performance, geographic coverage, etc.): Data gaps have been defined in the functional
requirements section.
Institutional constraints on the operation of the ICMS are expected to be based on:
Operating agreements among the agencies: Operating agreements are needed among
stakeholder agencies. Some agreements already exist within the Bay Area, as described
in the ConOp document. Others will have to be developed as soon as a decision on ICMS
implementation is made.
Jurisdictional boundaries on the agencies’ authority ( geographical and functional):
Geographically, all agencies cover the I‐ 880 corridor. Function‐ wise, Caltrans is
responsible for freeways and major arterials along state highways. Cities are responsible
for other arterial highways. AC Transit operates buses within the corridor and BART runs
the passenger trains. ICMS should help motivate the stakeholders to break the original
boundaries to achieve collaborative operations.
Page 48 of 54
Liability concerns about other agencies’ use of data: 511, Caltrans and ACCMA data have
already been published to the general public, so their liability concerns have already
dress transit data liability issue to determine the most appropriate
locations and methods to publish these real‐ time data.
been resolved. MTC/ 511 is working with AC Transit and BART on ways of publishing
transit real‐ time data. There are certain concerns regarding where and how data are to
be published. For example, BART has concerns that if AC Transit bus connection
information is published within the station, it might cause passengers to run for the next
bus, which could result in passenger falls. As part of the ICM program, the I‐ 880 ICM
team will have to ad
Data ownership and confidentiality concerns about data: Each agency owns the data
the ability to disseminate the data. In AC Transit’s case, although AC Transit owns the
data, Orbital Science Co. owns the database. AC Transit has worked with Orbital to allow
output of CAD/ AVL data to a separate system in real‐ time. Currently, CAD has already
provided the bus location information to the NextBus location system. It is ex
and
pected that
CAD/ AVL will communicate with ICM in the same manner.
Ownership of source code: Caltrans D4’ s eTMS was developed by contractor Siemens.
Although Caltrans owns the source code, all changes to the source code have been
handled by Siemens. ACCMA owns its source code and can made changes by itself. The
AC Transit and BART systems are proprietary, so any changes will have to be made by the
er to
4.5 ICMS Requirements
rs and documented in the I‐ 880 ConOps document. Using the
atic
and traceable methodology for documenting the three sets of ICMS systems requirements,
lopment. Figure 1.1 shows the process used to develop the I‐
880 ICMS requirements.
suppliers.
The ICMS will also pose operational constraints, as integrated operations will be new to all
operating agencies. Collaborative attitudes and additional training will be needed in ord
make it successful.
The I‐ 880 ICM team developed the ICMS requirements based on the corridor level needs
identified by the stakeholde
systems engineering approach as per IEEE 1233, the team developed a logical, system
including ( a) functional analysis, ( b) non‐ functional analysis, and ( c) interface requirements.
A significant part of this process was the stakeholder participation and their contributions
toward the requirements deve
Development of Non‐ functional requirements: Non‐ functional requirements were developed
based on needs solicited from stakeholders within the context ( or constraints) of the existing
systems with which ICMS will have to interface.
Development of ICMS functional requirements:
A two‐ step development process, as shown
in the dotted line in Figure 1.1, was utilized for the development of ICMS functional
Page 49 of 54
n in
S needs
at
jor ICMS functions ( capabilities): A set of major ICMS functions was identified
based on the ICMS goals/ objectives and strategies developed by the I‐ 880 ICM team
during the ConOps process.
ents using functional analysis: Each requirement item developed under
the ‘ needs’ into the FBD to verify if such
function was ere missing. ICMS functional
requirements, including a ‘ needs‐ driven’ requirement development process and a
requirement verification process using functional analysis. The following steps were take
developing the needs‐ driven requirements:
1) Decompose corridor needs: ICMS needs were decomposed from the corridor ICM
identified in the ConOps to the level that requirements can be identified.
2) Identify functional requirements: Each functional requirement was derived from the
ICMS needs.
3) Build requirements: Through analysis, detailed requirements were then extracted and
refined from the high‐ level requirements to obtain well‐ formed requirements.
4) Categorize functional requirements: Similar requirements were combined and the
functional requirements were categorized into an ordered set of requirements according
to the data flow in the traffic control system.
A functional analysis was conducted to verify the completeness of the functional
requirements, ensure that each functional requirement was stated once, and ensure th
none were missed. The functional analysis process included the following steps:
1) Identify ma
2) Identify ICMS functions: From the major ICMS functions, functional decomposition was
conducted to derive lower level functions using Functional Block Diagrams ( FBD).
3) Validate requirem
driven requirement process was mapped
indeed needed and if any functions w
requirements were further verified in the context of the requirements of the existing
system functions.
