1. Pioneer ICM site in Seattle – SoDo Corridor Vinh Q. Dang, WSDOT

2. 2 Why our site needs ICM Geometric constraints / opportunities Compact corridor - alternate routes and modes are within 1 mile width Interchanges are adequately spaced

3. 3 Why our site needs ICM Operational challenges Flat peaks – Unstable flow on I-5 Sharp peaks – Unused capacity on arterials Major blocking incident affects the adjacent networks

4. 4 Why our site needs ICM Multiple jurisdiction operating individual networks within the corridor State – Freeways City of Seattle – Arterials Transit agencies – Bus, Train

5. 5 How ICM will help our Site Balance load Share and disseminate real time information pertaining to corridor Promote and accommodate cross network modal & route shift Manage capacity-demand relationship within corridor in real time Cross jurisdiction control – provision to assume control during off hours.

6. 6 Who are our ICM Stakeholders Washington State DOT Washington State Patrol City of Seattle King County Metro Transit and Road Services Sound Transit Puget Sound Regional of Councils (MPO) FHWA FTA

7. 7 How our Site defined Roles and achieved Buy-in among ICM Stakeholders Lead agency – facilitator among partners. Agency maintain primary control of its network & assets Agency retain it’s ownership and operation responsibility Operational agreement to jointly operate specific ITS devices identified as critical for the corridor. “Buy-in” takes time and effort. Working together to develop corridor goals, needs and to answer “what is in it for us”.

8. 8 What our proposed ICMS will look like

9. 9 Congestion Management Decision Support Process

10. 10 Incident reporting Process

11. 11 How our ICMS will facilitate ICM Serves as Central Information Repository (CIR) for all networks in the corridor Processes and disseminate corridor specific ATIS Presents a comprehensive (transportation) system status to support / assist congestion management decision.

12. 12 Lessons Learned – Operational Route shifting is always sensitive. Need to make and prove that the alternate route is capable.

13. 13 Lessons Learned – Operational Route shifting is always sensitive. Need to make sure and prove that the alternate routes or modes are ready and capable.

14. 14 Lessons Learned – Technical Developing ConOps is an iterative process Biggest huddle - from agencies wish list to corridor’s need Constraints during the system requirements development might result in revision to ConOps. ICD for legacy system Some in-house application developed by the agency is on a fast (deployment) track - minimal / no documentation!

15. 15 Lessons Learned – Institutional Jointly operate ITS device or share control of devices (who, what, when protocol) Partnership, partnership, and partnership Participation in the regional traffic operation committee foster partnership Discuss ICM strategies together during “happy hours” also foster partnership