Integrated Corridor Management Pioneer Sites

1
Integrated Corridor ManagementPioneer Sites
2
Outline

• ICM Pioneer Site RFA
• Proposal Evaluation Areas
• Pioneer Sites
• Summary of Pioneer Sites

3
ICM Pioneer Site Request for Applications

• Summary
• Purpose select up to eight (8) Sites for
  assessment of their capability to implement
  integrated corridor management
• Result award up to eight (8) cooperative
  agreements for participation in the ICM
  initiative
• Applications received on May 15th, 2006

4
Proposal Evaluation Areas

• Minimum Criteria
• Lead Agency must be a public sector agency and
  share at least 30 of the Stage One cost
• Must include freeway, arterial, and transit
  networks in an urban area and systems to support
• Real-time or near real-time data collection on
  all network types
• Part I Qualifications of the Pioneer Site
  Corridor (65)
• Description of the Applicant Corridor (10)
• Institutional Capabilities within the Applicant
  Corridor (10)
• Technical Capabilities within the Applicant
  Corridor (20)
• Operational Capabilities within the Applicant
  Corridor (15)
• Agency Staff Capabilities within the Applicant
  Corridor (10)
• Part II Technical Approach (35)
• Applicants Project Management Approach (10)
• Applicants Systems Engineering Approach (10)
• Quality of the Applicants Pioneer Site Team
  Staff (15)
• Part III Cost
• Part IV Geographic Diversity

5
Pioneer Sites
6
Dallas US 75

• Lead and other Agencies
• Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority
• Cities of Dallas, Richardson, Plano, and
  University Park
• Town of Highland Park
• North Central Texas Council of Governments
• North Texas Tollway Authority
• TxDOT Dallas District
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Good real-time data availability
• Available transit capacity
• Includes HOV, Tolling, Express Bus, Light Rail

7
Houston I-10 US 290

• Lead and other Agencies
• Texas Dept. of Transportation
• Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
  County
• Harris County
• City of Houston
• Houston-Galveston Area Council
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Good mix of networks
• Existing partnerships and agencies in the same
  facility
• Includes HOV, Tolling, Pricing, Express Bus, BRT

8
Minneapolis I-394

• Lead and other Agencies
• Minnesota DOT
• Hennepin County
• City of Minneapolis
• Metro Transit
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Well-defined networks, travel patterns, and
  performance measures
• Good network transfer capability
• Good traveler information, especially freeway and
  transit
• Includes HOV, Tolling, Pricing, Express Bus, BRT

9
Montgomery County I-270

• Lead and other Agencies
• MD Dept. of Transportation
• Montgomery County
• WMATA
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Good congestion information including daily
  traffic, transit performance and ridership
• Long-standing cooperative agreements
• Includes HOV, Commuter Rail, Heavy Rail

10
Oakland I-880

• Lead and other Agencies
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
• Caltrans District 4
• Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
• Alameda County Transit
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Performance monitoring and corridor modeling
  capabilities
• Existing ICM strategies
• Includes HOV, Tolling, Express Bus, BRT,
  Commuter Rail, Heavy Rail

11
San Antonio I-10

• Lead and other Agencies
• TxDOT - San Antonio District
• City of San Antonio
• VIA Metro. Transit Agency
• Southwest Research Institute
• Texas Transportation Institute
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Good corridor with frequent transit service
• Potential to demonstrate ICM capabilities during
  construction
• Well-established real-time data collection
• Includes Express Bus

12
San Diego I-15

• Lead and other Agencies
• SANDAG
• Caltrans
• San Diego/Escondido/Poway
• Metropolitan Transit System
• North County Transit District
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Well-defined corridor
• Long history of interagency cooperation and
  agreements
• Some level integrated corridor management already
  exists
• Includes HOV, Tolling, Pricing, Express Bus, BRT

13
Seattle I-5

• Lead and other Agencies
• Washington State DOT
• City of Seattle
• King County Metro Transit
• Highlights of the Corridor
• Transit focus with high ridership (65 commuters
  use transit)
• Good cooperation between transit and arterial
  agencies
• Compatibility between two traffic signal systems
• Good vision of ICM goals
• Includes HOV, Express Bus, Commuter Rail, Light
  Rail

14
Summary of Pioneer Sites
15
Next Steps

• Kickoff meeting in late October 2006
• 8 Draft Concept of Operations in March 2007
• 8 Draft Requirements Documents in September 2007
• Select sites to model in December 2007
• Select sites to conduct demonstrations in Fall
  2008