Development of Interface Requirements: Interface requirements were also developed base
on functional analysis. The Functional Block Diagrams of each major system functions depict
the interface between existing system functions and ICMS functions, allowing functional
interface requirements to be defined based on the characteristics of the existing system
functions.
As the ICMS will be built upon
d
the existing ITS systems, the functional analysis are useful for
the development of both the functional requirements and the interface requirements. 4.5.1
Non­Functional
Requirements
Page 50 of 54
ng ITS
rface and data requirements to be discussed in
identified in the ConOps into functional requirements that define
t are
to extract functional requirements from
cess of
e
of
s.
to
s from the needs. In many cases, after a higher level functional
requirement was defined based on the ICMS needs, it was necessary to further decompose
raw functional requirements, well formed requirements were then developed.
Requirements were traced back to the needs. In many cases, each requirement may trace to
data elements). This was necessary in order to achieve
interoperability within the corridor.
According to the needs above and based on the technical requirements of the existi
systems, the I‐ 880 ICM team developed a set of non functional requirements, documented in
Table 3.2, to accompany the functional, inte
the next few sections. In this table, RN refers to non‐ functional requirements.
4.5.2 ICMS Functional Requirements
The I‐ 880 ICM team used a systems engineering process is to gather, review, analyze, and
transform user needs
“ what” the system will do. The ICM functional requirements are specified as capabilities or
functions of the ICM system, and qualifying conditions and bounding constraints tha
identified distinctly from capabilities.
Functional requirements of ICMS are rooted from the corridor needs, which were identified
by the stakeholders in the ConOps stage. In order
the corridor needs, detailed ICM system ( ICMS) needs must be defined. In the pro
identifying detailed ICMS needs, the project consultants conducted an analysis to determin
‘ what’ will be needed in order to meet the corridor needs from the perspectives
information acquisition, archiving, processing and dissemination. The ICMS needs are
decomposed to a level where functional requirements can be defined. Table 4.1 is the
summary of the I‐ 880 ICMS need
A well‐ formed requirement is a statement of system functionality ( a capability) that can be
validated, that must be met or possessed by a system to solve a customer problem or
achieve a customer objective, and that is qualified by measurable conditions and bounded
by constraints.
The I‐ 880 ICM team followed IEEE1233 and guidance from the U. S. DOT to derive raw
functional requirement
such requirements into lower level requirements. After the functional requirements were
identified, it was necessary to combine the repetitive requirements as some functions ( such
as freeway traffic data collection) may be required by more than one need.
Based on the
more than one need, as several ICM needs may require one similar ICMS function.
Requirements for information content were directly traceable to ITS standards design and
data contents ( messages and
Page 51 of 54
for
four groups:
􀂃 Data collection functional requirements
ements
needs, denoted under the traceability. The comments
section is intended to provide current availability of the function and validation methods.
and will be built upon the existing ITS systems
management system ( operated by Caltrans)
􀂃 Arterial traffic control system ( operated by Caltrans)
d
While these systems will become the foundation for the I‐ 880 ICM, new ICM elements that
ces
The functional requirements must be categorized in order to check the completeness and
indexing. In this process, the I‐ 880 ICM team added structure to the functional requirements
by relating them to one another according to the data flow of the traffic control systems.
Based on this method, the ICMS functional requirements were categorized into
􀂃 Data archiving functional requir
􀂃 Data processing functional requirements
􀂃 Data dissemination functional requirements
Detailed ICMS functional requirements are provided in [ XX]. When applicable, quantitative
requirements, including primarily time delays and sampling rate, are provided. The
requirements are traced back to ICMS
4.5.3 Data Requirements
ICM data requirements are provided in Table 5.1, which defines the information needed to
perform the desired ICMS functions. The data requirements specify the source of the data,
the frequency of the data, and the characteristics of the data.
4.5.4 Interface Requirements
I‐ 880 ICM will be a distributed system
responsible for managing the transportation systems and providing traveler information
along the I‐ 880 corridor. These systems include:
􀂃 Bay Area 511 ( operated by MTC)
􀂃 Freeway
􀂃 Arterial traffic control systems ( operated by Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, an
Fremont)
􀂃 Alameda Smart Corridor ( operated by Alameda CMA)
􀂃 Transit Advanced Communication System – ACS ( operated by AC Transit)
􀂃 BART train control system ( operated by BART)
􀂃 Transit NextBus information system ( operated by NextBus under AC Transit contract)
include limited hardware add‐ ons, additional communication links and software that support
the integration of the existing systems into an ICM will be established. The interfaces of the
ICM subsystems in the context of the existing ITS systems are defined. These interfa
between the new ICM elements and the existing ITS systems will apply the interface
standards and protocols adopted for these existing systems.
5. Summary
The I‐ 880 corridor is a truly multimodal corridor, including a robust freeway network,
major arterials which carry high volumes of local traffic as well as absorb diversion from
the Bay Area Rapid Transit
sit lines, and heavy freight
movements in the corridor. The I‐ 880 ICM will help the existing highway, arterial, rail
ept of operation, data available for supporting ICM analysis,
modeling and simulation, documented in three documents, including: ( 1) I‐ 880 ICM
the freeway networks, a transit network which includes
( BART) rail system and multiple AC Transit bus tran
and bus transit networks along the corridor, operated by separate agencies, to function
as an integrated transportation system, enhancing efficiency, mobility and
transportation choices for all travelers ( people and goods) under all conditions. The I‐
880 ICMS stakeholders have conducted detailed analysis of this corridor and have
developed the ICM conc
Concept of Operation, ( 2) I‐ 880 ICM Sample Data for Analysis ( submitted earlier),
Modeling and Evaluation, and ( 3) I‐ 880 ICMS System Requirements.
Page 52 of 54
References
1. I‐ 880 ICM Concept of Operations
2. I‐ 880 Sample Data for Analysis, Modeling and Simulation
3. I‐ 880 ICMS Requirements
4. Bay Area Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems ( ITS) Plan
5. http:// mtc. ca. gov/ planning/ ITS/ Bay_ Area_ ITS_ Plan. pdf
6. Bay Area Transportation State of the System 2005
7. Bay Area Regional ITS Architecture
8. ICM Program Plan http:// www. its. dot. gov/ icms/ icms_ workplan. htm
9. ICM Generic Concept of
Operation http:// www. itsdocs. fhwa. dot. gov/ JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE/ 14281. htm
10. ICM Implementation Guide
11. http:// www. itsdocs. fhwa. dot. gov/ JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE/ 14281. htm
12. Develop Criteria for Delineating a Corridor
13. http:// www. itsdocs. fhwa. dot. gov/ JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE/ 14274. htm
14. Develop Alternative Definitions for Corridor and Integrated Corridor
Management ( ICM)
15. http:// www. itsdocs. fhwa. dot. gov/ JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE/ 14273. htm
16. Relationship Between Corridor Management and Regional Management
17. http:// www. itsdocs. fhwa. dot. gov/ JPODOCS/ REPTS_ TE/ 14275. htm
18. ITS Benefits: Continuing Successes and Operational Test Results – Mitretek
Systems for FHWA ITS Joint Program Office
19. Draft ITS Benefits: 1999 Update, March 1999, Mitretek Systems for FHWA ITS
Joint Program Office
20. Incident Management and Intelligent Transportation Systems Technology:
Estimating Benefits for Northern Virginia, March 1998 - G. Maas, M. Maggio, H.
Shafie, and R. Stough, George Mason University
21. ITS National Investment and Market Analysis, 1997 - Apogee and Wilbur Smith
22. Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems Operational Benefits – Mobility 2000 -
March 1990
23. Freeway Management Systems - USDOT, available
at www. its. dot. gov/ tcomm/ itibeedoc/ fms. htm
24. Transportation Planning and ITS: Putting the Pieces Together - FHWA, 1998
25. ITS Benefits: 2001 Update – Mitretek Systems for FHWA ITS Joint Program
Office
26. Ramp Metering: A Review of the Literature - Arnold
27. Ramp Metering Status in North America: 1995 Update – FHWA
28. Twin Cities Ramp Meter Evaluation, prepared for Minnesota Department of
Transportation by Cambridge Systematics, February 2001
Page 53 of 54
Page 54 of 54
29. Traveler Response to Traffic Information on an Incident: A Case Study of the
o Bay Area - Ronald Koo, Harvard
ty and Youngbin Yim, University of California at Berkeley
30. " Traffic Reporter: A Real- Time Commuter Information System" in Applications
ransportation Engineering, Proceedings of the
d by Y. Stephanedes and K.
ngbin Yim,
heets, October 1996 -
s Benefits Costs and Lessons Learned: 2005
ture for 511 Phone and TOMS, MTC, Aug, 2004
US- 101 Corridor in the San Francisc
Universi
of Advanced Technologies in T
Second International Conference, August 1991 - Edite
Sinha
31. TravInfo Evaluation: A Study of Transit Information Callers - You
Ronald Koo and Jean- Luc Ygnace
32. Atlanta Traveler Information Showcase 1996 Fact S
Walcoff & Associates, Inc., October 1996
33. Intelligent Transportation System
Update, FHWA, 2005
34. Data Dissemination Architec
35. TravInfo ® Open Messaging Service ( TOMS), MTC, April, 2004